EXPOSITION
1 Samuel 17:20-22
He came to the trench. More probably the barricade, or outer circle of defence for their camp, made of their wagons (see on 1 Samuel 10:22). Strictly the word means a wagon track, but the primary meaning of the verb is to be round. This was the shape of camps in old time, and they were protected against surprise by having the wagons and baggage placed round them. The word occurs again in 1 Samuel 26:5, 1 Samuel 26:7. The latter part of the verse is literally, "And he came to the circle of the wagons, and to the host that was going forth to the array; and they shouted for the battle." If the article be omitted before "going forth," for which there is some authority, the rendering of the A.V. would be right. David left his carriage. I.e. that which he was carrying. The word is rendered stuff in 1 Samuel 10:22; 1 Samuel 25:13; 1 Samuel 30:24. Literally the word means utensils, and so whatever he had with him for any purpose (comp. Acts 21:15). Ran into the army. Literally, "to the array," "to the ranks," the place where the troops were drawn up (see 1 Samuel 30:10).
1 Samuel 17:23, 1 Samuel 17:24
The champion, the Philistine of Oath, Goliath by name. The Hebrew is, "The champion (see on 1 Samuel 17:4), Goliath the Philistine his name, of Gath," probably the very words of the original record. Out of the armies, or ranks. This is a very probable correction of the Kri, made by restoring a letter which has apparently dropped out. The word in the written text might mean "the open space between the two armies;" but it occurs nowhere else, and this space was chiefly occupied by the ravine. The men of Israel … fled from him. I.e. they drew back in haste from the edge of the ravine, which Goliath could no more have crossed, encased in armour weighing two and a half hundred-weight, than a knight could have done in the middle ages. In 1 Samuel 17:40 we read that it was out of this ravine that David selected his pebbles, and, being encumbered with no armour, it was easy for him to climb up the other side and attack his heavily armed opponent.
1 Samuel 17:25-27
To defy Israel. Rather, "to cast scorn on," "to dishonour Israel" (see on 1 Samuel 17:10). The king will enrich him with great riches,... and make his father's house free in Israel. Many years must have elapsed before Saul could thus have developed the powers of the crown, and the last words show that contributions were levied from all the households in Israel for the support of the king and his retinue. There had manifestly been a great advance since the day when Jesse sent the king a few loaves of bread, a skin of wine, and a kid (1 Samuel 16:20). Still we cannot imagine that Saul had introduced taxes, nor was the political organisation of the State ripe enough for so advanced a state of things. The words more probably refer to freedom from personal service in the army and elsewhere; though it is quite possible that on special occasions contributions may have been levied, and presents, no doubt, were constantly being made to the king, though on no regular system. Taketh away the reproach. The noun formed from the verb rendered defy in 1 Samuel 17:10, where see note. Uncircumcised. See on 1 Samuel 14:6. David, like Jonathan, sees a ground of confidence in the uncovenanted relation of the Philistine towards God. The living God. A second ground of confidence. The god of the Philistines was a lifeless idol; Jehovah a Being who proved his existence by his acts. So shall it be done. As the people all answer David's inquiries in the same way, Saul had evidently made a proclamation to this effect, which we may suppose he fulfilled, though not in the frankest manner (1 Samuel 18:17, 1 Samuel 18:27).
1 Samuel 17:28, 1 Samuel 17:29
Eliab's anger was kindled against David. As David, with growing indignation at an uncovenanted heathen thus dishonouring the subjects of the living God, puts eager questions to all around, his ehier brother angrily reproaches him with words full of contempt. Between the eldest and youngest of eight sons was a vast interval, and Eliab regards David's talk as mere pride, or, rather, "presumption," "impertinence;" and also as naughtiness, or badness, of heart, probably because he imagined that David's object was to provoke some one else to fight, that he might see the battle. David's answer is gentle and forbearing, but the last words are difficult. Is there not a cause? Have not those whom we are ready to condemn a reason and justification for their conduct? Such a question put to ourselves might stop much slander and fault finding. But the Hebrew literally has, Is it not word? And the ancient versions and the best modern commentators understand by this, "It was but a mere word;" "I was only talking about this challenge, and was doing no wrong.
