Commentaria in I Regum (I Samuelis)
The same Augustine, homily 31 among the Fifty, at the end: “Goliath,” he says, “proud of his strength, lifted up, puffed up, first placed the whole victory of the entire party of his side in himself alone. And because all pride has the impudence of the forehead, in the very forehead he was cast down by the coming stone. The forehead which had the impudence of its pride was emptied: and the forehead conquered which had the humility of the cross of Christ. Therefore we also bear the sign itself of the cross on the forehead, because we understand it.” So St. Augustine in that homily, the title of which is: On the Single Combat of David and Goliath.
Tropologically the duel of David with Goliath represents the struggle of the spirit with the flesh, which namely casts down its flesh with the stone of austerity, and with the sword of mortification cuts off its head, that it may not rule but be subject. Whence St. Chrysostom calls Goliath “a tower of flesh.” Again, he subdues the forehead to himself, because in the forehead the disposition and passions of the mind, and especially pride, impudence and ferocity, are seen. Whence Aristotle, book 1 On the History of Animals, chap. 8: “Those,” he says, “who have a large forehead are sluggish, those who have a small one, active; those with a broad one, fit to be moved by the mind; those with a round one, irascible.” Almost the same word for word has Pliny, book 11, chap. 51, who also in chap. 37 adds: “The forehead in other animals also, but in man alone, is the index of sadness, cheerfulness, clemency, severity.” Finally the strong spirit subdues to himself the brain lying hid under the forehead, which is the workshop of all evil thought and concupiscence.
51. AND TOOK HIS SWORD, etc.; AND CUT OFF HIS HEAD.—David therefore slew Goliath with his own sword. His victory was the more glorious; for although Goliath, struck by the stone, fell to the ground, yet he did not lie dead at once, but only then when David cut off his head. Moreover Philo, or rather Pseudo-Philo in the Biblical Antiquities, narrates, or rather feigns, that Goliath, when he saw David drawing his own sword against him, said: “Make haste, and kill me, and exult. And David said to him: Before thou diest open thine eyes, and see thy slayer who has slain thee; and the Philistine looking round saw an angel, and said: Not alone hast thou slain me, but he who was present with thee, whose appearance is not as the appearance of a man. And then David took off his head from him.”
Allegorically St. Augustine, sermon 197 On the Season: “That David,” he says, “having no sword, went up upon Goliath and slew him with his own sword, signifies that at the coming of Christ the devil was conquered by his own sword, who through his wickedness and the unjust persecution which he exercised against Christ lost the dominion over all who believe in Him.”
Finally the unction of Samuel was here working; for by this duel and victory David paved his way to the kingdom, to which he had been destined by God, and anointed by Samuel. Whence Salian and others think this duel happened shortly after the anointing, namely that David was anointed in the twentieth year of his age, which was the eighth of Saul’s reign, but entered this duel in the twenty-second year of his age, which was the tenth of Saul.
54. AND DAVID TAKING THE HEAD OF THE PHILISTINE, BROUGHT IT TO JERUSALEM.—First he carried it into the camp; then he carried it round through the cities, and at last bore it to Jerusalem as the head of the kingdom of Israel. Wherefore rightly St. Chrysostom, in the homily On David, when he had conquered Goliath, congratulating him, sang this song of victory: “With what praises, and with what glories shall I extol thee, holy and religious boy, who equal in innocence, strong in virtue, hast by merit outstripped the old; who, when all desisted, wert able to conquer the huge beast, lay the enemy low, cut off the enemy of the people? For thou, the king failing, didst show thyself king both in dignity and in merit. Among those desisting thou didst leap bravely into the battle. Thou, while the people feared and Goliath devised cruelty, in bearing thyself most bravely gavest the people of God the victory over the enemy.”
BUT HIS ARMOUR HE PUT IN HIS TENT,—but in the house of his father Jesse, which was in Bethlehem, and after being made king after Saul, he transferred it to his palace. Except the sword of Goliath; for this David consecrated to God and laid up in His tabernacle, to be a perpetual monument of this victory received from God; for thence David, fleeing Saul, received this sword from the High Priest in the city of Nobe, as we shall hear, chap. 21, verse 8. Basil of Seleucia, oration 45: “The cut-off head,” he says, “with the sword that cut it, he offers, given to the Parent of victory, and offers to God him who had conquered, and ascribes the victory to Him. O thou who hast made plain that faith needs no arms for battle! O thou who hast shown in thyself the power of faith!”
Moreover of this sword David says, Psalm 143, 10: “Deliver me from the malicious sword.” For this psalm is inscribed by the Septuagint: A psalm against Goliath; whence the Chaldee also renders, Deliver me from the sword of Goliath. Wherefore David seems to have composed this psalm before the duel, and to have implored in it the help of God: whence presently encouraged by God he entered the duel, conquered, triumphed. Or rather he sang this psalm to God, the victory won, as a song of victory. For thus it begins: “Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war.” A like song of victory for David Ecclesiasticus sang, chap. 47, verse 6 and following, where he also assigns the cause of the victory, saying: “For he called upon the Lord the almighty.”
55. OF WHAT FAMILY IS THIS YOUTH?—Saul seems not to have recognised David, who a little before had been familiar with him, nay his armourbearer and harper. Whence this? First, Pseudo-Philo, a little before cited, answers: “The Angel raised David’s face, and no one recognised him. And Saul, seeing David, asked him who he was? and there was no one who knew him.” But this is fabulous.
Secondly, Cajetan and Torniellus answer in the second place.
and became manly, that he was recognised neither by Saul nor by Abner. But the series of the history here indicates the contrary, in which this duel is joined immediately to the harping: whence Salian asserts that between the two only eighteen months intervened.
Thirdly, Theodoret, and from him Procopius, answer that Saul did not recognise David, either because, in fury, he did not notice him playing the harp, or because, goaded by envy, he did not wish to know carefully and accurately whose son and who he was. But Saul had not yet heard the voices of the people: “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands,” which was the origin of the envy, and, cured by David’s harping, the furies ceasing, he could not but recognise and love him, as was said in the preceding chapter.
Fourthly, the Master of the Scholastic History answers that Saul, on account of the agitation of the evil spirit, had become of failing memory, and therefore had forgotten David. Lyranus seems to mean the same. But although this is not improbable, it does not wholly satisfy.
I say, therefore, that there were various causes of this ignorance in Saul: the first, that David, now growing up, was clothed with a beard, which he had not had before, says St. Augustine, and so in countenance was now more manly than youthful; for young men, when they approach manly age, are wont to be greatly changed in countenance in a few months. The second, that David was now clothed in a shepherd’s dress; for he came from the sheep, whereas in Saul’s court he had worn courtly dress. The third, that kings have so many courtiers and servants, and so many affairs of the kingdom, that they forget many persons. Abner also, prefect of the soldiery, was often absent from court and was in the camps; whence he could hardly see and know David.
Lyranus, Dionysius and Vatablus add that Saul here does not ask who David is, but of what stock and what father he is sprung, that he may know whether he is worthy to be given his daughter as wife, as the reward promised by him to the slayer of Goliath, verse 25; and that therefore David answers that he is the son of Isai the Bethlehemite, that is, that he is of the tribe of Juda, which was the royal one; for to Juda Jacob had promised the kingdom, as to Levi the priesthood, Genesis 49. But Saul already knew that David was the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite; for he had asked that he be sent to him by him, chap. 16, 22.