Samuel’s Little Robe (I Samuel 2:19)

Whose mother sent him a new coat each year? Samuel’s (I Samuel 2:19)

First Samuel opens with a woman named Hannah troubled by her infertility (I Samuel 1:1-8). She journeys to Israel’s religious epicenter, Shiloh, and prays to the Lord for a child, promising, “I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and a razor shall never come on his head.” (I Samuel 1:11 NASB). After being unjustly rebuked by the priest, Eli (I Samuel1:12-18), her prayer is answered and she gives birth to a son, Samuel (I Samuel 1:19-28), for which she famously offers a prayer of thanksgiving (I Samuel 2:1-11).

The narrative then shifts to detailing the impropriety of Eli’s sons (I Samuel 2:12-17) before returning its focus to the boy Samuel, who was being raised in Shiloh (I Samuel 2:18-21).

Immediately after mentioning that Samuel is wearing a priestly ephod (I Samuel 2:18), the text notes that Hannah periodically returns to Shiloh to present her son with a robe (I Samuel 2:19).

And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. (I Samuel 2:19 NASB)

This child will grow up to become one of the most pivotal figures in Israel’s history. Gene M. Tucker (b. 1935) focuses:

Even children of destiny have parents. Here, of course, his mother Hannah stands out. Although she had “loaned him” to the Lord (I Samuel 1:28, 2:20 RSV) in fulfillment of her vow [I Samuel 1:11], she continued to be his mother. One cannot help but he touched by the account of the mother who sees her young son but rarely, each year bringing him “a little robe” [I Samuel 2:19], He is, after all, a growing boy, and last year’s robe will soon be too short. (Fred B. Craddock [b. 1928], John H. Hayes [1934-2013], Carl R. Holladay [b. 1943] and Tucker, Preaching Through the Christian Year: Year C: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Lectionary, 45)

The image of the young man in his little robe has become iconic. F.B. Meyer (1847-1929) informs:

Dean [Arthur Penrhyn] Stanley [1815-1881] tells us that, in his gentler moments, Martin Luther [1483-1546] used to dwell on these early chapters of the books of Samuel with the tenderness which formed the occasional counterpoise to the ruder passions and enterprises of his stormy life. Indeed, students of the Scriptures in every age have been arrested by the figure of this little child girded with his linen ephod, or in the little robe which his mother brought him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice [I Samuel 2:18-19]. (Meyer, Samuel: The Prophet, 3)

In consecutive verses, the narrative addresses the child’s wardrobe (I Samuel 2:18-19). Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) tracks:

The failure of Eli’s sons in their priestly duties is followed by a notice concerning Samuel’s education as a priest [I Samuel 2:18-21]...The notice about Samuel’s clothing [I Samuel 2:18] bridges to a brief account of the small robe Hannah would make and bring to Samuel each year [I Samuel 2:19]. (Birch, The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume II: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Introduction to Narrative Literature, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 987)

Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) supposes:

He [Samuel] wears a linen ephod, probably a loincloth, in accordance with priestly custom (e.g. I Samuel 22:18); there is no talk of lower-age limits for priestly service in this story where grown men have failed (cf. Numbers 8:24-26; I Chronicles 23:24-32). A more substantial outer robe (I Samuel 2:19) was supplied for his growing frame when his mother made her accustomed visits to Shiloh. (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 82)

Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) evaluates:

Even as a young apprentice priest under Eli’s supervision, Samuel wore the linen ephod characteristic of that ministry [I Samuel 2:18]. Anthony Phillips [b. 1936] (“David’s Linen Ephod,” Vetus Testamentum 19/4 [1969]: 487), primarily on the basis of II Samuel 6:14, attempted to prove that Samuel’s ephod “is not to be understood as a special priestly garment but a brief loincloth suitable for young children.” But Phillips fails to explain why David (II Samuel 6:14) would wear a child’s garment, and he resorts to the Septuagint’s omission of linen in I Samuel 22:18 to confirm his belief that the eighty-five priests slaughtered by Doeg are not described there as “wearing” ephods but as “carrying” an “oracular instrument” (another meaning for ’ēpōd). N.L. Tidwell (“The Linen Ephod: I Samuel 2:18 and II Samuel 6:14,” Vetus Testamentum 24/4 [1974]:505-07) rightly criticizes Phillips’ view in favor of the traditional interpretation: “Linen ephod” always refers to a priest’s garment, whether worn by a youth or by an adult. Indeed, the little “robe” that Samuel’s mother made for him annually as he was growing up (II Samuel 2:19) may well have been an example of the “robe of the ephod” mentioned in Exodus 28:31 (the Hebrew word for “robe” being the same in both passages). Although David is not described as wearing such a robe in II Samuel 6:14, he is so depicted in the parallel text of I Chronicles 15:27. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 60)

A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) supplements:

The ephod with which he is girded [I Samuel 2:18] is worn or borne almost always by priests; and we shall find David wearing it bringing the ark to Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:14)...We may wonder whether this youngster’s distinctive uniform anticipates a priestly role or a royal (or at least leadership) role. The topic of dress is immediately developed in the final scene, in which his mother appears (I Samuel 2:19-21). The little “robe” she makes for him is worn alike by princes and priests (indeed Exodus 28:31 talks of “the robe for the ephod”). And, just as he himself had been “brought up” (I Samuel 1:24-25 in both the Greek Text and Masoretic Text) to the sanctuary—the same verb as is also used of offering certain sacrifices there—so too his mother “brings up” this garment “periodically” (the same term is used for the “periodic” sacrifice). (Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 49)

Hannah leaves Samuel in the care of Eli, the priest (I Samuel 1:24-28). Though she is not a daily part of her firstborn son’s life, she does visit him. Most English translations convey annual pilgrimages in conjunction with sacrifice: “each year” (ESV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “annual” (HCSB, MSG, NIV), “year to year” (ASV, KJV, NASB), “year by year” (NKJV), “every year” (CEV). The Hebrew, however, is not this explicit.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (b. 1945) notifies:

From time to time...the seasonal sacrifice [I Samuel 2:19] [is in]...Hebrew miyyāmîm yāmînâ...’et-zebah hayyāmîm. As in I Samuel 1:3, 21 to translate these expressions “Year by year...the annual sacrifice” would be overprecise, even though an annual pilgrimage may in fact be involved here. (McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible), 84)

The notice regarding Samuel’s progress serves to indicate a passage of time (I Samuel 2:18-21). Alfons Schulz (1871-1947) approves:

I Samuel 2:19 delightfully relates how at the pilgrimage each year Hannah, the mother, brings her son, who serves in the sanctuary, a new robe—obviously because in the meantime he has ‘grown out of’ the old one: a splendid, childlike touch in a brief remark. (David M. Gunn [b. 1942], “Narrative Arts in the Books of Samuel,” Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann [1877-1927] and Other Scholars 1906-1923, 168-69)

Many have seen an irregularity as the term for coat is in the singular (I Samuel 2:19): Does Hannah return the same coat on each visit?

One Midrash explains this perceived discrepancy with an ancient version of Ann Brashares [b.1967]’s The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Basil Herring (b. 1947) retells:

The Bible tells us, “Moreover, his mother made him a little robe and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice” (I Samuel 2:19). Now the midrash...asks how it could be that she brought the same robe every year as he was growing up. Did he not outgrow it, as every mother knows? The answer, says the midrash, is that something miraculous occurred: although the child grew from year to year, he never outgrew the garment—it grew with him, it always fit, it was never too tight. Indeed, says the midrash, when he became the leader of Israel, Samuel continued to wear this robe long after his mother had died...What is the midrash trying to suggest? The answer, one might say, is that this mother’s robe was a reflection of her love—it was not static but dynamic; it changed with time; it grew and evolved, it took different forms and expressions, appropriate to the stages of life as Samuel himself went through his own phases...As a mother Hannah had found the key to allowing her love for Samuel to grow with him, in spite of the inevitable separation and distance that time would bring, allowing him to develop his own identity, making his own choices, his own mistakes, and his own life. (Herring, The Jewish Imagination: Discourses on Contemporary Jewish Life, 152)

Most interpreters have come to the logical conclusion that Hannah presents her son with new robes (I Samuel 2:19). Amos Oz (b. 1939) and Fania Oz-Salzberger (b. 1960) praise:

Don’t let the singular noun form mislead you: she made him a new little coat every year, fit to size, and the biblical author recognizes the sweetness of that petit priest-child clothing [I Samuel 2:19]. For Hannah, not Bathsheba, is the earliest linchpin of the two faces of Jewish motherhood: great physical tenderness, and early scholarly sendoff. Heartbroken at the shrine or school gate, but decisively returning home to start next year’s little coat. (Oz and Oz-Salzberger, Jews and Words, 83)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) correlates:

In Scripture, garments often speak of the spiritual life (Isaiah 61:10; Zechariah 3:1-5; Ephesians 4:22-32; Colossians 3:8-17; I Peter 5:5), and a change of clothing symbolizes a new beginning (Genesis 35:2, 41:14, 45:22; Exodus 19:10; Revelation 3:18). Each year’s new garments spoke not only of a boy growing physically but also spiritually (I Samuel 2:21), and this reminds us of out Lord who “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52 NKJV). (Wiersbe, Be Successful (1 Samuel): Attaining Wealth That Money Can’t Buy, 29)

Randy Frazee (b. 1961) situates:

Just as Samuel’s mom-made robe got a little bigger each year [I Samuel 2:19], so did the assignment God had in mind for him. In the Upper Story perspective, God was preparing the young man to lead Israel through its own awkward adolescence. (Frazee, The Heart of the Story: God’s Masterful Design to Restore His People, 98)

Hannah bestows her son a “little robe” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “little coat” (KJV), “small coat” (NLT) or “clothes” (CEV) (I Samuel 2:19).