1 Samuel 17:30, 1 Samuel 17:31
Manner. Literally, word, the noun translated cause in 1 Samuel 17:29, and meaning in both verses "conversation." It occurs here thrice, the Hebrew being, "And he spake according to this word: and the people returned him a word according to the former word." And as David thus persisted in his indignant remonstrances at the ranks of the living God being thus dishonoured by no man accepting the challenge, they rehearsed them before Saul, who thereupon sent for him. And thus David a second time, and under very different circumstances, found himself again standing in the king's presence.
DAVID UNDERTAKES THE COMBAT WITH GOLIATH, AND PREPARES FOR THE ENCOUNTER (1 Samuel 17:32-40).
1 Samuel 17:32, 1 Samuel 17:33
On being brought before the king, David says, Let no man's heart fail because of him, i.e. "on account of this Philistine." Literally it is "upon him," and some therefore translate "within him." The Septuagint forman reads "my lord"—"Let not my lord's heart fail within him." Probably "within him" is the best rendering of the phrase. Thou art but a youth. I.e. "a lad" (see on 1 Samuel 1:24; 1 Samuel 2:18). It is the word applied to David's brethren in 1 Samuel 16:11, and his friend must have been very enthusiastic when, in 1 Samuel 16:18, he described him as a "hero of valour and a man of war."
1 Samuel 17:34-36
David does not appeal to any feat of arms. He may have served with credit in repelling some Philistine foray, but these combats with wild beasts, fought without the presence of spectators, and with no regent necessity (as most shepherds would have been too glad to compound with such enemies by letting them take a lamb without molestation), still more clearly proved David's fearless nature. Lions and bears were both common in ancient times in Palestine, when the country was more densely covered with wood; and bears are numerous in the mountainous districts now. Lions seem to have been less feared than bears (Amos 5:19); but Canon Tristram thinks there were two species of the lion in Palestine—one short-maned, which was not very formidable, the other long maned, which was more fierce and dangerous. The Hebrew literally is, "There came the lion and even the bear," the articles implying that they were the well known foes of the shepherd. The written text has zeh, "this," for seh, "a lamb," probably a mere variety of spelling. There can be little doubt that David refers to two different occasions, especially as bears and lions never hunt in company. By his beard. Neither the bear nor the lion has a beard, and the word really means "the chin," "the place where the beard grows." The Chaldee translates the lower jaw, and the Septuagint the throat. It is plain from this description that David slew the beast with his staff. He arose against me. This shows that the combat thus particularly described was with the bear, which does thus rise on its hind legs to grapple with its foe, while the lion crouches and then springs. Pliny also says that the weakest part of a bear is its head, and that it can be killed by a smart blow there. The manner in which David killed the lion is not described. Defied. See on 1 Samuel 17:10.
1 Samuel 17:37
Saul said unto David, Go. The king's consent was necessary before David could act as the champion of the Israelites. It was a courageous act in Saul to give his permission, considering the conditions of the combat (see 1 Samuel 17:9), but the two arguments here given persuaded him: the first, David's strong confidence in Jehovah, insuring his courage; and, secondly, the coolness and bravery he had shown in these dangerous encounters with savage animals.
1 Samuel 17:38-40
Saul armed David with his armour. Rather, "Saul clad David in his war dress." The word does not mean arms, either offensive or defensive; for in 1 Samuel 4:12, where it is rendered "clothes," we read of its being rent. It occurs again in 1 Samuel 18:4, and is there rendered "garments.'' Strictly it was the soldier's coat, worn under his armour, and girt close to the body by the sword belt. It does not follow that David was as tall as Saul because he thus put on his military coat; for it would be adjusted to the body by the belt, and its length was not a matter of much consequence. When, then, it is said that David girded his sword upon his armour, it means upon this coat, though the corselet of mail would also be worn over it. He assayed to go. I.e. he made an attempt at going, took a short walk thus arrayed, making trial all the while of his equipments; and he found them so cumbrous that he felt that he would have no chance against the Philistine except as a light-armed soldier. The agility of his movements would then make him a match for one so heavily overweighted as Goliath. Wearing, therefore, only his shepherd's dress, armed only with a sling, David descended into the ravine which separated the two armies, chose there five pebbles, and, clambering up the other side, advanced towards the Philistine. For brook the Hebrew has "torrent bed." Condor speaks of a torrent flowing through the ravine (see on 1 Samuel 18:2).
