1 Chronicles 20

A crisis will bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. The representatives of the tribes were gathered at Gilgal to escort their king back to Jerusalem, and instead of rejoicing at the victory God had given His people, the tribes were fighting among themselves. The “men of Israel” were the ten northern tribes, and they were angry at the southern tribe of Judah, which had also absorbed the tribe of Simeon. Israel was angry because Judah had not waited for them to arrive on the scene to help take David home. Judah had “kidnapped” the king and had ignored and insulted the other ten tribes. Judah replied that David was from their tribe, so they had the greater responsibility to care for him. Israel argued that they had ten shares in David but Judah had only two, as though the king were some kind of security on the stock market. Apparently nobody urged the tribes to call on Jehovah for His help and to remember that Gilgal was the place where Israel had made a new beginning in Joshua’s day (Josh. 3–5).

The conflict between Judah and Israel had deep roots, just like the political conflicts that divide many nations today. When King Saul assembled his first army, it was divided between Israel and Judah (1 Sam. 11:8), and this division continued throughout his reign (15:4; 17:52; 18:16). After the death of Saul, the ten tribes of Israel followed Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth, while Judah followed David (2 Sam. 2:10–11). Judah, of course, was obeying the will of God, for the Lord had named David as the nation’s next king. This tribal rivalry existed even in David’s day (11:11; 12:8). “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation,” said Jesus, “and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25). When Rehoboam became king after the death of Solomon his father, the rift widened and the kingdom divided into Judah and Israel.

All it takes to light the fires of conflict is a speech from a would-be leader, and Sheba was that leader. Being a Benjamite, he favored the house of Saul, and he was probably an officer in the northern army. If the ten tribes seceded from the kingdom, perhaps he could become commander of their army. Sheba didn’t declare war; all he did was dismiss the army and the citizens who came from the northern tribes and tell them not to follow David any longer. But in essence it was a declaration of war, for Sheba marched through the northern tribes trying to gather a following (v. 14). It appears that not many people responded, and Sheba and his followers ended up in the walled city of Abel.

Joab again took command of David’s troops and followed Sheba to Abel, surrounded the city, and began to lay siege to it. For the third time in the “David story,” a woman changes the course of events. Abigail was the first (1 Sam. 25), and the woman of Tekoa was the second (2 Sam. 14). The wise woman called to Joab from the wall and assured him that her city was not in league with any rebels and therefore didn’t deserve to be attacked. Perhaps she was thinking about the law in Deuteronomy 20:10–16 requiring that a city first be given an offer of peace before it was attacked. When Joab explained that it was only Sheba he was after, she persuaded the citizens to kill the rebel leader and save the city. However, Sheba wasn’t a scapegoat; as a rebel against the king, he deserved to be slain. Sheba wanted to be head of the army, but instead, his head was thrown over the wall to the army.

The chapter closes with a second listing of David’s officers (8:15–18), and two new officers are added: Adoram (or Adoniram) was in charge of the forced labor, and Ira the Jairite served as David’s chaplain. The “forced labor” was done by prisoners of war, but Israelites were occasionally conscripted to assist with government building projects. During Solomon’s reign and after, the officer in charge of these labor projects didn’t have an easy time of it (1 Kings 4:6; 5:14; 12:18ff.; 2 Chron. 10:18–19).

Now we must back up a bit to discover how Joab regained the command of David’s army.

When David heard about Sheba’s call to rebellion, he immediately sent word to Amasa, his new commander (19:13), to gather the troops within three days and come to Jerusalem. An experienced strategist, David knew that insurrection had to be nipped in the bud or it would gain momentum among the dissatisfied people in the land, and this could lead to another war. Thousands of David’s subjects had been willing to follow Absalom, and it seemed that the ten northern tribes were ready to follow anybody.

But Amasa didn’t show up with the army within the three allotted days, and David gave the command of the army to Abishai. Amasa had been commander of Absalom’s army, so perhaps David was afraid he had turned traitor and joined up with Sheba. The most logical explanation for Amasa’s delay was that the men didn’t trust him and were unwilling to follow him and risk their lives. Taking Joab’s officers and David’s “mighty men” with him, Abishai quickly assembled the army of Judah and headed north to stop Sheba. Imagine their surprise when they met Amasa and his army at the great rock in Gibeon, about six miles northwest of Jerusalem. Amasa was on his way to report to David and get his orders.

Though he had no official position, Joab went along with his brother Abishai to help in any way that he could. The two men had fought together in the battle of the forest of Ephraim and defeated Absalom. Joab had no love for Amasa, who had betrayed David and led Absalom’s army (17:25). Furthermore, it was Amasa who took Joab’s place as commander of the troops, an appointment that must have humiliated Joab. (David made that change because it was Joab who killed Absalom.) Joab knew that he and his brother Abishai could deal successfully with Sheba’s revolt but that Amasa was too weak and inexperienced to lead a victorious army.

