# Why Did David Choose 5 Stones ?



## Saiph (Nov 21, 2005)

I have heard it said that he chose 5 because Goliath had four brothers. II Samuel 21:16-21. But I think that is difficult to prove.

I like to think he chose one stone for each book of the Pentateuch.

ANy other ideas ? ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 21, 2005)

In case he missed with the first 4


----------



## Dan.... (Nov 21, 2005)

> I like to think he chose one stone for each book of the Pentateuch.



 -That reminds me of the old Martin Luther movie. 


I don't remember the man's name, but he is the one who appears before the pope to buy the right to sell indulgences in a largely populated area, which includes the district directly across the river from where Luther is minister.

Anyway the pope said that he may buy the rights to sell the indulgences for 12 X (X is some large monetary sum that I don't remember the name for). 12 X, 1 X each for each of the 12 apostles.

The man replies that he is willing to offer 7 X; one X each for the 7 deadly sins.

The pope then replies that he will settle for 10 X, one X for each of the 10 commandments.

Anyway, your statement struck me as funny. Sorry if you were serious.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 21, 2005)

I'm with Patrick above. It always seemed to me that David was faithful, but prepared. What marksman, no matter how skilled, enters into battle with only one projectile?

Or maybe his slingshot was a snub-nosed five holer. 

Vic


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 21, 2005)

1. As Patrick said, in case he missed, or

2. That's all he could hold in his hand, or

3. One for each letter in TULIP. I mean, why not?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 21, 2005)

Any speculation we have will be speculation. However, if we deal with the "status quo" of Palestine, remember, brothers (family members) will avenge. Even God makes suitable arrangements for accidental death in citites of refuge. I think David was EXCEEDINGLY confident, that he would not only kill Goliath, but his whole family that could threaten him. Later, as we read in 1 Chronicles 20:5, "Again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." So Goliath's family was big, and threatening. But at the same time revenege was a common mitiff, you also had the favor of the "gods". David, this little tike, defeated thier master warrior with a rock. That spells "God" all over it, and no doubt dissuaded Goliath's family for a time to not act on revenge. Later, as they were stirred up again, they were ultimately defeated. 

The possibilities are certainly that David picked up what he needed just in case, or he had specific intentions to kill all of Goliath's household.

I'm OK with either one, but the wiping out of Goliath's houehold is just a "better" angle on the story by preference.

I don't think we can prove it either way.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 21, 2005)

1 Sam. 17


> 46 This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you and take your head from you. And this day I will give the carcasses of the camp of the Philistines to the birds of the air and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 47 Then all this assembly shall know that the LORD does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD´s, and He will give you into our hands."
> 48 So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. 49 Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth. 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it.



I always found it interesting that the text doesn't say the stone killed him. It only knocked him down. The death blow came when David cut his head off. 
That's not the version we heard in sunday school


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Nov 21, 2005)

My Pastor preached on this text last Lord's Day. He seemed to say the same thing as Rev. McMahon.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 21, 2005)

yep, Goliath was stoned and then beside himself.....he just could not help losing his head.

The stone served to incapacitate him, the sword to dispatch him from this earth.

I agree that a warrior would not enter a battle with one arrow! Perhaps the additional stones served to be at hand if any of the Philistines disregarded the deal struck before the duel.

Phillip


----------



## satz (Nov 22, 2005)

Maybe we are reading too much into it?

God never promised him he would kill goliath with one stone.

I hear goliath was a pretty sizeable character..maybe david just thought it would be prudent to consider the possiblity i might take a second stone to get the job done!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 22, 2005)

Well, David did predict exactly what he would do to Goliath. Note verse 46 quoted above in my last post. Whether that was his original plan of action, or a divinely revealed plan of attack, I don't know. But David seemed to know exactly what he was doing.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 1 Sam. 17
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, it looks like he killed Goliath twice!


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 22, 2005)

Hmmmm.... these stones must have been pretty heavy if they were to have enough power to travel a distance and still make a sizable impact. If that is the case, it would seem that 5 would be a perfect # to carry, being that any more would weigh you down too much and not give you the agility needed to avoid goliath's arrows or spears or whatever. And carrying too few would make you vulnerable to running out of ammo. Seems like a compromise of sorts, but at the same time of course being providentially ordered by God.


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 22, 2005)

I think it was to either ward of incoming angered Philistines, four of which might well have been his brothers.

Regarding the lethality of a sling. I learned to use one of these from my track coach when I was young. I never achieved the level of proficiency that Coach Sharp had, but I was pretty good. They are a devestating weapon. One day i saw him cut the tongue from an old sneaker and then use the two laces to make a sling. With a stone about the size of a shooter marble he killed a good sized hog. (It was slaughtering time.) The hog was stone cold dead when we went to it, about twenty yards away.


----------