COMBAT OF DAVID AND GOLIATH (verses 41-54).
1 Samuel 17:41-44
When David had crossed the ravine, Goliath and his armour bearer advanced towards him; and when he saw that the Israelite champion was but a lad (see 1 Samuel 17:33), with red hair, which added to his youthful appearance, and handsome, but with nothing more than a staff in his hand, he regarded this light equipment as an insult, and asks, Am I a dog,—an animal held in great aversion in the East,—that thou comest to me with staves? The plural is used as a contemptuous generalisation, but the Septuagint is offended at it, and with amusing matter of fact exactness translates, "With a staff and stones." And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Hebrew is singular, "by his god," i.e. the deity whom he had selected to be his especial patron.
1 Samuel 17:45-47
And with a shield. Really, "a javelin" (see on 1 Samuel 17:6). David of course menitions only his arms of offence. As Goliath had reviled David by his god, so David now expresses his trust in the God of Israel, even Jehovah of hosts, whom the Philistine was dishonouring. This day. I.e. immediately (see 1 Samuel 14:33). Carcases is singular in the Hebrew, but is rightly translated plural, as it is used collectively. That all the earth may know, etc. As we saw on 1 Samuel 17:37, it was David's strong faith in Jehovah, and his conviction that God was fighting for him in proof of his covenant relation to Israel, that not only nerved him to the battle, but made Saul see in him one fit to be Israel's representative in so hazardous a duel.
1 Samuel 17:48, 1 Samuel 17:49
When the Philistine arose. Apparently he was seated, as was the rule with armies in ancient times when not engaged in conflict. When, then, he saw David emerge from the ravine, he rose, and, carrying his vast load of armour, moved slowly towards his enemy, trying to frighten him by his curses. David, meanwhile, in his light equipment, ran towards the army, Hebrew, "the rank," i.e. the Philistine line, in front of which Goliath had been sitting. As the giant's helmet had no visor, that protection not having as yet been invented, and his shield was still carried by his armour bearer, his face was exposed to David's missiles. And in those days, before firearms were invented, men by constant practice "could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss" ( 20:16). And even if David were not quite as skilful as those Benjamites, yet, as the giant could move only very slowly, the chances were that he would hit him with one or more of his five pebbles. As it was, he struck him at his first attempt upon the forehead with such force that Goliath was stunned, and fell down upon his face to the ground.
1 Samuel 17:50, 1 Samuel 17:51
So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone. It is evident that the narrator regarded David's victory as extraordinary; and no doubt it required not only great courage, but also perfect skill, as only the lower portion of the forehead would be exposed, and on no other part of the giant's body would a blow have been of any avail. The narrator also calls attention to the fact that David relied upon his sling alone, for there was no sword in the hand of David. Slings probably were regarded as useful only to harass an enemy, while swords, which they had only lately been able to procure (1 Samuel 13:22), were regarded as the real weapons of offence. David, therefore, completes his victory by killing Goliath with his own sword as he lay stunned upon the ground. As Ahimelech considered it fit for David's own use (1 Samuel 21:9), it was probably not so monstrous in size as Goliath's other weapons. Champion is not the word so rendered in 1 Samuel 17:4, 1 Samuel 17:23, but that used in 1 Samuel 16:18 for "a hero of valour."
