Members heartstrings Posted January 20, 2014 Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 Does anyone know. right off hand, if Goliath had 4 brothers? I heard it in a sermon the other day. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted January 20, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 20, 2014 Does anyone know. right off hand, if Goliath had 4 brothers? I heard it in a sermon the other day. Thanks In 2 Samuel 21, we are told that Goliath had at least one brother (verse 19). However, the entire chapter seems to indicate that it is about the 4 brothers.  In verse 16, Ishbi-benob is "of the sons of the giant" (plural sons, singular giant). Verse 16 says Saph was "of the sons of the giant." Verse 19 specifically states that Lahmi was Goliath's brother.  And then verse 20 says that another man was killed, who "was also born to the giant" (1 Chron 20:6 reiterates that).  That chapter does give the appearance of detailing what happened to Goliath's brothers. I don't know if it's something that can be said absolutely, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted January 20, 2014 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Well, he said that's why David chose the 5 smooth stones. I had always heard that the five stones represented "grace", which may be so as well, but I was really "wowed" when I heard about the brothers. I believe it was Tony Evans who said it. Â He said something else I thought was really awesome: He said that when Abimalech took Sarah and God stopped all childbirth in his house that this would have influenced Sarah;s faith to be able to bear Isaac, seeing that she had previously laughed at the prospect she would have witnessed the fact that God was able to enable childbirth or disable it. And we see that in Hebrews 11 that she did conceive "through faith".whereas she would not have conceived without it because without faith it is impossible to please God. Â Hebrews 11:11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Edited January 20, 2014 by heartstrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted January 20, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 20, 2014 I've heard the same thing about the 5 smooth stones. It is speculation on our parts to say that, but that chapter does seem to bear out the idea that he had 4 brothers - which would then make sense that he got 5 stones thinking of them - if he knew about them.  Hmm - I never heard that thought applied to Sarah. It would make sense that she would see that God controls the womb during that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted January 20, 2014 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 I've heard the same thing about the 5 smooth stones. It is speculation on our parts to say that, but that chapter does seem to bear out the idea that he had 4 brothers - which would then make sense that he got 5 stones thinking of them - if he knew about them.  Hmm - I never heard that thought applied to Sarah. It would make sense that she would see that God controls the womb during that time. Yes, it sure would. I had never heard it before either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 20, 2014 Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yes, it's all speculation. It's probable that the five stones is simply what fit well in his bag, what was available or what he was used to carrying. The idea some preachers have of it showing a lack of faith on David's part to take more than one stone simply isn't supported by Scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted January 20, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 20, 2014 I've never heard anyone present it as a lack of faith on David's part. Rather, I've heard them speculate that he was simply prepared should Goliath's 4 brothers show up.  That would be complete faith - that he could get all 5 with 5 stones. Bro K and heartstrings 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 20, 2014 Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yes, I've heard the "five stones for five brothers" sermons, but I've also heard some preachers add that if David had five stones for any other reason that was a lack of faith. Â They don't seem to consider that Scripture doesn't indicate that God promised David he would drop Goliath with one stone, or that God made any specific promises regarding the battle. We know that David went into the battle expecting to win with God's help, but not knowing the form that help would take. Â Goliath also had an armour bearer and the whole Philistine army behind him. There were many threats, other than Goliath's brothers, which how would David know they were present or not any more than Goliath would know David had brothers present? Â Some preachers try to reach too far in trying to liven up their sermons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted January 20, 2014 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 As a firm adherent to the KJB and the perfection and purity of God's word, I believe God had a powerful and amazing message for us not only in telling us how many stones there were, but also in the fact that they were "smooth", that they came from a "brook" and every other minute detail of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted January 20, 2014 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Someone posted the message, I'm referring to, here..... The "5 stones" referrence begins at about the 34 minute mark..... Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RedOGFZaIIA Edited January 20, 2014 by heartstrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 20, 2014 Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yes, the details are important, and I love and am built up that our God takes note of details. Â In this case it's more likely the simplest idea is closest to accurate rather than speculations about other matters. Â Going into battle David, as would any sound thinking man, is going to grab what's familiar and what's best at hand. This is why David forsook Saul's battle gear. Smooth stones fly more accurately so they would be a far better choice than other stones. Five may be all that was available, what his stone pouch held best or what he was most used to carrying. Â There is no indication in the text that David knew of or was concerned about Goliath's brothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted January 20, 2014 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 huh uh....... I believe that if the number weren't important, it would have just said a "handful" of stones or something. HappyChristian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted January 20, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 20, 2014 I think so, too.  And in light of 2 Samuel 21, which seems to indicate Goliath had 4 brothers, I think David was just being prepared. Honestly, I think that's the simplest solution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 20, 2014 Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 Sounds like a VERY far reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted January 20, 2014 Members Share Posted January 20, 2014 Many don't realize it, but the stone that David hit Goliath with did not kill Goliath. It only disabled him. It was Goliath's own sword that killed the giant. 1 Samuel 17:49-51 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. David cannot have killed the giant twice. It stands to reason that if the giant was dead from the stone, that it would be impossible to kill him again with the sword. Yet the Bible says he slew the giant with the sword. heartstrings and HappyChristian 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.