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) identifies:

While we cannot be sure about the nature of the “robe” Samuel wore (I Samuel 2:19), the word me‘îl for the priest’s robe is described at length in Exodus 28:31-35 and Exodus 39:22-26. Jonathan wears one (I Samuel 18:4), as do Saul (I Samuel, 24:5, 12) and even Samuel’s spirit (I Samuel 28:14). (Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, 221)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) assumes:

The ephod that Hannah made for Samuel was a distinctive garment of some kind, worn by priests [I Samuel 2:19]. An elaborate description of the ephod worn by the high priest is provided in Exodus 28:5-14. The robe Hannah sewed must have been a simpler form. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 34)

Alexander Francis Kirkpatrick (1849-1940) surveys:

The Hebrew mě‘īl denotes a kind of long upper tunic worn by kings (I Chronicles 15:27), prophets (I Samuel 15:27), men of position (Job 2:12), women of rank (II Samuel 13:18). The term is applied to a part of the High Priest’s dress, the robe of the Ephod (Exodus 28:31), and it is suggested in the Speaker’s Commentary that “mention of the ephod and the robe as worn by the youthful Samuel taken in connexion with his after acts seems to point to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation.” (Kirkpatrick, The First Book of Samuel: with Map, Notes and Introduction, 58)

Some interpreters have associated Samuel’s distinctive attire with a particular status. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) acknowledges:

The “little robe” provided by Hannah is probably an outer garment of some sort to be worn over the linen priestly ephod [I Samuel 2:19]. In both the Bible and the ancient Near East generally, special garments often carried symbolic significance or marked the wearer as holding a particular office or status. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 281)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Kim E. Walton (b. 1954) bolster:

The word translated “robe” [I Samuel 2:19] refers not to everyday clothing but to a priestly garment (Exodus 28:31-34; I Chronicles 15:27). The garment described by this word was worn by others besides priests but was typically worn by someone with a particular status or authority. (Walton and Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible, 150)

Keith Bodner (b. 1967) questions:

In two successive sentences there is a reference to Samuel’s garment (“But Samuel was serving in the LORD’s presence, a lad outfitted in a linen ephod. And a little robe his mother would make for him” [I Samuel 2:18-19]). Does this juxtaposition (priestly ephod, prophetic mantle) symbolize or prefigure his multiple offices? Ora Horn Prouser [b. 1961] (1996:27-37) notes that often in I and II Samuel, “clothes make the man,” meaning “clothing” is found at a number of key moments in the narrative. (Bodner, National Insecurity: A Primer on the First Book of Samuel, 31)

Diana Vikander Edelman (b. 1954) remarks:

The me‘îl, while a common piece of clothing for those of rank, seems to have been especially associated with the office of prophet (cf. I Samuel 2:19, 15:27; II Kings 2:13-18). (Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, 245-46)

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) equates:

The small robe which Hannah made for Samuel [I Samuel 2:19] may be a special garment for priests like the Akkadian tēlītu garment (cf. I Samuel 15:27, 28:14). (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 159)

Not all have been convinced that Samuel’s garments indicate status. Peter D. Miscall (b. 1943) differentiates:

The linen ephod is apparently part of his official garb at Shiloh [I Samuel 2:18]; the little robe is an annual gift from his mother and not necessarily any type of cultic attire [I Samuel 2:19]. (Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, 17)

James E. Smith (b. 1939) dismisses:

The robe [I Samuel 2:19] was an outer garment of wool, woven throughout without seam, with holes for the head and arms, and reaching nearly to the ground. This garment was the ordinary dress of all classes of people. It has no special meaning except that in this handiwork, Hannah exhibited her motherly pride and care. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (College Press NIV Commentary), 62)

John Mauchline (1902-1984) concurs:

The little robe (I Samuel 2:19) or ‘small cloak’ which Hannah brought to Samuel on her annual visit to Shiloh was probably not an official vestment but an ordinary wearing garment, which expressed the mother’s care for her son. (Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel (New Century Bible), 52)

Regardless of its meaning, Hannah insures that Samuel is well dressed. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) determines:

The little robe which the mother makes for her son year by year and brings with her when she comes on pilgrimage is an indication of her motherly care [I Samuel 2:19]—the boy would grow out of the previous year’s robe—and pride; such a garment is a sign of distinction (cf. the mantle in Isaiah 3:6). (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 35)

The robe is emphasized in its Hebrew positioning (I Samuel 2:19). J.P. Fokkelman (b. 1940) illumines:

The narrator ensures that we do not underestimate the connotations of the garment and prepares us for any symbolism by an inversion in his second line (I Samuel 2:19a). Even though it is the grammatical object “a small coat” is conspicuously placed in initial position. The article of clothing complements the priestly apron [I Samuel 2:18] and is going to provide the boy with the warmth he is not often to be given by the mountain climate in Ephraim. The small coat symbolizes, and is a substitute for maternal warmth. (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume IV: Vow and Desire, 124)

Roy L. Heller (b. 1963) accents:

His mother...regularly brings him a handmade mě‘îl qātōn (“little robe”) from time to time when she comes to sacrifice with her husband [I Samuel 2:19]. This robe is far from negligible in the context of the story. The syntax of the first clause of I Samuel 2:19 actually fronts the object and relegates the subject, “his mother,” to the very end; the Hebrew reads: ûmě‘îl qātōn ta‘ăśeh lô’immô (“and a little robe she-used-to-make-for-him his-mother”). In the Exodus traditions, the robe was part of the priestly vestments (Exodus 28:4, 31, 34, 29:5, 39:22-26). It is, therefore, unusual that his mother should be making it; he should be given one due to his priestly activities, as with the ephod...The literary significance of mě‘îl (“robe”) in the books of Samuel, however, reveals a very different function. It is, consistently, the article of clothing most closely identified with political, usually royal, power (I Samuel 2:19, 18;4, 24:5, 12; II Samuel 13:18). It is moreover, the article of clothing that will identify Samuel himself in his final confrontation with Saul during his life (I Samuel 15:27) as well as the one after his death (I Samuel 28:14). The little robe worn by the boy Samuel, therefore, serves as a foreshadowing of the political power that he will exercise, and will desperately hold onto, in the later stories about him. In its immediate context here, however, the boy Samuel’s “little robe” serves as the positive introductory image that leads, almost immediately, to Eli’s blessing of his parents [I Samuel 2:20]. Unlike the ineffective speech that Eli will pronounce in the next section [I Samuel 2:22-36], his blessing here leads to YHWH’s regard for Hannah, her conception, and her bearing three sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:21]. (Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteronomistic Evaluation of Prophecy, 54)

Some have been bothered by the robe remaining perpetually “little” (I Samuel 2:19 NASB). Henry Preserved Smith (1847-1927) presumes:

There seems no reason to find fault with the statement on the ground that as the boy grew it would no longer be a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. The narrator has the early years especially in mind. Doubtless the cloth was spun and woven by his mother, as well as the robe cut and sewed by her. (Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (International Critical Commentary), 19)

Even as a child, Samuel is dressed as a little man (I Samuel 2:18-19). Martin Sicker (b. 1931) considers:

As the child grew, every year his mother made him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19], “a long outer garment worn by people of rank or special status.” It has been suggested that the reason for pointing out that she made him a little robe, it being self-evident that the robe for a toddler would have to be small, is that robes usually were worn by grown men and not by children. Dressing the child in a robe, which was replaced yearly with a new one, so that he always appeared well groomed and clothed as a small man, markedly different in appearance from other children, served as tangible affirmation of Hannah’s conviction that Samuel was destined to be a man of great importance in Israel...It may be observed that although Samuel was not and never would be eligible for service as a priest [Leviticus 18:1-7; I Samuel 1:1] even from the time he was a toddler his mother dressed him in clothes clearly emblematic of the officiating priesthood, effectively emulating Moses who, in consecrating Aaron and his sons as priests, invested them with visible emblems of their holiness, including the distinctive ephod and robe [Exodus 28:1-4]. (Sicker, The First Book of Samuel: A Study in Prophetic History, 33-34)

Frank G. Honeycutt (b. 1957) illustrates:

I read a book long ago written by Randall Balmer [b. 1954], who teaches religion at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. Randall had a very dominant pastor father who wanted his son to grow up and preach the Word. There’s a great picture in the book of Randall at age six, standing behind his birthday present that year: a miniature pulpit just his size, every hair in place with Vitalis. This is how I usually think about Samuel in our lesson—dutiful, obedient, cherubic, small; robed with his little slippers. A very, very good little boy. (Honeycutt, Jesus and the Family: Crisis and Conversion in the American Household, 58)

Samuel will come to be associated with a robe for the remainder of his career. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) reveals:

Samuel would wear a robe for the rest of his life (and beyond!), and his robe will feature at two important points later in the story (I Samuel 15:27 and I Samuel 28:14). (Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word), 56)

J.P. Fokkelman (b. 1940) reviews:

The reader, who has taken a look further on, now knows what Hannah is not able to foresee: the coat (me‘īl) [I Samuel 2:19] is to accompany Samuel constantly and is to be an essential attribute of his, in his office as prophet, during two dramatic encounters with Saul [I Samuel 15:27, 28:14). There the garment has to do with the doom and the death of the first king...Hannah is not only linked through her poetry, to the monarchy which is the future of the country, but to this concrete object which she herself makes and replaces annually. Via the small coat she protects Samuel right from the start in his new stage of life, which stage is never to come to an end, that of being a Nazirite [I Samuel 1:11]. That way whilst remaining in absentia for most of the year she nevertheless keeps on looking after the boy whom we know is to grow into a kingmaker. (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume IV: Vow and Desire, 124)

Robert Polzin (b. 1937) echoes:

From the earliest days of his youth to his resurrection in I Samuel 28:11-20, Samuel wears a robe representing the royalty that was wrapped around Israel during the course of the story. When Samuel first started ministering to the LORD at Shiloh, his mother Hannah began a practice of making a small robe (me‘îl qāton), which she would take him each year when she went up to Shiloh (I Samuel 2:19). That young, berobed Samuel is now an old man and dead, and the robe has become a shroud [I Samuel 28:14]. During his career, Samuel’s robe was torn by Saul (I Samuel 15:27), an action Samuel interprets as the tearing away of the kingdom from Saul. Jonathan’s robe played a similar role when he stripped it off to hand over to David (I Samuel 18:4), again signifying the transfer of royal power, the kingdom, from Saul’s house to David’s. Then David himself cut off the end of Saul’s robe in I Samuel 24:5, presenting Saul and the reader with a cleaner, more clearcut image of the seizing of kingship. When Saul had seized Samuel’s robe, the kingdom was torn from Saul’s grasp; when David cut Saul’s robe, it was delivered up into his hands. This robe of royalty appears one final time in I Samuel, now wrapped around a dead person. In line with the conjoined character zones of Samuel and Saul throughout the story, Samuel is clothed in a dead man’s robe as he foretells the imminent death of Saul and his sons. The robe as shroud enfolds Saul’s death and well as Samuel’s. (Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Two: 1 Samuel, 218)

Meir Shalev (b. 1948) connects:

I see Samuel’s robe as his trademark garment, akin to Elijah’s mantle [II Kings 2:11-14]. Samuel’s custom of always wearing a robe originated in his early childhood, when his mother Hannah gave him over to the House of the Lord at Shiloh [I Samuel 2:19]. The “little robe”—these are the Bible’s touching words—was the gift she would bring on her annual visit to her son who grew bigger each year, and it became the symbol of her love, and her main connection with him. I imagine that Samuel’s enormous rage after the war with Amalek, when Saul clutched and accidentally tore the hem of his robe [I Samuel 15:27], derived from Samuel’s deep emotional bond with his garment. (Shalev, Beginnings: Reflections on the Bible's Intriguing Firsts, 84)

Significantly, First Samuel sandwiches notices of Samuel’s growth (I Samuel 2:18-21, 26) between accounts of the shortcomings of Eli’s family (I Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25, 27-36).

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) observes:

“The rise of Samuel” is narrated in counterpoint to the account of “Eli’s fall” [I Samuel 2:11-36]. Samuel’s rise is punctuated by a series of carefully placed statements reporting his growth to manhood and his maturation in faith [I Samuel 2:18-21, 26]. There is irony in the fact that he is nurtured in faith by Eli, the very one whom he displaces. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 22)

James D. Newsome, Jr. (b. 1931) asks:

As if the final compiler of this story wished to weave a tapestry, the dark fibers of the priests’ sacrilege are interrupted at important points by the emerging bright thread of young Samuel’s purity and innocense (I Samuel 2:18-20, 26). And lying side by side, the two patterns of behavior seem all the more at odds. How could Hophni and Phinehas stoop so low, we are asked to wonder. How could the boy remain so essentially good in such a corrupted atmosphere? (Newsome, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel (Knox Preaching Guides), 21)

Ben F. Philbeck, Jr. (1931-1989) praises:

The insertion of these brief verses [I Samuel 2:18-21] describing God’s blessings on Samuel’s family demonstrates the author’s mastery of the storyteller’s art. The passage adds little to the progress of the narrative, but the account of Samuel’s simple ministry before the Lord and of Hannah’s good fortune serve as a perfect foil for the misfortunes which are about to befall Eli’s house [I Samuel 2:27-36]. (Clifton J. Allen [1901-1986], General Articles, 1 Samuel - Nehemiah (Broadman Bible Commentary), 17)

Samuel is intentionally juxtaposed with Eli’s sons. Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) encapsulates:

The positive evaluation of Samuel and his family...begins with a general statement, setting the tone for I Samuel 2:18-21: “Samuel was ministering before the LORD—a boy wearing a linen ephod” [I Samuel 2:18]...This ideal scene, so lovingly describing the adorned little priest, is surely a dramatic contrast to the grasping and avaricious sons of Eli. Through the years, Eli comes to appreciate this devout family, blessing them and praying that Yahweh will honor their faithfulness [I Samuel 2:20]. (Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel (NIV Application Commentary))

Tony W. Cartledge (b. 1951) contrasts:

The narrator purposefully punctures the account of Eli’s worthless sons with periodic glimpses at Hannah’s more worthy child. While Hophni and Phinehas were appropriating Israel’s sacrifices for their own gain [I Samuel 2:12-17], “Samuel was ministering before the LORD, a boy wearing a linen ephod” (I Samuel 2:18). (Cartledge, 1 & 2 Samuel: Bible Commentary (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 55)

Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) expounds:

In contrast with the grasping materialism of Hophni and Phinehas [I Samuel 2:12-17] is the thankful service offered by Samuel and his mother. Samuel was ministering before the LORD [I Samuel 2:18], presumably as his age allowed under Eli’s direction. The ongoing contribution of Hannah—giving Samuel to God [I Samuel 1:11] and giving clothes to Samuel [I Samuel 2:19]—is mentioned, alongside Eli’s blessing [I Samuel 2:20]. It appears that Eli did not participate in his sons’ irreverent greed, and his cooperation with those coming to offer sacrifices contrasts with the bullying of his sons and their servants. God’s gracious response to this obedient service, giving Hannah five more children [I Samuel 2:21], provides a further contrast with God’s condemnation of Eli’s sons (I Samuel 2:27-36). (Evans, 1 & 2 Samuel (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

Dale Ralph Davis (b. 1944) notices:

One cannot help but observe the contrast between I Samuel 2:19-21 and I Samuel 2:22-26, a delightful scene set against an ominous one...There is a clear parallelism between the two scenes, but the parallels highlight the differences. Here (I Samuel 2:19-21), Yahweh is giving life, there he has resolved death. (Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel, Volume 1: 1 Samuel 1-14, 32)

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) adds:

In antithesis and parallel to Eli, Samuel...points us toward the monarchy: his role in the story to come will be as the radar for the legitimacy of Israel’s kings. The priest of the Lord will elect and deselect Yahweh’s kings. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 26)

Samuel’s superiority over Eli’s sons may be evident even in his clothing (I Samuel 2:18-19). Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) contemplates:

Whereas the scoundrel sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are characterized by a story in which they aggressively grab whatever they can get from the holy place [I Samuel 2:12-17], Samuel, the blessed son, is characterized by a story in which he is clothed year after year in a succession of priestly robes, custom-sown by his mother, suited to his growing stature [I Samuel 2:18-21]. Clothing can either disguise or reveal our true identity. Eli’s sons, dressed in their inherited, hand-me-down priestly robes, looked like priests but were, in fact, wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15). The handmade, custom-tailored robe worn by Hannah’s son revealed his true priestly identity. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 34)

Linking these accounts reminds the reader that this mixed bag, a holy place run by an unholy family, marks the atmosphere in which Samuel is raised (I Samuel 2:12-21). John Goldingay (b. 1942) resolves:

This is the context in which Samuel is brought up! Did Hannah know? What chance is there that he will grow up in the proper way, as a “boy” functioning among the other “boys” implicated in the abuses undertaken by Eli’s sons [I Samuel 2:12-17]? Fortunately Samuel is growing up “in Yahweh’s presence” as well as “in Eli’s presence” [I Samuel 2:11]. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 29)

Andrew W. Blackwood (1882-1966) assures:

A good child can grow up with evil men, much as a white lily may emerge from the blackest muck. More than a little depends on the character of the original stock. Even when forced to dwell among older fellows as base as the sons of Eli, a lad like Samuel keeps on serving the God of his mother and father. In army and navy training camps, here at home and on countless battlefields beyond the seven seas, young men who had loved God back at home kept on being loyal despite all the seductions of a world at war. (Blackwood, Preaching From Samuel, 33)

Hannah’s bestowing Samuel with a robe is typically seen as an act of love (I Samuel 2:19). It is a means for Hannah to see her son (I Samuel 2:19). Serge Frolov (b. 1959) footnotes:

The verbal forms used in I Samuel 2:19a identify both actions that it refers to as equally repetitive; the sequence ימימה מימים לו והעלתה אמו תעשה־לו קטן ומעיל should therefore be rendered ‘and his mother used to make him a little overcoat and regularly bring it up to him’. In other words, Hannah cleverly used the natural process of the boy’s physical growth, referred to in I Samuel 2:21b, to stay in touch with him: before each pilgrimage she would make a new, presumably larger, coat and bring it to Shiloh. The King James Version obscures this nuance by using indicative simple past forms (“His mother made him a little coat and brought it to him from year to year”). (Frolov, The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1-8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, 103)

Like Little Orphan Annie’s beloved locket, the robe serves as a tangible reminder to Samuel that his mother loves him. She is present even when she is absent.

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) interprets:

Though Samuel’s mother had given Samuel to the LORD [I Samuel 1:11], she retained her maternal love and responsibility. She came yearly to Shiloh to attend to the needs of her son [I Samuel 2:19]. Nor did the LORD forget Hannah. As is so often the case, He gave her not only what she had prayed for but much more—in her case three sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:21] (cf. the example of Rachel, Genesis 30:22-24; 35:16-18). (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 435)

Joan E. Cook infers:

After the intercalated story of Eli’s corrupt sons [I Samuel 2:12-17] (further reason for Hannah to wonder about her own son’s safety) the narrative implies that Hannah lived in Ramah with Elkanah when the conclusion explains that they made the annual trip together, and each year she took him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. She did not completely relinquish care of him, but continued to look after his well-being. And we can be sure she took the opportunity to make certain that her son was receiving proper care from his mentor at the shrine. Eli blessed the couple, praying that they would have other children, after which Hannah had three more sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:20-21]. (Cook, Hannah’s Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations of the Story of Hannah, 40)

Stephens G. Lytch (b. 1953) envisions:

Her love was evident in the gift that she took him on her regular visits to Shiloh. She always brought him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. It was nothing extravagant, but one can imagine the love she poured into each stitch as she made the robe, thinking of her son and whispering prayers of gratitude to God for the gift of his life. One hopes that the presents we give our loved ones are as loaded with care and gratitude. (David L. Bartlett [b. 1941] and Barbara Brown Taylor [b. 1951], Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration, 148)

Dallas A. Brauninger (b. 1943) relates:

Someone sees when a parent does the little sustaining things for a child in the name of love. Parents will know later what this teaches a child. So be of good courage, you who are a parent, for being a parent is a holy trust. (Brauninger, Lectionary Worship Aids: Series V, Cycle C, 24)

Elizabeth George (b. 1944) applies:

How does a woman who loves God and her family fill her days when her nest is empty? Note Hannah’s example. Mark it well! Rather than give in to sadness, Hannah worked on long-distance love. Each year she made Samuel a little robe and took it to him (I Samuel 2:19). (George, The Remarkable Women of the Bible: And Their Message for Your Life Today, 181)

Hannah’s attentiveness to her son moves the priest Eli; he pronounces blessing and she births five more children (I Samuel 2:20-21). Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) comments:

As with the midwives in the Exodus story (Exodus 1:21), Hannah’s faithfulness was rewarded with the gift of a family (cf. Psalm 127:3). Significantly, this prosperity is connected with Eli’s priestly blessing, and the relationship between the aged priest and Elkanah’s family fulfills the ideal of a happy co-operation between priesthood and people which is so desiderated in I Samuel 1:12-17. (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 82-83)

Antony F. Campbell (b. 1934) inspects:

Samuel and his family stand in sharp contrast. Samuel is in the service of the LORD. The little robe, renewed each year, is a pointer to the child’s growth [I Samuel 2:19]; the reference to the repeated visits and the birth of five more children evokes the passage of time [I Samuel 2:21]. But, above all, it is symbolic of the blessing and favor bestowed on the family, in direct connection with Samuel (I Samuel 2:20). While Eli blesses Elkanah and his wife, the weight of his blessing seems to fall on the man; when its fulfillment is reported, the emphasis is on the LORD’s visiting the woman. And Samuel grew in the presence of the LORD (I Samuel 2:21b), while the sons of Eli were growing in contempt of the LORD (I Samuel 2:17). Eli is treated gently (I Samuel 2:20); the reproach is reserved for his sons. (Campbell, 1 Samuel (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 49)

This marks Hannah’s last appearance in Bible’s narrative (I Samuel 2:18-21). Presumably tending to her children, she is effectively written out of the text.

David Jobling (b. 1941) discusses:

Hannah assists and monitors Samuel’s progress at the shrine when each year she takes him a new robe [I Samuel 2:19]. When we last hear of her she has become the mother of a large family, a family that, we are led to believe, she owes to the priestly blessing of Eli [I Samuel 2:20-21]. It is not clear that either she or Elkanah wants these children. (Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 133)

Hillel I. Millgram (b. 1931) investigates:

With this touching picture of Hannah settled among her growing family, sewing a new little robe for her son and bringing it to him each year [I Samuel 2:19], Hannah fades from the view of history. And were this all there is to the story, the mystery of the author’s reason for opening the book with Hannah would remain unsolved. But this is not all. Besides her great act of commitment and renunciation, she left us another legacy, commonly known as “Hannah’s Prayer” [I Samuel 2:1-10]. (Millgram, The Invention of Monotheist Ethics: Exploring the First Book of Samuel, 34)

The woman whose story began with bemoaning her barrenness, is remembered as a mother. Lillian R. Klein (b. 1929) attends:

Hannah’s narrative concludes with a comment on her annual visit with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice [I Samuel 2:19]. At that time, her motherhood is emphasized: it is not “Hannah” but “his [Samuel’s] mother” who makes a “little robe” and brings it to him at Shiloh...Hannah’s image is secure indeed: she is recognized as mother of Samuel — who becomes a prophet, judge, and king-maker — and as a good woman. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948], “Hannah”, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament, 91)

Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) attributes:

Samuel’s mother annually brought Samuel a robe (mě‘îl) [I Samuel 2:19], a longer outer garment worn by members of the Levitical tribe involved in priestly service (cf. Leviticus 8:7). This thoughtful gift from Hannah suggests that although Samuel was gone from the household in Ramah, he was still very much in Hannah’s heart (cf. Proverbs 31:19-21). Through the use of clothing motif in portraying Samuel’s career (cf. I Samuel 15:27), the writer suggests that Samuel’s life was the outcome of a splendid mother of faith. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 79-80)

Samuel may be gone from Hannah’s day to day life but he is not forgotten. Her bringing a “little robe cut to his size” (I Samuel 2:19 MSG) reveals that she keeps watch over him and loves him continually though her physical presence in his life is only sporadic. In kind, Samuel, one of Israel’s greatest figures, is remembered more as the son of his mother than that of his father. Hannah’s love, embodied in his robe, carries him throughout his life.

What is Hannah trying to communicate by bringing Samuel a new robe (I Samuel 2:19)? What does the garment mean to Samuel? What other items could Hannah have brought her son? Were you Samuel, what would you have wanted your parents to send you? What does Samuel’s coat speak to parents who cannot be involved in the daily activities of their children? Does Samuel’s adult attire hinder his experience of childhood? If Hannah provides Samuel’s little robe, who bestows his ephod (I Samuel 2:18-19)? Does the ephod complement or conflict with the robe provided by Hannah? What is the desired relationship between clergy and lay people? When has a child consistently dressed as an adult? Who do you know of who wore the same attire throughout life; who has a signature outfit? What did your parents or guardians dress you in? If there is a specific attire associated with your profession; if so who provided your first specimen? Do you keep anything associated with your parents? What objects represent love to you?

Contrary to the natural interest of many readers, the Bible is silent regarding Hannah’s emotional response to having her son raised apart from her.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) indicates:

And a little cloak would his mother make him [I Samuel 2:19]. This is a poignant instance of the expressive reticence of biblical narrative. We have been told nothing about Hannah’s feelings as a mother after her separation from the child for whom she so fervently prayed [I Samuel 1:10-11]. This minimal notation of Hannah’s annual gesture of making a little cloak for the son she has “lent” to the LORD beautifully intimates the love she preserves for him. The garment, fashioned as a gift of maternal love, stands in contrast to the ephod, the acolyte’s official garb for his cultic office. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 2)

The Bible’s silence has not prevented many a reader from empathizing with the lonely mother. Janet S. Jagers (b. 1942) infers:

Hannah continues to see her son each year [I Samuel 2:19]. I imagine she must have treasured the opportunity to talk with him, catch up with the latest news, and make sure he was all right. How hard do you think it was for her to leave him at the end of each yearly visit? Yet we see not even a hint of sorrow in her actions, just gratefulness. She continues to sacrifice and worship the Lord, just as she had done before Samuel was born [I Samuel 1:3-8]. (Jagers, Women at the Well: A Five-Week Study of Women in the Bible, 80)

Francine Klagsbrun (b. 1931) laments:

The loss Hannah feels after relinquishing her child touches us through an exquisitely sensitive detail. Each year when she and Elkanah make their pilgrimage to Shiloh, she brings the young Samuel, a little robe that she has made herself (I Samuel 2:19). She sees her son just once a year, we learn from this detail, and her only way of measuring his growth is through the new robe she sews for each visit. Hannah had promised her child away before she knew how quickly she would fall in love with him; now the robe is her ongoing embrace. (Gail Twersky Reimer [b. 1950] and Judith A. Kates [b. 1941], Beginning Anew: A Woman’s Companion to the High Holy Days, 101)

John Pinkston (b. 1937) consoles:

Once a year, his mother came to visit Samuel, bringing him a little coat which she had made when she and her husband came to offer their seasonal sacrifices [I Samuel 2:19]...However, God knew of the empty feeling that Hannah experienced each year as she left her little boy behind. God had mercy upon Hannah and she had three sons and two daughters because of her commitment and generosity to God in turning her firstborn over to Him for His Service [I Samuel 2:20-1]...Samuel became a prophet and Israel’s last judge. (Pinkston, Our Lost National Identity: Tracing the Lineage of Israel’s Lost Ten Tribes, 103)

Hannah and her husband, Elkanah, have been presented as paragons of parenthood. Joe O. Lewis (b. 1935) extols:

Contrary to Eli’s sons [I Samuel 2:12-17], Samuel’s parents are models of devotion. Hannah saw her son annually and brought him a new robe each year [I Samuel 2:19]. The story hints at the difference in Hannah’s attitude during these years. Her burden has been removed. In subsequent years Hannah bore five more children (I Samuel 2:21). Eli’s blessing referred each year to the vow in which Hannah “asked” for a child (I Samuel 1:20) and “lent” him to God. Both words are the same and reflect the meaning of Samuel’s name. During those years, Samuel “grew”; literally he “became great” with the Lord (I Samuel 2:21). (Lewis, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles (Layman’s Bible Book Commentary), 17)

The life of Samuel’s parents, like his own, centers around worship. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) notices:

This [I Samuel 2:18-21] reminds us of the beginning of our story. It all began with those visits to Shiloh that were so miserable for Hannah year after year (I Samuel 1:3-7). The annual pilgrimage was still taking place, but now it was a time for Hannah’s tender motherly love to find expression in the new robe she brought each year for her growing boy. We can easily picture the care with which that robe was made each year — each year a little bigger! (Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word), 56)

Grenville J.R. Kent (b. 1965) studies:

After the birth, Elkanah maintains his worship cycle, while Hannah breaks it only until the weaning (I Samuel 1:21-23). Then she brings him a new robe ימימה מימים (from year to year, literally from days to days) (I Samuel 2:19). Thus it is worship and sacrifice that provide the rhythm of their lives, and Hannah’s worship of Yahweh is stylistically linked to her pregnancy, subtly advancing the theme that the baby is God-given in answer to prayer. (Kent, Say It Again, Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28, 104)

Karen Pidcock-Lester (b. 1956) characterizes:

Hannah and Elkanah...cherish their son. No one can dispute that. They have waited long and prayed fervently for his arrival. But as much as they love Samuel, their lives are shaped not by their devotion to him, but by their devotion to God. They worship, praise, sacrifice for, give thanks to, submit to, and serve not Samuel, but God. They recognize that God has different plans for Samuel from what they might have envisioned, but they surrender their plans and submit to God’s. They do what they can to help Samuel fulfill God’s purposes for his life, “making a little robe and taking it to him each year” [I Samuel 2:19]. (David L. Bartlett [b. 1941] and Barbara Brown Taylor [b. 1951], Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration, 148)