1 Samuel 17:52, 1 Samuel 17:53
To the valley. Hebrew, gai. As we have seen, there was a gai or ravine between the two armies, but in the Hebrew there is no article, and the Israelites must also cross this before any fighting began. The panic which struck the Philistines when they saw their champion fall enabled the Israelites to do so, but the pursuit only then commenced. The Septuagint reads Gath, a very probable emendation, for, as we saw in the passage quoted from Condor on 1 Samuel 17:2, Gath was situated at the mouth of the terebinth valley. The Syriac and Vulgate retain valley, but the former understands it of the mouth of the valley of Elah. Shaaraim was a town assigned to Judah (Joshua 15:36) in the Shephelah (see on 1 Samuel 17:1), but was now held by the Philistines. They spoiled their tents. More correctly, "their camp."
1 Samuel 17:54
David...brought it to Jerusalem. This is an anticipation of later history. The Jebusites at this time held Jerusalem; but when David had taken it from them, he removed the head of Goliath thither, and the narrator, following the usual custom of Hebrew historians, mentions the ultimate fate of this trophy here (see on 1 Samuel 16:21). He put his armour in his tent. I.e. he carried it to his home (see on 1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Samuel 4:10; 1 Samuel 13:2, etc.), where it became his private property. The mistranslation of camp by tents in 1 Samuel 17:53 might lead an English reader to suppose that it meant a tent in the camp of Israel; but most probably the men all slept under their wagons. Abravanel supposes that by David's tent was meant the tabernacle of Jehovah, but this would surely have been stated more fully. Either, however, now, or at some later period, David must have presented the sword as an offering to the tabernacle, as it was laid up at Nob, whence he took it with him in his flight (see 1 Samuel 21:9).
SAUL'S INQUIRY CONCERNING DAVID'S PARENTAGE (1 Samuel 17:55-58).
1 Samuel 17:55-58
Abner, whose son is this youth? Hebrew, "lad," na'ar. We have seen that the narrative in 1 Samuel 16:21-23 carries the history of David's relations with Saul down to a much later period, and that in 1 Samuel 16:15 of this chapter David is represented as not dwelling continuously at Saul's court, but as having returned to Bethlehem and resumed his pastoral occupations there, whence he would be summoned back in case of the recurrence of Saul's malady. It is plain from what is stated here that David had not thus far spent time enough at Gibeah to be personally well known either to Saul or his officers (see note on 1 Samuel 16:15). Stripling. Not na'ar, but 'alem, the masculine of the word 'almah, used in Isaiah 7:14. It means a young man fully grown, and arrived at the age to marry, and so is more definite than na'ar, which Saul uses in verse 58. As David returned, etc. Abner, as captain of the host, would naturally watch the combat, and as soon as it was possible would bring the young warrior into the king's presence. But what is recorded here could have taken place only after the pursuit of the Philistines was over, and really these five verses should be united with Isaiah 17:1-14; as their object is to introduce the account of the love. of Jonathan for David. Starting then with the inquiry made by the king of Abner, asking for fuller information as to the young man's parentage, the historian then tells how after the chase he was brought before Saul, and then, in 1 Samuel 18:1, that the result of their conversation was the warm love that henceforward knit together these two kindred souls.
HOMILETICS.
1 Samuel 17:20-30
A religious man's view of things.
The facts are—
1. David arrives at the camp just as preparations are being made for battle.
2. While with his brethren he hears the defiance of Goliath, and observes the dismay of Israel.
3. Being informed of the inducement offered by Saul for any one to slay Goliath, he makes particular inquiries as to the facts, and suggests the vanity of the defiance.
