The David and Goliath Story as Retold by Malcolm Gladwell

One possible moral from the narrative

If you have never read the story of David and Goliath you can find it in 1 Samuel 17 (The Bible or Tanak) - Click here to read it.  Please feel free to comment below and increase our wealth of understanding by adding your revelations and ideas by utilizing the comments at the bottom of this post.

One of the things I love about the Bible is being able to learn new things from someone else view of the same stories.  This is the hallmark of great 'spiritual' book; the stories keep being re-interpreted and each generation gets some new and relevant moral from it.  Malcolm Gladwell is one of the best at framing the moral principals of a story.  I think, through his research and excellent story telling, he makes an excellent contribution to the David and Goliath narrative.  Have a listen for yourself it isn't very long (15 minutes):

Malcolm Gladwell quickly expounds his take on the story of David and Goliath in this 'Ted Talk'.  In the talk Gladwell leads the listener to infer the message that an obvious advantage can be a disadvantage (and vice versa).  David does not play the giant at his own game. David changes the rules of combat.  In order for underdogs to win they need to change the rules of the game.  Gladwell more clearly articulates these ideas in his book on the same topic; David & Goliath - Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants (Gladwell, 2013). 

The message that really struck home for me was that David had confidence to beat Goliath because he knew his own abilities.  It was not a 'miracle' to David, it was hours of practice out in the field slinging stones at trees and rocks while he watched his fathers sheep.  David knew he could do it.  His experience in the field also built his trust in God.  The bear and the lion (now extinct to Israel) fell to David, at least one of them by his own hand, (1 Sam 17:34-36).  He trusted God for victory when no one was there to see.  A bear and lion seem equally as fearful to combat as a giant.  The moral that I derive from the story is what we do in private will become the basis of our faith (not blind faith) in the battle where everyone is watching.  So, there are many good morals you can draw out to the story.  I would love to hear some of your gems (comments option is below).

While I have no problem with Gladwell's rendition and I especially love the secular business moral value he adds to the narrative (Gladwell writes from the perspective of secular business leadership not spiritual leadership).  I would like, just for comparison, to compare some of the facts Gladwell presents compared to what I read in the Biblical narrative.  It's just me,  I need to know if the facts stack up.  This is just for interest, I do not believe they need to alter the great insight Gladwell brings to the narrative.

OK, here goes...

Gladwell says that Goliath is 6ft 9in but the Bible says that Goliath is "6 cubits and a span" (1 Sam 17:4).  I used Google to work out how big that might be.  According to Google 6 cubits = 2.74m (9ft) and a span is 0.23m (9in).  According to the Bible, Goliath is 9ft 9in or 2.96m.  So, Goliath is much taller than Gladwell's 6ft 9in.  Goliath is bigger than Robert Pershing Wadlow, who is the tallest man in 'medical history', at 8ft 11in (2.4m).  Andre the Giant is 7ft 4in (2.2m).  So, Goliath is not merely an over-sized basketball player.  He stands one foot taller than the Robert Wadlow and two feet taller than Andre the Giant.  In other words, Goliath towers over them!  Not only that, Goliath knows how to swing a sword.

Andre the Giant. I think the outfit is terrifying!

Gladwell mentions that it is possible that due to the disorder of acromegaly that Goliath has grown so tall and that a common issue associated with this disease is double vision and near sightedness.  Acromegaly is often mistaken with gigantism.  Acromegaly, in fact, usually only involves abnormal enlargement of the hands, feet, forehead, jaw and nose.  Acromegaly sufferers also often develop thicker skin and deep voices.  Of course it is possible that a 6ft 9in man also suffers acromegaly.  So, Gladwell's thinking might be right.  However, if the Bible is correct and Goliath is over 9ft then it is more likely to be gigantism that is the cause of his mammoth size.

Gladwell offers as evidence of acromegaly Goliaths apparent blindness.  He quotes Goliath saying that David is carrying "sticks" instead of the one stick that David held - his shepherds staff.  The very next sentence carries a similar grammatical issue.  Goliath adds a plural to David's staff by calling a stick - sticks but he goes on to insult Davids 'gods'.  David, as Jew, did not believe in plural gods but in one God.  This suggests that Goliath was not trying to accurately describe what he saw but he was taunting David by belittling the God of the Jews.  I suspect that stick pluralization is irrelevant. If you read the story like I do, David and Goliath are still some distance from each other.  Goliath seems to be seeing what is going on just fine.  It is a distance that that is covered over a fairly extensive dialogue with each other (notice verses 41, 43 and 48 - they seem to be moving as the talk).

The attendant that leads Gladwell's 'blind big person'  to battle is not called an attendant in my Bible.  He is called a shield bearer.  A shield bearer leading out a GIANT.  I wonder if your Bible reads the same.  The Hebrew says /tsinnah/ which in this context can only mean shield.  So, not a guide for a blind, more like a Knights page or squire, someone who was most likely a young member of the Philistine army.

Can anyone find in the Biblical narrative that Goliath moves slowly?  I cannot.  I imagine he is not super fast with all that armor on. According to the Bible the armor weighs over 140 pounds (60kg).  As I mentioned above, I think they began communicating over a fairly large distance, at least one where shouting was necessary.  Gladwell accurately describes the valley situation (note verses 2-3), it is possible that the two opposing warriors voices traveled well in the valley.  But, that is just another conjecture, this time on my part.

Gladwell's rendition also replaces a bear with a wolf.  David says to King Saul that he has fought with lions and bears not lions and wolves (verse 34). I can only find reference to David killing a wolf in the Hymns and Homilies of Ephraim the Syrian (note 2nd paragraph on page 4) and I think that Ephraim is being overtly poetic.  As a shepherd David probably did kill wolves.  There are wolves in Israel but not in the 1 Samuel narrative.

David is not silent to Goliath's taunts.  He responds to Goliath's rant with war cry of his own.  After Goliath finishes his "Am I a dog" speech David responds with,

“You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.” (1 Sam 17:45-47).

It does not sound like David is timid. In fact, in the next verse (48) Goliath moves toward David and  David runs toward the battle line (note again that they are not even up to the battle line yet). Not the move of someone who has no confidence in their ability.  David seems to believe he cannot lose.

We do not know that the stone striking Goliath's forehead killed him.  He was wearing a helmet.  But we do know that Goliath's own sword cuts off his head by David's hand (verse 51).  One wonders where the shield bearer got to?

Ouch, and yuck!  Very messy!

OK, Gladwell uses some artistic licence with the story.  Does anyone know if he mentions using a source separate from the Biblical account of the story?  I suspect he has just done what any good preacher does (me included); he used artistic licence = preachers licence.  I personally, do not have any issue with Gladwell's rendition.  The message is good and consistent with the themes of the story but with a Gladwell twist.  The underdog needs to change the rules to the game to beat the giants.  Underdogs will NOT beat the giants at their own game.  We need to play to our strengths, not the giants strengths, to overcome the giants.  Good sound hermeneutic for modern leaders today.

Leave your comments and thoughts below.