How to resolve the tension in how David met Saul for the first time? (1 Sam 17:55-58)
1 Sam 17:55-58
Careful readers will note a strange discrepancy at the end of the Goliath incident (1 Sam 17:55-58), where Saul is seemingly unaware of David’s identity, even though the latter was introduced to him in the previous chapter. There, we were told that David played the harp to soothe Saul’s spirits and the king loved him, made him his armour bearer, and asked Jesse to let his son stay in the king’s service (1 Sam 16:21-22). Yet, early in the next chapter, we find David going back and forth between his father’s flock and Saul’s army (1 Sam 17:14-15) with no suggestion that he has any connection to the court.
The Goliath incident before the anointing
In presenting a solution Firth argues that these two chapters are presented in a non-chronological order.[1] In his reconstruction, he sees David’s fight with Goliath (1 Samuel 17) as the incident that led to David’s inclusion in the court. Firth assumes that when Saul’s jealousy was aroused, David had to return home, where he was later anointed by Samuel. When Saul was tormented in his spirit, David was brought back to the court to play the harp for the king and the servant commending David could refer to him as a mighty warrior (1 Sam 16:18) because of the earlier Goliath incident. Firth argues that the anointing is described before the Goliath incident to create a clearer parallel with Saul (anointing first, then military triumph) and invites a comparison that highlights the differences between the two men (e.g. David’s reliance on God rather than human strength). Additionally, concluding David’s entry into the king’s circle with the Goliath incident means that his introduction to the story ends on a high theological note.
Remaining tensions
While Firth’s solution is an attractive one, it still leaves tensions in the story, namely because the next chapter after the Goliath incident runs smoothly on from Chapter 17 and already assumes David to be playing the harp for Saul. Thus after the battle, David is kept in court without going back to his father (1 Sam 18:2). The women meet the returning troops singing their song about David, which immediately evokes Saul’s jealousy (1 Sam 18:6-9). The following day, Saul raves in his house and David plays the harp for him and we read of the king’s first attempt to eliminate David (1 Sam 18:10-11). The king’s practically immediate suspicion of his rival does not allow for the interval of love for David (1 Sam 16:21), if 1 Samuel 16 follows on from the Goliath incident. Since David is playing the harp for Saul as a matter of course the day after the troops return home, there is again no time for the events described in Chapter 16.
Firth’s solution for this dilemma is to take the return from fighting as a later battle by which time David could have built up a reputation to be sung about. He takes the reference to ‘the Philistine’ in the singular (1 Sam 18:6) to mean the Philistines in general. If so, then David indeed would have the necessary time gap to be anointed and established to play the harp. However, the women’s song can refer to the aftermath of battle after Goliath was killed, when Israel pursued and killed the fleeing Philistines (1 Sam 17:52-53). David could have participated in this, but in any case, the song uses common hyperbole (thousand and ten thousand would be like ‘myriad’ for us) and it simply speaks of Saul and David as great warriors. Further, throughout the previous chapter ‘this Philistine’ or ‘the Philistine’ is consistently Goliath (e.g. 1 Sam 17:41-45, 48-51, 55), who is only mentioned by name twice (1 Sam 17:4, 23). In fact, 1 Sam 18:6 repeats the phrase in 1 Sam 17:57, so it seems to me more likely that the reference is to the Goliath event.
Saul’s forgetfulness?
Another alternative is that Saul as king was acting like many men in powerful positions, who were so preoccupied with their high status that they easily forgot the names and backgrounds of their underlings.[2] This still leaves us with the tension, however, of David being brought to the court and becoming armour bearer in 1 Sam 16:21-22, while he is tending sheep and merely visiting his brothers in 1 Sam 17:15, 17-20. If David had been armour bearer to Saul at this point, could Eliab have made his speech suggesting that David neglected his duties as shepherd and only wanted to see the battle (1 Sam 17:28)? Surely David could have pointed out his position and connection to the king!
Two traditions
Given these tensions, by far the most common assumption is that these two incidents in 1 Samuel 16-17 come from different traditions and the writer of the book included both. It is hard to imagine that he was unaware of the discrepancies, yet there is no attempt to harmonise the two accounts – he clearly honoured his sources and would not change them willy-nilly. Both accounts include important aspects about David’s character, and it seems that the writer’s focus is on this rather than on the exact details of how David actually met Saul. Thus, 1 Samuel 16 reveals David’s relatively minor background, which contrasts with God’s choice that looks at the heart rather than appearances. This heart is demonstrated in the fact that David is willing to serve in a lowly capacity in the king’s court despite being ‘special’ (anointed for a task – whether he knows that this is kingship is uncertain). The Goliath incident in the next chapter highlights his simple faith in God’s power and his courage to put his trust to the test. His perspective shows depth in that he distinguishes between appearances (human strength) and reality (God’s presence that makes the real difference in resolving difficulties). His understanding is also broader and recognises Israel’s role as the people whose relationship with God is meant to testify to the world about their God. In the light of these amazing truths, the detail of how David ended up at court seems negligible. There is no attempt to mislead the reader about it either, it is just left somewhat uncertain. The point is, by God’s providence, David was brought to court, to the very centre of power and in his interactions, he showed humility, faith in God, courage, and faithful service.
Modern and ancient history writing
I believe that the tension exists for us because we come to it with modern expectations of history writing and biographies that are backed up by judicious research aimed at clearing up all factual points. However, even modern biographers are sometimes stumped about conflicting reports around their subject and all they can do is to report both sides of the story. Many of the modern tools for fact-checking were not available to ancients and, in any case, the biblical writers’ focus tended to be on the theological message of someone’s story (i.e. what God was doing in their lives). If God had wanted to impart to us the exact information about David’s entry into Saul’s court, He would have done it. Perhaps then, it is not necessary for us to know, and we do better to focus on the aspects that Scripture deems important, namely the difference between Saul and David’s perspective, the latter’s faith, and God’s providence that worked itself out through human decisions.
[1] David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 180-81.
[2] Mary J. Evans, The Message of Samuel: Personalities, Potential, Politics and Power, BST (Nottingham: IVP, 2004), 111-12.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.