4. His inquiries arouse the jealousy of Eliab, who imputes to him unhallowed motives.
5. Nevertheless, David persists in his attention to the matter. The pusillanimity of the entire army seems to have been accepted by Saul as quite reasonable in presence of such a foe. David's converse with the men revealed a remarkable unanimity of sentiment among them. Estimated by the ordinary maxims of war during times when brute force in individual conflict decided the day, there was, indeed, small chance for a dwarf against a giant. The embarrassment was great, natural, and irremovable. But from the moment of David's arrival this condition of things appeared to him unreasonable. Coming fresh from the fold, unfamiliar with the ordinary rules of armed warfare, and interpreting facts by principles acquired elsewhere than in the camp and among pusillanimous men, he marvelled at the dismay of Israel, and dared to be singular in his opinion that the giant was not to be dreaded. Events from a religious point of view assume a different aspect. Notice—
I. AN EMINENTLY RELIGIOUS MAN'S IMPRESSIONS OF FORMIDABLE DIFFICULTIES. David was at this time, in comparison with others, eminently religious. The facts of life impress us according to. sentiments and views already entertained. When, therefore, this devout, God-fearing youth looked on the conflict, he saw it with eyes full of religious light. He felt that the entire army was wrong in feeling and opinion. The principle holds good in other applications. The eminently religious get an impression of the world peculiar to their refined spiritual condition. The most conspicuous instance of this is in the case of the holy Saviour. Coming from the pure, loving sphere of heaven, more sweet and restful than David's rural pastures, how different would the earth, with its conflicts, cares, and woes, appear to him as compared with their impression on men! Holy men see the world with new eyes when they descend from some mount of transfiguration. No wonder if some highly purified and trustful souls, looking on the fear and inactivity of professed followers of Christ, are disgusted and ashamed at the lack of hope and confidence. If we have the "mind of Christ," fresh, pure, deep in conviction of God's all-wise and mighty will, toned with pity, and elevated by undying hope, we shall often get impressions of our surroundings which may make us singular, but which, nevertheless, will be just.
II. AN EMINENTLY RELIGIOUS MAN WILL NOT HESITATE TO INDICATE AND JUSTIFY HIS IMPRESSIONS. The clear, truthful eyes of the shepherd youth saw the world through a Divine medium, and, with all the sincerity of goodness and force of deep conviction, he was not afraid to let it be known that he differed from others. "Who is this Philistine?" He defy the "armies of the living God!" The fire burned; he could not but speak. To him it was a most abhorrent thought that any one could dare to assert his strength against God. It is obvious that David reduced. the whole situation to a question of first principles. He remembered who the Philistine was in the sight of God, and what the meaning of Israel's existence in the great purpose of redemption. The fear of Israel he referred to loss of faith in the people's mission to the world, and in God as the perfecter of that mission. Illustrations of the same course are elsewhere found. True religious enlightenment must express itself in some form. The holy cannot look on life and be silent. Our Saviour's words and deeds were largely the expression of the effect of man's condition upon his nature. It is especially important to remember this reference to first principles in their application to—
1. The sorrows and woes of mankind through sin. We cannot solve the mystery of evil, but can fall back on the primary truth that God is good and wise, and therefore his government in the end will be justified.
2. The prevalent habits of the world. We must not fail to trace them to radical alienation from God, and apply the only radical cure, renewal of nature by the Spirit of God.
3. The obstacles in the way of Christ's triumph. They are real as facts, but we must justify our faith in their removal by indicating their essentially transitory character in contrast with the "everlasting strength" of our God.
III. A RELIGIOUS MAN IN GIVING EFFECT TO HIS IMPRESSIONS MAY BE MISREPRESENTED. David's pure mind was charged with vanity and idle curiosity (1 Samuel 17:28). The accusation was the more painful in coming from a brother. Jealousy creates a jaundiced medium through which the holiest and most beautiful things appear hideous. A greater than David was also reviled, and his most holy and blessed words and deeds associated with the most wicked of origins (Mark 3:22; John 10:20). Pliny and Tacitus, judicious men of the world, could not appreciate the opinions and motives of the early Christians. Even now strong faith in God, and belief that all obstacles to the progress of Christianity will give way because essentially human, is regarded as fanaticism. Even among some professed believers in Christ those are held to be too sanguine who feel sure that the most formidable of modem giants is as nothing before the mighty power which somehow will sweep it away. Be it so; time will show.
General lessons:—
1. Clearness of vision on religious matters, and indirectly on all, is a result of superior devoutness of spirit.
2. 'We never need fear being singular when sustained by a clear conscience and the approval of God.
3. The earnest convictions and simple faith of one man may, in the providence of God, work a revolution in popular thought.