As when they murdered Abner (3:27–39), Joab and Abishai must have quickly plotted together when they saw Amasa approaching. Joab had killed Abner and Absalom, so his hands were already stained with blood. The trick with the sword gave Amasa the idea that this was just a casual meeting, but it was Joab’s crafty way of catching Amasa off guard. (See Judg. 3:20–23.) Once more, the sword was at work in David’s household, for Amasa was his cousin. There was no reason why Amasa should be killed. True, he had joined forces with Absalom, but David had declared a general amnesty that included Joab, who had killed Absalom. Joab could have easily taken the command away from Amasa, but the old campaigner was of such a disposition that he preferred to destroy those who stood in his way. He wanted none of Absalom’s leaders to live and create more problems for David.

Joab left Amasa lying in a pool of blood on the highway, a sight that brought the marching army to a halt. Here was their commander dead before the battle had even begun! Joab and Abishai took off after Sheba, but the army wasn’t following. It was what we call today “a gaper’s block.” One of Joab’s men was wise enough to move the corpse to the side of the highway and cover it up. Then he rallied Amasa’s troops to support Joab and David, and the soldiers responded. The politically correct thing to say would have been “David and Abishai,” because David had given the command to Abishai, but Joab had taken back his old position and wouldn’t let it go (v. 23). Once again, David had to give in to Joab’s power tactics.

We trust that somebody buried the body, for it was considered a serious thing in Israel for a body not to have proper burial.

When David heard about Sheba’s call to rebellion, he immediately sent word to Amasa, his new commander (19:13), to gather the troops within three days and come to Jerusalem. An experienced strategist, David knew that insurrection had to be nipped in the bud or it would gain momentum among the dissatisfied people in the land, and this could lead to another war. Thousands of David’s subjects had been willing to follow Absalom, and it seemed that the ten northern tribes were ready to follow anybody.

But Amasa didn’t show up with the army within the three allotted days, and David gave the command of the army to Abishai. Amasa had been commander of Absalom’s army, so perhaps David was afraid he had turned traitor and joined up with Sheba. The most logical explanation for Amasa’s delay was that the men didn’t trust him and were unwilling to follow him and risk their lives. Taking Joab’s officers and David’s “mighty men” with him, Abishai quickly assembled the army of Judah and headed north to stop Sheba. Imagine their surprise when they met Amasa and his army at the great rock in Gibeon, about six miles northwest of Jerusalem. Amasa was on his way to report to David and get his orders.

Though he had no official position, Joab went along with his brother Abishai to help in any way that he could. The two men had fought together in the battle of the forest of Ephraim and defeated Absalom. Joab had no love for Amasa, who had betrayed David and led Absalom’s army (17:25). Furthermore, it was Amasa who took Joab’s place as commander of the troops, an appointment that must have humiliated Joab. (David made that change because it was Joab who killed Absalom.) Joab knew that he and his brother Abishai could deal successfully with Sheba’s revolt but that Amasa was too weak and inexperienced to lead a victorious army.

As when they murdered Abner (3:27–39), Joab and Abishai must have quickly plotted together when they saw Amasa approaching. Joab had killed Abner and Absalom, so his hands were already stained with blood. The trick with the sword gave Amasa the idea that this was just a casual meeting, but it was Joab’s crafty way of catching Amasa off guard. (See Judg. 3:20–23.) Once more, the sword was at work in David’s household, for Amasa was his cousin. There was no reason why Amasa should be killed. True, he had joined forces with Absalom, but David had declared a general amnesty that included Joab, who had killed Absalom. Joab could have easily taken the command away from Amasa, but the old campaigner was of such a disposition that he preferred to destroy those who stood in his way. He wanted none of Absalom’s leaders to live and create more problems for David.

Joab left Amasa lying in a pool of blood on the highway, a sight that brought the marching army to a halt. Here was their commander dead before the battle had even begun! Joab and Abishai took off after Sheba, but the army wasn’t following. It was what we call today “a gaper’s block.” One of Joab’s men was wise enough to move the corpse to the side of the highway and cover it up. Then he rallied Amasa’s troops to support Joab and David, and the soldiers responded. The politically correct thing to say would have been “David and Abishai,” because David had given the command to Abishai, but Joab had taken back his old position and wouldn’t let it go (v. 23). Once again, David had to give in to Joab’s power tactics.

We trust that somebody buried the body, for it was considered a serious thing in Israel for a body not to have proper burial.