Hannah actively seeks God’s will for her son. Steven E. Albertin (b. 1949) correlates:

Hannah making her yearly visit to the temple to give her son the gift of a little robe she had made for him [I Samuel 2:19]. It is a very simple and tender picture of mother expressing her love for her son. But to our modern eyes the tenderness of this picture begins to fade when we realize that this yearly visit would never have even been necessary if Hannah had not already taken the drastic action of giving her son away. Contrary to our world, where our children are constantly worshiped and adored, here we see a parent whose focus was not on pampering her son but on worshiping God. Hannah’s willingness to giver her son to the Lord and only to be able to visit him occasionally in the temple is stunning when compared to how parents treat their children today. (Albertin, Charles D. Reeb [b. 1973] and Richard E. Gribble [b. 1952], Sermons on the First Readings: Cycle C, 62)

Hannah not only seeks God’s will, she participates in it. Uriel Simon (b. 1929) understands:

Evidently the narrator mentions the lad’s holy apparel so that he can juxtapose it to the little robe, thus suggesting that the robe, too, is one of his sacred garments [I Samuel 2:18-19]. If this is true, Hannah’s motivation for making her son a new robe every year is not concern that he be well-dressed but a desire to continue her act of giving. For her, the dedication of her son to service in the sanctuary is not a one-time deed, but one renewed each year by the recurrent donation of a sacred robe to the lad who serves in the sanctuary. (Simon [translated by Lenn J. Schramm], Reading Prophetic Narratives, 29)

Samuel becomes a great man, no less than a kingmaker. His life trajectory begins with a mother who put God’s will for her child’s life above all else. May we do the same.

How do Hannah’s consistent worship patterns contribute to Samuel’s development? Does worship characterize your life? What are the consequences to Hannah and Samuel of his being raised away from her? Did the absence of his parents in adolescence effect Samuel’s demeanor later in life? What would be the psychological results of Samuel’s unusual upbringing? In what ways have you given your child to God?

“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” - attributed to Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

Five Smooth Stones (I Samuel 17:40)

How many smooth stones did David pick up when he prepared to fight Goliath? Five (I Samuel 17:40)

David’s victory over Goliath is one of the Bible’s most famous stories (I Samuel 17:1-54). While relaying provisions to his three older brothers (I Samuel 17:12-23), David, then a young shepherd, learns that the mammoth Philistine has laid down the gauntlet to engage any Israelite in single combat (I Samuel 17:8-10). Enraged that none of his compatriots has accepted the challenge, David agrees to battle the giant (I Samuel 17:26, 31-32).

The text does a great job of promoting this fight, spending 40 verses on the pre-fight build up (I Samuel 17:1-40) as compared to nine on the battle itself (I Samuel 17:41-49) and another nine on the post-fight analysis (I Samuel 17:50-58). Like a tale of the tape before a championship prize fight, the Bible carefully relates the armor of both contestants. It describes Goliath’s immense armor (I Samuel 17:5-7), whose mass is as impressive as its owner’s (I Samuel 17:4). In contrast, King Saul attempts to fit David with his own armor (I Samuel 17:38-39). Instead David adopts a less is more approach choosing the more familiar garb of a shepherd (I Samuel 17:40). The battle is not the time for experimentation.

David’s meager arsenal consists of a stick, some stones and a sling (I Samuel 17:40):

He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine. (I Samuel 17:40 NASB)

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) recaps:

David armed only with his confidence in God, a sling, and five smooth stones, slew Goliath and brought back his severed head in triumph (I Samuel 17:33-51). (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 448)

The verse has rhetorical elements in Hebrew that are lost in translation (I Samuel 17:40). J.P. Fokkelman (b. 1940) reveals:

The verse regarding David’s weaponry has a virtuoso style [I Samuel 17:40]. Two very short lines with the rhyme beyaādō...surround two long lines, so that I Samuel 17:40abcd is a series ABB'A'. The middle lines I Samuel 17:40bc concern the smooth stones from the brook (I Samuel17:40b, look for, I Samuel 17:40c put away) an their length reflects the care and precision which David devotes to the hard core of his equipment. They start with “he chose” and end in “in the shepherd’s bag”, and that is a splendid find in Hebrew: the roots of yibhar and yalqūt are very close semantically and the substantive yalqūt looks like an imperfect. The pair is accompanied by the rhyme lō. The density of phonetic means continues however, and is impressive...The alliteration is exceptionally rich: h (5x), m (7x), q (5x), l (8x), and it has a special centre. The qof and the lamed, in fact, occur together in all four “weapons” (mql, hlq, ylqt, ql‘), nota bene in an alternation which respects and strengthens the pattern ABB'A', and this means that Israel’s secret weapon (the youth’s shepherd’s gear) is the motor of the sound patterns. Note that Goliath a little later on complains about the stick (mql) and breaks into curses (qll!!) [I Samuel 17:43], but will be tamed by the three weapons that he does not mention. By continuing with the alliteration with q and l he unwittingly digs his own grave. The abuse he utters [I Samuel 17:43-44], the last we hear from him himself, becomes a swansong which contributes to the power of Israel’s secret weapon. (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume 2, 178)

David brings his “staff” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “stick” (CEV, NASB) (I Samuel 17:40). Since he will not use the staff when facing Goliath, this “weapon” may have been a diversionary tactic.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) considers:

He took his stick [I Samuel 17:40]. That is, his shepherd’s staff, which he is used to carrying. David evidently does this as a decoy, encouraging Goliath to imagine he will use cudgel against sword (compare I Samuel 17:43) and thus camouflaging the lethal slingshot. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 108)

If the staff is intended to conceal David’s game plan it works. Goliath takes note of the stick as evidenced by his taunts (I Samuel 17:43).

David has his weapon on hand but no ammunition so he carefully selects five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Rachelle Gilmour comments:

He [David] prepares himself for battle in I Samuel 17:40 by selecting five smooth stones and placing them in his pouch. He does not rush into battle like Saul [I Samuel 11:1-16]...but pauses to give Goliath a rather lengthy theological statement on the victory that is about to take place (I Samuel 17:45-47). David’s self-control after he receives the spirit is further highlighted by the contrast with Saul in I Samuel 16:14-23 who has now received an evil spirit. Saul is tormented and only the skillful lyre playing of David provides calm. (Gilmour, Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel, 123)

David’s attentiveness to his weaponry demonstrates that the shepherd has had time to think about the decision he is making. Marshall Ganz (b. 1943) suggests:

Plainly, David is courageous. But it takes more than courage to defeat Goliath. David wins the battle because he thinks about it differently. At first, he accepts the shield, sword, and helmet that conventional wisdom deems necessary [I Samuel 17:38-39]. He then realizes, however, that he cannot use these weapons effectively against a master of them. Instead, he conceives a plan of battle—a strategy—based on the five stones he notices in a creek bed, his skill with a slingshot, and the giant’s underestimation of him [I Samuel 17:40]. (Ganz, Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement)

David secures the stones in a shepherd’s “bag” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, RSV), “pouch” (ESV, NIV, NRSV) or “pack” (MSG), which he has brought with him (I Samuel 17:40). It likely serves the same function as a contemporary fanny pack.

The Hebrew vocabulary used for the receptacle is obscure (I Samuel 17:40). Ralph W. Klein (b.1936) informs:

The word ילקוט is a hapax legomenon. An ancient gloss was placed before it, identifying it as a shepherd’s bag (cf. I Samuel 17:40 and Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918]). (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 179)

The future king procures the stones from the “brook” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “stream” (NIV, NLT) or “wadi” (HCSB, NRSV) (I Samuel 17:40).

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) defines:

Wadi (hannahal) is the dry riverbed (see Genesis 26:17) of the Valley of Elah [I Samuel 17:2, 19]. (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 459)

Specifically, David finds “five smooth stones” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (I Samuel 17:40). The literal Hebrew is “smooth ones” with virtually all translations supplying the necessary noun.

A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) describes:

An adjective used as a noun: “smooth ones.” The form is unique: B’s teleious is a mistaken correction of the literal leious (“smooth”). (Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 206)

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) and Michael O’Connor (1950-2007) explain:

Because the boundary between adjectives and substantives is not fixed or rigid, it is common to find nouns that are most often used as adjectives in substantive slots...Adjectives may occur as constructs, usually with a superlative force [Isaiah 19:11, Ezekiel 7:24; II Chronicles 21:7; I Samuel 17:40]. (Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 261)

These stones are hardly pebbles. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) depicts:

Such stones were part of the normal repertoire of weapons in the ancient world (cf. II Chronicles 26:14), usually balls two or three inches in diameter and manufactured from flint (Ovid R. Sellers [1885-1975], “Sling Stones in Biblical Times,” Biblical Archaeologist 2/4 [1939]: 41-42,45). David, however, had a ready supply of naturally spherical stones of the right size at hand. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 183)

The archaeological record attests to such weaponry. Stephen J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert B. Bergen (b. 1954) document:

Excavations in Israel have revealed hundreds of sling stones at many fortified sites. They are typically the size of tennis balls and weigh about a pound each. An accomplished warrior could sling a stone this size at a rate of 100 to 150 miles an hour, making it a very lethal weapon. It is most likely that David chose stones from the dry stream bed of this size and weight. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 127)

Robert B. Bergen (b. 1954) adds:

Examples of ancient Near Eastern slingstones are on display in the Lachish exhibit at the British Museum. Photographs of slingstones from Middle Eastern cultural sites can be seen in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, editor James B. Pritchard [1909-1997] (London: Princeton: 1958, plate 101; and New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, editor Eprhaim Stern [b. 1934] (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 2:463. A Middle Eastern slingstone from the private collection of David A. Dorsey [b. 1949] at the Evangelical School of Theology weighs approximately 450 grams, very much in line with those on display elsewhere. (Bergen, 1,2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 194)

The stone’s smoothness is essential for their purpose (I Samuel 17:40). Smooth stones make superior slingshot pellets as they produce more predictable trajectories and are less apt to get caught on the cradle.