4. We give value to our religious convictions when they are indicated with candour and are sustained by simplicity and purity of life.
5. A love of detraction and petty fault finding, while it does not really injure the devoted who are its object, debases those who indulge in them.
1 Samuel 17:31-37
Reasonable confidence in God.
The facts are—
1. David's words being reported to Saul, he sends for him.
2. David volunteers to go forth and fight the Philistine.
3. In justification of his confidence, he refers to God's deliverance of him from the lion and bear.
4. Saul bids him go, and desires for him the Lord's presence. It was doubtless a relief to Saul to be informed that at least there was one in Israel who dared to accept the Philistine's challenge. His surprise was equal to his relief, and may have lessened his hope, when he saw the stripling. The quiet confidence of David was natural and reasonable to himself, but evidently required some justification before Saul. The story Of the lion and bear was adduced, with beautiful simplicity of spirit, to indicate to Saul that the confidence cherished was amply warranted by past experience. To David's mind the logic was unanswerable. It is by tracing the mental process by which David rested in his firm conviction that we shall see the true ground of our confidence in God, when called by his providence to enter upon undertakings of a serious nature.
I. A PRIMARY TRUTH. The power of God is adequate to any human need. This general truth was the basis of David's reasoning. It was involved in his very conception of Jehovah, and found beautiful utterance in his language of later years. The power of the Eternal was not a mere philosophic idea requisite to complete the notion of God, but a living energy permeating all things. The ascription of natural changes and events immediately to God (Psalms 18:1-50.) is only the expression of a faith which sees the Divine energy in and through all things. The people at Elah, on seeing Goliath, thought of his strength. The reverse effect produced in the mind of David by Goliath's boast was the thought of the eternal power. The influence of general truths on our life is great—greater than some suppose. They lie deep down in the mind, and yet are ever at command to regulate thought and feeling, and to suggest lines of conduct. Hence those in whom they are most fresh and clear are persons of wider range of view, sounder judgment, and deeper convictions. It is important to have the mend well fortified with those general truths that relate to God; and, in view of the difficulties and dangers of life, it is well to keep clear the truth that in Jehovah is "everlasting strength."
II. AN EXPERIENCE. David referred to the experience he had had of the power of God in delivering him from the lion and bear while in the discharge of his life's calling. The Almighty hand had befriended him at a time when he put forth his own energies to subdue his dangerous enemies. Without having recourse to miracle in these cases, it is enough to notice that David recognises Divine aid in the putting forth of effort, and the primary truth had been translated into the experience of life: and so become strikingly verified. A fact is an unanswerable argument. The logic strengthens. Most of us can fall back on deliverances from lions and adders (Psalms 91:13). The mental record of the past furnishes a premiss on which to build an argument of hope for the future (2 Timothy 4:17, 2 Timothy 4:18).
III. A REVEALED FACT. David could not cherish the confidence he did without welding with his primary truth and personal experience the fact that the Almighty was always the same, and that, therefore, continuity in aid might be looked for. The unchangeableness of God was an assured fact, not from philosophic speculation on the necessary nature of the Supreme, but because made clear to the mind by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God," keeping covenant forever (Psalms 89:34). Therefore the argument from past experience of his power was, so far, available for conflict with a gigantic foe. The force of this revealed fact concerning the Divine Being is great. It gives our mind a resting place amidst the incessant flux of things. It opens up to view a rock on which we can stand calm and secure in face of all changes of earth. The frailty of our life seems a blessing in association with so precious a reality. As the uniformity in the laws of nature furnish a basis of wise calculation and confidence in action, so the unchanging power of God in relation to human need is a ground of hope and confidence in pursuit of legitimate objects.