The book closes with a record of two national calamities—a drought caused by King Saul’s sin (21:1–14) and a plague caused by King David’s sin (24:1–25). Between these two tragic events, the writer gives us a summary of four victories (21:15–22) and a list of David’s mighty men (23:8–39), as well as two psalms written by David (22:1–23:7). Once again we see David the soldier, the singer, and the sinner.

Sin (vv. 1–4). Nowhere in Scripture are we told when or why Saul slaughtered the Gibeonites and thus broke the vow that Israel had made with them in Joshua’s day (Josh. 9). Joshua tried to make the best of his mistake, because he put the Gibeonites to work as woodcutters and water carriers, but Israel’s vow obligated them before God to protect the Gibeonites (Josh. 10). Saul killed several Gibeonites but intended to wipe them all out, so it was a case of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide.

Saul’s religious life is a puzzle. Attempting to appear very godly, he would make foolish vows that nobody should keep (1 Sam. 14:24–35), while at the same time he didn’t obey the clear commands of the Lord (1 Sam. 13, 15). He was commanded to slay the Amalekites and didn’t, yet he tried to exterminate the Gibeonites! Another piece of the puzzle is that Jeiel, Saul’s greatgrandfather, was the progenitor of the Gibeonites (1 Chron. 8:29–33; 9:35–39), so Saul slaughtered his own relatives.

Gibeon became a Levitical city (Josh. 21:17), and the tabernacle was there at one time (1 Kings 3:4–5). The city was located in the tribe of Benjamin—Saul’s tribe—and perhaps that is a clue to Saul’s behavior. It was bad enough to have the pagan Gibeonites alive and well in the land of Israel, but did they have to reside in Benjamin? One of Saul’s “leadership” tactics was to reward his men with houses and lands (1 Sam. 22:7), and perhaps to do this he confiscated property from the Gibeonites. Whatever his motive and method, Saul in his grave brought judgment on the people of Israel as the drought and famine continued for three years (21:1, 10).

The first year of drought might have been caused by some unexpected change in the weather, and during the second year people would say, “It’s bound to improve.” But when for the third year the land suffered drought and famine, David sought the face of the Lord. It was written in the Lord’s covenant with Israel that He would send the rain to the land if His people would honor and obey Him (Deut. 28:1–14). David knew that the sin of murder would pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34), and that’s exactly what was causing all the trouble. Perhaps through his prophet Nathan or his chaplain Ira, the Lord said to David, “It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because He killed the Gibeonites” (v. 1 nkjv). Saul had been dead for over thirty years, and the Lord had patiently waited for this sin to be dealt with.

Retribution (vv. 5–9). When he learned the facts, David immediately offered to make restitution for the terrible sins of his predecessor, because he wanted the Gibeonites to be able to bless the people of Israel and thereby enjoy God’s blessing (Gen. 12:1–3). But the Gibeonites didn’t want money; they knew that no amount of money could ransom a murderer or recompense the survivors (Num. 35:31–33). The Gibeonites made it clear that they knew their place in Israel as servants and resident aliens, and they had no right to press their case. But it would take the shedding of blood to atone for the Gibeonite blood that had been shed (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:19–21; Deut. 19:21). The nation was suffering because of Saul’s sins, and if David killed just any man, that wouldn’t solve the problem. The Gibeonites asked that seven of Saul’s male descendants be sacrificed before the Lord and this would end the drought and famine.

David knew that the Jews were forbidden to offer human sacrifices (Lev. 18:21; 20:1–5; Deut. 12:29–32; 18:10), nor did he see the deaths of the seven men as sacrifices with atoning value. We today who have the New Testament and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ view this entire episode with mingled disgust and dismay, but we must keep in mind that we’re dealing with law, not grace, and Israel, not the church. The law of Moses required that an unsolved murder be atoned for by sacrifice (Deut. 21:1–9), so how much more a known slaughter perpetrated by a king! However, we must keep in mind that the death of the seven men was not atonement but legal retribution.

Though David didn’t commit the crime, he had to choose the seven men who would die, and that wasn’t an easy thing to do. (Perhaps David thought about those who had died because of his sin—Bathsheba’s baby, Uriah the Hittite, Amnon, Absalom and Amasa.) Because of his vow to Jonathan to protect his descendants (1 Sam. 20:12–17), the king avoided naming Mephibosheth and chose two sons of Saul’s concubine Rizpah as well as five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab, who was married to Adriel (v. 8 niv). We aren’t told how the seven men were executed, although “fell together” (v. 9) suggests they were pushed off a cliff. This happened during barley harvest in the middle of April, and the seven corpses were exposed for about six months, until the rains arrived and the drought ended in October. To hang up a corpse was to disgrace the person and put him under a curse (Deut. 21:22–23).