Phil Farver (b. 1956) praises:

Picking smooth stones showed wisdom on David’s part [I Samuel 17:40]. He demonstrated that he knew the weapons he chose, how to use them and what they could accomplish. The smoothness showed that the stones had gone through a refining process by being tumbled around, tossed to and fro, in the stream and polished, ready to be used. The smoothness also guaranteed a faster, straighter flight from sling to target, generating more force against that intended target. Odd shaped stones or stones with jagged edges were not reliable and very difficult to control. (Farver, Five Smooth Stones: Proven Steps for Positive Success, 27-28)

Thomas D. Logie (b. 1951) compares:

Modern rifling to impart a spiral would not have been available to David. For the same reason as a baseball pitcher wants a seam in a baseball to make it break, David wanted to avoid seams or similar irregularities because he needed to throw hard and straight. So David learned to use smooth stones as his ammunition. I Samuel 17:40 reflects accurate science; if David had to use his slingshot in an emergency, the last thing he needed was to throw a knuckleball. (Logie, Meditations on Holiness)

These stones are selected for their compatibility to a sling (I Samuel 17:40, 50). David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) identifies:

Sling (qela‘) is a military weapon, common in the ancient Near East; Egyptian evidence goes back to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Note the slingers, wearing iron helmets and coats of mail, depicted on the reliefs in the royal palaces at Nineveh and Nimrud. Hebrew usages support this meaning, though the Ugaritic counterpart of ql‘ could mean “shield” on the basis of Akkadian kabābu (ga-ba-bu in Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit 4.63:24, etc.) “shield.” (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 460)

W.E. Nunnally (b. 1955) describes:

A weapon consisting of two thongs made of rushes, animal sinews, leather, cloth, or hair attached to a wider pocket that held the projectile. The projectile was placed in the pocket and swung above the head one to three times. When the desired centrifugal force had been generated, one thong was released, discharging the missile. The sling was inexpensively manufactured and required little technical know-how to produce. Optimum accuracy (Judges 20:16) was achieved only by years of practice. Stones were carried into battle in a bag (I Samuel 17:40). During a siege they were piled at the slinger’s feet. The average slingstone was slightly smaller than a tennis ball. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Sling”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1233)

V. Philips Long (b. 1951) clarifies:

One is not to think of a forked stick with an elastic catapult stretched between it, which is a modern invention, but of a leather or cloth pouch to which two cords were attached. A slingstone, either crafted by hand or, as in the present instance, rounded by water action, was placed in the pouch and then, after swinging the sling overhead or to the side to gain momentum, was released at great speed by letting go of one of the cords. Slings were affordable but effective weapons used, for instance, by shepherds to drive off predators. David’s background as a shepherd would have afforded him opportunity to develop considerable skill in the use of a sling. In time, slings became (along with bows and arrows) a regular part of the long-range arsenal of ancient Near Eastern armies. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 351)

The birth of the sling represented an important military development in the ancient world. Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) traces:

An important innovation was the sling. Evidence of its existence appears at Catal Hüyük between 5500 and 4500 B.C. Most likely the early sling fired stones selected for their small size and smoothness. David, prior to his battle with Goliath, selected just such stones in preparing for battle. At Catal Hüyük we see the first evidence of shot made from sunbaked clay, man’s first foray into making a specific type of expendable ammunition. The sling represented a giant leap in the range of killing technology. (Gabriel, The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development, 28)

Ralph W. Klein (b.1936) supports:

Assyrian slingers wearing copper helmets and coats of mail, are depicted in Sennacherib’s palace (7th century, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary 1, 115). The slingstone was held in a pouch with cords attached at opposite ends. The sling was whirled over the head until one end was suddenly released. While I Samuel 17 apparently understands the sling as a shepherd’s weapon, it could also be used by organized armies, and with amazing accuracy as the Benjamites demonstrated (Judges 20:16; cf. also I Samuel 25:29; I Chronicles 12:2 and II Chronicles 26:14). (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 179)

The sling could be highly destructive in the hands of a skilled user. Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) assesses:

In a skilled hand the sling could be a deadly weapon. According to Judges 20:16 the tribe of Benjamin could at one time count on the services of seven hundred left-handed slingers every one of whom ‘could sling a stone at a hair, and not miss’. Compare also the ambidextrous Benjamites mentioned in I Chronicles 12:2. The sling was commonly deployed in near eastern armies, the evidence in the case of Egypt going back to the beginning of the second millennium BC. (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 157)

Malcolm Gladwell (b. 1963) appreciates:

Slinging took an extraordinary amount of skill and practice. But in experienced hands, the sling was a devastating weapon. Paintings from medieval times show slingers hitting birds in midflight. Irish slingers were said to be able to hit a coin from as far away as they could see it, and in the Old Testament Book of Judges, slingers are described as being accurate within a “hair’s breadth” [Judges 20:16] An experienced slinger could kill or seriously injure a target at a distance of up to two hundred yards. The Romans even had a special set of tongs made just to remove stones that had been embedded in some poor soldier’s body by a sling. Imagine standing in front of a Major League Baseball pitcher as he aims a baseball at your head. That’s what facing a slinger was like—only what was being thrown was not a ball of cork and leather but a solid rock. (Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, 9-10)

The sling is especially emphasized in the story of David and Goliath (I Samuel 17:1-58). The Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery observes:

Perhaps the most famous sling is the one carried by David and used to fell Goliath. This particular weapon is not just mentioned in the narrative (I Samuel 17:40) but assumes a rhetorical role in the summary: “So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him” (I Samuel 17:50). As it turns out, this weapon choice has something to say about Israel’s up-an-coming king. First, it says that David was smart. When we consider the list of weapons carried by Goliath (I Samuel 17:4-7), we can see that he intended to engage his Israelite competitor in close-range combat. While David had briefly considered the use of a sword (I Samuel 17:39), he quickly abandoned it in favor of the sling. In doing so David betrayed his intentions; he was not planning to get anywhere near the Philistine fighting machine but rather to dispatch him from a distance. While this reveals his thoughtful intelligence, it also says something about this faith in the Lord. David took only one weapon into the fight, counting on the Lord to guide his aim and the stone toward his bellicose target. Thus the author of I Samuel directs us to the sling because it was the smart choice and because it was the choice that marked David as a leader after God’s own heart [I Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22]. (John A. Beck [b. 1956], “Sling”, Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

George B. Caird (1917-1984) notices:

It is curious that although both sources agree on David’s use of the sling on this occasion [I Samuel 17:40, 50], we never hear of it again in any of his subsequent battles. (George Arthur Buttrick [1892-1980], Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (Interpreter’s Bible), 978)

The use of the sling is part of David’s presenting himself as he truly is: as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11, 19, 17:15, 20, 28, 34). The sling is a shepherd’s tool. James E. Smith (b. 1939) imagines:

David chose to arm himself with what he knew best. He took his staff in one hand. He selected five smooth stones from the stream nearby and out them into the pouch of his shepherd’s bag, i.e., something akin to a knapsack. With his sling in his hand he went out to confront the Philistine. Obviously David was skilled in the use of the sling, having practiced endless hours with it while guarding the sheep. (Smith, I & II Samuel (College Press NIV Commentary), 228)

Shawn Easton connects:

We see in I Samuel 17:40 David taking the staff that he used to fend off wild beasts while tending to the sheep. He also took five smooth stones out of the brook and put them in a shepherd’s bag. There we see a reference to David’s experience as a shepherd. We see David taking something out of his victorious past (the shepherd bag and staff) and combining it with something from the present (five smooth stones) to deal with the future (the Philistine Goliath. (Easton, Divine Connections: The Key to Unlocking the Purpose in the Kingdom, 89-90)

While there is a rationale to David selecting stones, there is question as to why the Bible specifically references the number five (I Samuel 17:40). Keith Bodner (b. 1967) asks:

Does the reader have any clues as to why David chose five stones? Did he lack confidence in his swinging ability? Or is the head of Goliath a rather big target that may require more than one rock to penetrate? (Bodner, National Insecurity: A Primer on the First Book of Samuel, 130)

There are many metaphorical interpretations associated with the number five. Five appears in Biblical expressions relating to being hopelessly outnumbered (Leviticus 26:8; I Corinthians 14:19). Biblical numerologists cite five as the number of the Bible and suggest that David’s selection represents his using the very word of God to defeat Goliath. In charismatic circles it has been said that five represents the “five fold ministry” of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher.

Likely the most famous allegorical use comes from Augustine (354-430). Ferdinand Lot (1866-1952) chronicles:

Saint Augustine [354-430] himself, while protesting against the dangerous neglect into which the literal significance of the Holy Scriptures had fallen, is thoroughly imbued with the method. For example, here is the analysis of his sermon on David and Goliath, preached at Hippo:—“David pre-figures Christ, and Goliath the Devil. David takes five stones from the brook and puts them in the vessel used for milking his sheep; then, armed, he marches against the enemy. The five stones are an image of the five books of the law of Moses. The Law, in its turn, contains ten precepts; that is why David fights with five stones and sings to an instrument with ten strings. Observe that he does not sling five stones but only one, which is the Unity that fulfils the Law, namely Charity. (Lot, The End of the Ancient World, 375-76)

Edward A. Gosselin (b. 1943) interprets:

Augustine [354-430]’s abandonment of the Old Testament event for the New Testament reading may be seen in the following, rather typical example. In explicating, Psalm 43, Augustine points out that the historical event which prompted the psalm’s composition was the battle between David and Goliath. Quickly shedding the Old Testament ambience, Augustine explains that David is really Christ, Goliath Satan; that the five stones with which David armed himself were the Pentateuch, while the one stone which David hurled at Goliath was the New Testament. Thus, says Augustine, the Law of Moses was made efficacious by the grace of the New Testament, which killed Satan and sin. (Raymond-Jean Frontain [b. 1951] and Jan Wojcik [b. 1944], “Two Views of the Evangelical David: Lefèvre d’Etaples [1455-1536] and Theodore Beza [1519-1605]”, The David Myth in Western Literature, 57)

Some more recent homileticians have also tried to connect David and Jesus using the five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Fulton J. Sheen (1885-1979) preaches:

A new David arose to slay the Goliath of evil, not with five stones but with five wounds—hideous scars on hands, feet, and side; and the battle was fought not with armor glistening under a noonday sun, but with flesh torn away so the bones could be numbered. The Artist had put the last touch in his masterpiece, and with the joy of the strong He uttered the song of triumph that His work was completed. (Sheen, Life of Christ, 559)

Pseudo-Philo adapts the number of stones to better fit a less literal reading. Frederick J. Murphy (1949-2011) notes:

In I Samuel 17:40, David chooses five smooth stones for his sling. They become seven in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 61:5 and on them David writes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, himself, and God. This symbolic act underlines Israel’s very identity. Israel’s relationship with its God is its very core. (Murphy, Pseudo-Philo : Rewriting the Bible: Rewriting the Bible, 210-11)

Other interpreters have attempted to link the number five to Goliath himself. The five stones may in some way correlate to Goliath making five boasts in his mocking challenge to the Israelites (I Samuel 17:8, 9, 10, 43, 44). If there is a connection here, it is an editorial insertion after the battle as only three of Goliath’s insults occur before David selects the rocks (I Samuel 17:8, 9, 10).