IV. A PRESENT EMERGENCY. David found himself in presence of an emergency more trying than when lion and bear were confronted, for the interests were wide. He was too sensible a youth to imagine that the eternal power would be manifested because men desired it, whatever the occasion. But if aid was given formerly in real need, and now a need more pressing was felt, the argument of faith was conclusive. Moreover, the earlier occasions were private and personal; this was public, affecting the interests of Israel; and were not these the interests of him for whose advent Israel lived? The ruddy youth perhaps saw a connection between the overthrow of Goliath and the great kingdom of which he sang in Psalms 72:1-20. We have here a safe criterion of the reasonableness of confidence in God's aid. When an emergency arises which deeply affects the honour and safety of Christ's Church, and the diffusion of the blessings of his reign, we are warranted to cherish fullest confidence that God will help us in our endeavour, by such means as we possess, to meet the peril. Let Churches and individuals act by this rule, and they will never be disappointed. It is involved in the promise, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
V. A PROVIDENCE. The previously noticed elements in the ground of David's confidence were more influential from the fact that he did not force himself into the position, but was there by providential leading, in which he was quite passive. A man may at the last moment shrink from a dangerous work if conscious that he, by contrivance, sought it out; but when we are literally urged by circumstances into difficulties and dangers, and have a good cause in hand, then we may take the providence as an encouragement to go through. Providence led the apostles into conflict with rulers, and, hence, they dared to be confident.
VI. A PLEA. David could fortify his expectation of help by the plea that his heart was honest in intent. He sought not to fight the giant for love of fighting, for securing renown, for any private end, but for love to his people Israel and the honour of Israel's God. Purity of motive in ordinary life is no substitute for faith in Christ for acceptance with God; but it is a condition on which God grants his aid to us in our exertions. If we face gigantic evils, in themselves too great for our wisdom and strength, from an intense desire to conquer them for Christ, cherishing no vain personal ambition, then the highest confidence is justified. A power equal to our need, unchanged by time, realised in past experience, required for an emergency in which the honour of Christ is at stake, sought by one providentially led to face the difficulty, and desired not for vain reasons, but purely for the glory of God—such a process of thought places confidence in God's help on a most reasonable basis.
General lessons:—
1. We should consider whether Providence has really given us arduous work to do for Christ.
2. Our wisdom is to go forth, not under the influence of the opinions of unspiritual men, but under the full force of our own religious convictions.
3. We must not expect to know in what way the power of God will work with us; the fact that it will is enough.
4. Success or failure in perilous enterprises for Christ depends much on the purity of motive, and this should receive prayerful attention.
1 Samuel 17:38-40
Naturalness.
The facts are—
1. Saul clothes David with his armour.
2. David, distrusting its value, puts it aside.
3. He goes forth to the conflict armed only with a sling and a stone.
There is a curious blending of cowardice, prudence, and folly in Saul's conduct. Not daring to fight the foe, he hesitates not to accept a youth; and while providing ordinary armour for his defence, he fails to see that an armed youth would really be at a disadvantage with an armed giant. Apart from higher considerations, David's good sense shows him that free nimbleness would be of more value than limbs stiffened under a coat of mail. The gentle negation, "I have not proved them," covered a positive faith in other armour often proved. He would be David in the conflict, and no one else. The issue was staked on his perfect naturalness. He knew "in whom he believed," and was true to his own individuality. The teaching is wide and important in relation to—
I. EDUCATION. To be natural is one of the ends of education, and there is a naturalness in the means and process by which alone that and all the ends of education will be secured. While psychologically the sum of faculties is the same in all, the relative power of them may vary. Constitutional tendencies and tastes also greatly differ. The inherent capacity of certain faculties seems likewise to be affected by inheritance. Discrimination is therefore requisite in education, otherwise we may place a Saul's armour on a David, and encumber his mental movements. No doubt a weak faculty is benefited by being stimulated to work, and a deficient taste may be improved by exercise; but the apportionment of work to faculties and tastes should be regulated, not by some general average of minds, but by what will make the most of the idiosyncrasies of the individual. That educational training and equipment is natural which leaves the mind most free and effective. What is gained on one side by painful drudgery may be lost on another by embitterment and crippled talents. Especially in religious education is this important. Let us not clothe the mental nature of children with the forms suited to men. Probably much of the distaste for religious instruction springs from the perfect unsuitability of the form to the receptivity of the mind.