More commonly, David’s selection of the five smooth stones is presented as the shepherd preparing for retribution from Goliath’s four relatives. This is based upon II Samuel 21:15-22 and a parallel passage in I Chronicles 20:5. Though the Bible does not specifically state that Goliath had four brothers, he had at least one (II Samuel 21:19).

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) typifies:

Some people believe that David chose five smooth stones so that if he missed his first shot, he could use one or all of the others. David did not intend to miss, friend. Then why did he select five stones? The answer is found in II Samuel 21:22: “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.” Goliath had four sons, and David was sure they would come out when he killed their father. This is why David picked five stones. That was the number he needed. (McGee, First and Second Samuel (Thru the Bible), 98)

This conjecture does not fit the context because even if Goliath did have four brothers, it is doubtful that David would have been aware of this fact. David is portrayed as being shocked by Goliath’s challenge and is seen asking questions about the situation (I Samuel 17:26, 29).

Phil Farver (b. 1956) situates:

Why five smooth stones [I Samuel 17:40]? Why not one? Why not ten?...I have heard preachers explain that since Goliath had four brothers, David took with him the number of stones he would need: one each for Goliath and his brothers. I researched the story and I don’t believe that David knew that Goliath had four brothers. According to what is written David came into the camp without any prior knowledge of what was happening at the time, other than the fact that Israel was involved in a military battle with the Philistines. In fact, it seems he was taken by surprise by what he observed when he entered the camp [I Samuel 17:26, 29]. (Farver, Five Smooth Stones: Proven Steps for Positive Success, 27)

That the four remaining stones are not connected to Goliath’s family is supported by the fact that David does not slay any other giants. Further, he is facing a huge obstacle and for optimum results, his sole focus should be on Goliath, the giant at hand.

A more likely yet no more substantiated supposition is that David planned complete obliteration of the enemy. The Philistines controlled five cities each led by a lord (Joshua 13:3; I Samuel 6:16, 17, 18). Goliath was the representative of Gath (I Samuel 17:4, 23), one of the five Philistine strongholds.

The simplest explanation to David’s rationale is that the shepherd is being pragmatic (I Samuel 17:40). He could not have carried many stones and the extras provide a contingency plan in the event he misses or one blow is not adequate to fell the giant. Likewise, carrying more than five would be pointless as had five shots been unequal to the task, he would likely have already been defeated. From this perspective, David is not placing all of his eggs in one basket. Proponents of this explanation laud David for being responsible and not limiting God to a single result.

The debate over the meaning of the five stones rages as it pertains to whether or not David exhibits complete trust in God. Many have viewed a pragmatic David as hedging his bets. A deficit in faith does not seem to fit the context as a lack of confidence is not part of this story (I Samuel 17:26, 32-37). In the parlance of today’s youth, David had to have some serious stones to undertake this mission in the first place.

Some have even seen the five smooth stones as evidence of doubt (I Samuel 17:40). Jentezen Franklin (b. 1962) assures:

Do you know why I think David picked up four more stones than he needed? I think it was afraid he might miss. It doesn’t take a lot of faith; it only takes faith the size of a mustard seed [Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6]— just a little faith. You don’t have to have great faith, just a little faith. (Craig Groeschel [b. 1967], “God is Able” What Is God Really Like?, 87)

David does not violate any command when selecting the five stones (I Samuel 17:40). He is not told that one shot will slay the giant and it is quite possible that one stone may not be enough.

Clark Strand (b. 1957) considers:

In the end, it isn’t a matter of how much or how little faith David has that God will help him defeat the giant. He still doesn’t know how many stones it will take. He still doesn’t know how much, or for how long, God expects him to fight...Once the conversation with God is underway, we will be told everything we need to know, as we need to know it. And if we need to know...That is what is so beautiful about the moment in the story when David stoops down at the brook to gather five stones for his scrip [I Samuel 17:40]. How long will he have to fight? He doesn’t know. How much of the outcome will be determined by his skill with the sling and how much by God? There is no way to separate the two...Even when the story is over and the giant lies dead at his feet, there is no clear line dividing David from the one he calls “the Living God” [I Samuel 17:26, 36]. (Strand, How to Believe in God: Whether You Believe in Religion or Not, 89-90)

Instead of doubt, perhaps David exhibits humility and prudence.

The same God who guides David against Goliath provides not one but five suitable rocks in the brook (I Samuel 17:40). As is often the case, God presents more than is necessary (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Wess Stafford (b. 1949) reflects:

The bit about David choosing five smooth stones from the stream (I Samuel 17:40) made perfect sense to my little band of marksmen. No, not because of the elaborate conjecture I’ve since heard from Bible expositors about Goliath having four fierce relatives to be killed, and so this was some great symbolism for the future. When you live and die by the slings as we did, you’re always walking around with one eye on the ground looking for the next perfect stone. Round rocks are hard to come by and can make all the difference in the world. If one has a little bump on a side, the rock can veer off in flight. Flat rocks? Forget about it? You’re not going to hit anything...I’m pretty sure David picked up five smooth stones simply because they were right in front of him. All us boys knew he should need only one to take care of Goliath, but why pass up the other four? (Stafford, Too Small to Ignore: Why the Least of These Matters Most, 29)

Perhaps David picks up the rocks simply because they are there. He could always use the other four later; they can be saved for a rainy day.

None of these theories regarding David’s five smooth stones is wholly satisfying (I Samuel 17:40). What is clear is that regardless of how many stones David takes into battle, he appears overmatched in this contest. David’s strategy is clearly offensive minded, which offends Goliath (I Samuel 17:43). In bringing no protective gear, the shepherd is quite literally defenseless. In choosing not to play by Goliath’s rules, David becomes the proverbial man taking a knife to a gun fight.

Walter Brueggeman (b. 1933) comments:

David proposes a radical alternative, only five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). David must have appeared to Saul (and to all the others) to be unarmed and defenseless. David’s alternative must have seemed to be no viable alternative at all. The narrator, however, permits no protest or reservation against David by Saul. David’s refusal of Saul’s armor is let stand as the last word [I Samuel 17:39]. David’s confidence is in the “living God,” who has delivered and who will deliver [I Samuel 17:26, 36]. Such faith is David’s alternative to conventional modes of self-defense. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 131)

Five proves to be an excess of four as David needs only one smooth stone to fell the Philistine giant (I Samuel 17:49). After the fact, five stones may seem like overkill or an abundance (I Samuel 17:40). But going into battle David’s arsenal likely seem quite insufficient. The difference in perspective pertains to hindsight. It often does.

Why does David procure precisely five stones in preparation to face Goliath (I Samuel 17:40)? Is there any reason why David would not take all of the adequate ammunition which presented itself? Does having enough ammo to take multiple shots represent a lack of faith or prudence? Does David’s taking more than one stone into battle in any way diminish his triumph; is it indicative of doubt? Do the four unused stones provide any benefits? Why does the Bible include David’s selection of exactly five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40); what, if anything, does this detail add to the story? Were you David, would you have picked up the “extra” stones? When have you presumed you had too little only to find later that you actually had a surplus?

There are many contrasts to be made between David’s armor and that of the other two primary figures in the story, Goliath and Saul (I Samuel 17:5-7, 38-39). Notably, David respectfully declines his king’s offer of armor (I Samuel 17:39). Many have noted the shepherd’s wisdom in not donning his king’s bulky gear.

Jerry Sutton (b. 1951) approves:

David could not, did not, and would not use Saul’s armor and weapons [I Samuel 17:39]. His assessment, was, “These are untested.” So what did he do? He went to war with the familiar: a sling, a pouch with five smooth stones, and perhaps a staff [I Samuel 17:40]. He played to his strengths, trusting for God’s intervention, and walked away a hero. (Sutton, A Primer on Biblical Preaching, 14)

This observation is ancient. John Cassian (360-435) apprises:

We sometimes see a bad example drawn from good things. For if someone presumes to do the same things but not with the same disposition and orientation or with unlike virtue, he easily falls into the snares of deception and death on account of those very things form which others acquire the fruits of eternal life. That brave boy who was set against the most warlike giant in a contest of arms would certainly have experienced this if he had put on Saul’s manly and heavy armor, with which a person of more robust age would have laid low whole troops of the enemy. This would undoubtedly have imperiled the boy, except that with wise discretion he chose the kind of weapon that was appropriate for his youth and armed himself against the dreadful foe not with the breastplate and shield that he saw others outfitted with but with the projectiles that he himself was able to fight with [I Samuel 17:40]. Conference 24.8.1-2. (John R. Franke [b. 1961], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 272)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) applies:

The offer of bronze helmet and coat of mail was well intentioned [I Samuel 17:38]. But to accept it would have been disastrous. David needed what was authentic to him. Even as I do. For even though the weaponry urged upon me by my culture in the form of science and knowledge is formidable I cannot work effectively with what is imposed from the outside. Metallic forms hung on my frame will give me, perhaps, an imposing an aspect but will not help me do my proper work. (Peterson, Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work, 240)

Kenneth L. Chafin (1926-2001) concurs:

Saul’s effort to help David has been copied by many since then [[I Samuel 17:38]. Nothing comes more naturally to people than trying yo get someone to fight our battles the way we would were we fighting them. Through the centuries that Christians have been reading this story they have been moved by the wisdom of David for not trying to do battle with someone else’s armor. People need to have confidence in their own gifts, experiences, and abilities if they are to face the giants in their lives. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament, 145)

John R. Bisagno (b. 1934) concludes:

David was faithful to hone those skills that came naturally to him. Our Lord only expects the employment of the natural gifts He has placed within our hands. God’s question is always, “What are you going to do with what you’ve got?” Whether it is a staff, a lunch, an empty net or a sling, God doesn’t ask for very much at all. He just asks for all of you. Five smooth stones will do just fine. (Bisagno, Principle Preaching: How to Create and Deliver Purpose Driven Sermons for Life Application, 88)

David is also outfitted entirely differently from his opponent, Goliath. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) contrasts:

The pieces of armed protection provided by Saul correspond strikingly to the elements of Goliath’s armor (I Samuel 17:5-7). They are not said to be heavy, but David is unable to walk, and what else could a bronze helmet be but heavy? Nor are David’s own weapons of choice called “light.” But the name of everything he does select (I Samuel 17:40) plays on and hints at qal, the Hebrew adjective for “light” and “fast”: most obviously his “stick” (mql) and “sling” (ql’), but also (with the key consonants reversed) the “smooth” [stones] (hlqy) and his “pouch” (ylqwt)—with this young champion in the making, words and reality are in perfect fit. (Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 211)

David does not just reject the king’s armor he rejects armor in general (I Samuel 17:38-40). This further underscores the disparity between David and Goliath. Robert B. Bergen (b. 1954) juxtaposes:

The weapons David gathered for use against Goliath—the stick and the stones [I Samuel 17:40]—were not products of human artifice; rather, they were shaped by God. As such the author may have included these details as a counterpoint to I Samuel 13:19-22; the Philistines feared and relied on weapons pulled from human forges, but David would conquer them with divinely manufactured weapons. Armed with these provisions, David “approached the Philistine” [I Samuel 17:40]. (Bergen, 1,2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 194-95)

David Jobling (b. 1941) bolsters:

Goliath, decked out for battle in a massive weight of “bronze” and “iron” (I Samuel 17:5-7) contrasts starkly with David, who refuses any armor at all (I Samuel 17:38-39) and fights with stones, natural objects (I Samuel 17:40). Goliath’s grotesquely metallic appearance may be lined with the Philistine monopoly on iron (I Samuel 13:19-22)—he is a fantasized version of Philistine technological superiority. (Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 220)

Walter Brueggeman (b. 1933) critiques:

Saul does not understand anything. He has uttered Yahweh’s name. But he wants to outdo Goliath on Goliath’s term in I Samuel 17:38-39. so he offers armor, helmet, coat of mail, sword—David “tried in vain to go” with such encumbrance. David’s contrast is with both Saul and Goliath. Unlike them, he goes unencumbered (“I am not used to them” [I Samuel 17:39]). Both of them—the one a braggart, the other a coward—trust in arms. But David does not trust in arms because of who he is and who his people are: people who have learned that the others always have a monopoly on arms. The tribe must fight in another way. David takes five smooth stones and his sling. They are enough [I Samuel 17:40]. (Brueggemann, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory, 25)

The most puzzling piece of the story remains why the Bible sees fit to include the detail about David’s five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Preachers have often used David’s arsenal as sermon fodder.

For instance, in his best selling book, Facing Your Giants, Max Lucado (b. 1955) writes:

David took five stones [I Samuel 17:40]. He made five decisions. Do likewise. Past. Prayer. Priority. Passion. And persistence...Next time Goliath wakes you up, reach for a stone. Odds are, he’ll be out of the room before you can load your sling. (Lucado, Facing Your Giants: A David and Goliath Story for Everyday People, 159)

Though this sermonic technique can be effective, it can often defeat the purpose of the story. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) evaluates:

The story of David’s victory over Goliath has launched many five-point sermons, one point for each of the smooth stones that David took from the brook and put into his pouch [I Samuel 17:40]. Usually these sermons list principles or behaviors by which even the skinniest Christian can take down the brawniest spiritual enemy...David’s victory, however, was anything but the triumph of an “everyman.” David was not just anyone in Israel, but the one man whom God had especially anointed to lead and deliver his people, for which God had equipped him with the Holy Spirit (see I Samuel 16:3). (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 304)

Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) advises:

Asking what the original author intended the original readers to understand will help the interpreter avoid fanciful allegories that improperly interpret the text. For instance, an interpreter who doesn’t follow this procedure might find all sorts of fanciful interpretations of the “five smooth stones” that David took to fight Goliath (I Samuel 17:40). A modern charismatic interpreter, given to allegorizing, might say that these five smooth stones are the fivefold manifestations of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4:11. “But no,” a Calvinistic interpreter might answer. He would say that it’s obvious that the “five smooth stones’ represent the famous “five points of Calvinism.” Then a third allegorical interpreter, an ethics professor, might say that they were both wrong because David is going forth to war against Goliath, and therefore the “five smooth stones” obviously represent the five sides of the Pentagon building in Washington, DC, and they therefore give support to the “just war” theory!...Unless we first anchor our interpretation in what the original author wanted the original readers to understand, there will be no limit to the variety of such incorrect interpretations that have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the text. (Leland Ryken [b.1942] and Todd Wilson [b. 1976], “Right and Wrong Interpretation of the Bible: Some Suggestions for Pastors and Bible Teachers”, Preach the Word: Essays on Expository Preaching: In Honor of R. Kent Hughes [b. 1942], 67)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Kim E. Walton (b. 1954) refocus:

David is not the hero—God is. To paint David as the hero runs exactly opposite to David’s own perspective and what the narrator wanted to emphasize. Furthermore, just because God brought down David’s enemies does not mean that he will give us victory over all our enemies. We cannot extrapolate the work of God to everyone’s situation at any given time. Resist using the “lesson by metaphor.” We should not be asking, “What giant in your life does God need to overcome?” or “What are the five stones that you have in your bag?” These do not get to the authority of the teaching of the text, clever as they may be. (Walton and Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible, 165)

The most important contrast in the story is not between David and Goliath or even David and Saul; instead it is the apposition of David’s giant God and the giant Philistine.

Technically, though David credits God for his success (I Samuel 17:37, 45-47), the narrator never explicitly does so. Peter D. Miscall (b. 1943) acknowledges:

We cannot automatically assume that success or failure indicates that good or evil, in whatever sense, has preceded. For example, David’s killing of Goliath [I Samuel 17:1-58] can be explained in a variety of ways, including an element of chance, i.e. David gambles and wins. Throughout the remainder of I Samuel, David will generally succeed, but we can only ask, and then again, why? Is his success due to the Lord’s intervention, and, if so, does this have anything to do with David’s character or behavior? Or is it due to his own ability and sagacity, to Saul’s incompetence, to the help of others, or to just plain luck? The same applies to Saul’s failure. (Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, 123)

There can be little doubt that the Bible assumes God’s agency in David’s victory. Gnana Robinson (b. 1935) supplants:

He [David] merely takes his shepherd’s weapons — a staff, a sling, and “five smooth stones” (I Samuel 17:40). The emphasis here is that it is not so much David who is going to fight, but the LORD (I Samuel 17:37; cf. I Samuel 17:45-47). (Robinson, 1 & 2 Samuel: Let Us be Like the Nations (International Theological Commentary), 101)

Frank Johnson (b. 1943) presumes:

Clearly David’s inexperience and inadequate equipment mandate divine assistance. But David is convinced that God will deliver him and aid him, just as before [I Samuel 17:37, 45-47]. He is not afraid. (Johnson, First and Second Samuel (Basic Bible Commentary), 64)

Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) expounds:

Divested of Saul’s armor [I Samuel 17:38-39], David turned to face the Philistine giant: “Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd’s pouch. His sling was in his hand, and he approached the Philistine” (I Samuel 17:40). But it was not with these only that David went forth to fight Goliath: “He went to the conflict with a blazing concern for the honour of God, with confidence in the certainty of his promises and with the power of the Spirit of God.” David advanced against the Philistine not in the armor and identity of “a king...like all the nations,” which Saul was (I Samuel 8:5), relying on nothing really different from the armor and weaponry of evil Goliath, but as a shepherd-servant of the Lord, defending God’s honor and protecting God’s people in the power of the Lord himself. In this way, whether he realized it or not, David identified with God’s great champions of prior years, shepherd-leaders such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, men of spiritual valor who lived and fought by faith in the promises of God. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 299)

Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) contends:

What a hero! No, David slays Goliath “that all the earth may now that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s (I Samuel 17:46-47). It is God who wins the victory...God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong (I Corinthians 1:27). It is always thus in God’s working in this world. (Achtemeier, Preaching and Reading the Old Testament Lessons: With an Eye to the New, Cycle B, 156)

David takes only five smooth stones and faith to face a giant (I Samuel 17:40). Yet they are enough. Equipment and armament do not decide the battle. Nor do David’s skill and courage. It is God who assures the shepherd’s victory. David’s triumph over Goliath echoes throughout history as a reminder that God is indeed sufficient.

What do you take into battle with you? On which are you more reliant, God or technology? Do you credit God with your successes? If so, how? Do the “extra” stones in any way detract from God’s miracle? Do you, like David, have confidence in God’s sufficiency?

“The greatest need of our age and of every age, the greatest need of every human heart, is to know the resources and sufficiency of God.” - A.B. Simpson (1843-1919), But God, Preface