Compassion (vv. 10–14). The law required exposed bodies to be taken down by sundown and buried. To be sure that Saul’s crime was sufficiently dealt with, David allowed the bodies to remain exposed until the rains came, signifying that the Lord was blessing His people again. During that time Rizpah protected the bodies of her sons and nephews, an act of love and courage. It was Rizpah who was involved when Abner abandoned the house of Saul and joined with David (3:6–12).

But David went a step further. He had the bones gathered up, along with the bones of Saul and his sons that the men of Jabesh-Gilead had interred (1 Sam. 31), and brought the whole family together in their family tomb (vv. 12–14). To have proper burial with one’s ancestors was the desire of every Israelite, and David granted this blessing to Saul and his family. Whatever questions remain concerning this unusual event, this much is true: one man’s sins can bring sorrow and death to his family, even after he is dead and buried. We must also give credit to David for dealing drastically with sin for the sake of the nation, and yet for showing kindness to the house of Saul.

The book closes with a record of two national calamities—a drought caused by King Saul’s sin (21:1–14) and a plague caused by King David’s sin (24:1–25). Between these two tragic events, the writer gives us a summary of four victories (21:15–22) and a list of David’s mighty men (23:8–39), as well as two psalms written by David (22:1–23:7). Once again we see David the soldier, the singer, and the sinner.

Sin (vv. 1–4). Nowhere in Scripture are we told when or why Saul slaughtered the Gibeonites and thus broke the vow that Israel had made with them in Joshua’s day (Josh. 9). Joshua tried to make the best of his mistake, because he put the Gibeonites to work as woodcutters and water carriers, but Israel’s vow obligated them before God to protect the Gibeonites (Josh. 10). Saul killed several Gibeonites but intended to wipe them all out, so it was a case of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide.

Saul’s religious life is a puzzle. Attempting to appear very godly, he would make foolish vows that nobody should keep (1 Sam. 14:24–35), while at the same time he didn’t obey the clear commands of the Lord (1 Sam. 13, 15). He was commanded to slay the Amalekites and didn’t, yet he tried to exterminate the Gibeonites! Another piece of the puzzle is that Jeiel, Saul’s greatgrandfather, was the progenitor of the Gibeonites (1 Chron. 8:29–33; 9:35–39), so Saul slaughtered his own relatives.

Gibeon became a Levitical city (Josh. 21:17), and the tabernacle was there at one time (1 Kings 3:4–5). The city was located in the tribe of Benjamin—Saul’s tribe—and perhaps that is a clue to Saul’s behavior. It was bad enough to have the pagan Gibeonites alive and well in the land of Israel, but did they have to reside in Benjamin? One of Saul’s “leadership” tactics was to reward his men with houses and lands (1 Sam. 22:7), and perhaps to do this he confiscated property from the Gibeonites. Whatever his motive and method, Saul in his grave brought judgment on the people of Israel as the drought and famine continued for three years (21:1, 10).

The first year of drought might have been caused by some unexpected change in the weather, and during the second year people would say, “It’s bound to improve.” But when for the third year the land suffered drought and famine, David sought the face of the Lord. It was written in the Lord’s covenant with Israel that He would send the rain to the land if His people would honor and obey Him (Deut. 28:1–14). David knew that the sin of murder would pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34), and that’s exactly what was causing all the trouble. Perhaps through his prophet Nathan or his chaplain Ira, the Lord said to David, “It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because He killed the Gibeonites” (v. 1 nkjv). Saul had been dead for over thirty years, and the Lord had patiently waited for this sin to be dealt with.

Retribution (vv. 5–9). When he learned the facts, David immediately offered to make restitution for the terrible sins of his predecessor, because he wanted the Gibeonites to be able to bless the people of Israel and thereby enjoy God’s blessing (Gen. 12:1–3). But the Gibeonites didn’t want money; they knew that no amount of money could ransom a murderer or recompense the survivors (Num. 35:31–33). The Gibeonites made it clear that they knew their place in Israel as servants and resident aliens, and they had no right to press their case. But it would take the shedding of blood to atone for the Gibeonite blood that had been shed (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:19–21; Deut. 19:21). The nation was suffering because of Saul’s sins, and if David killed just any man, that wouldn’t solve the problem. The Gibeonites asked that seven of Saul’s male descendants be sacrificed before the Lord and this would end the drought and famine.

David knew that the Jews were forbidden to offer human sacrifices (Lev. 18:21; 20:1–5; Deut. 12:29–32; 18:10), nor did he see the deaths of the seven men as sacrifices with atoning value. We today who have the New Testament and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ view this entire episode with mingled disgust and dismay, but we must keep in mind that we’re dealing with law, not grace, and Israel, not the church. The law of Moses required that an unsolved murder be atoned for by sacrifice (Deut. 21:1–9), so how much more a known slaughter perpetrated by a king! However, we must keep in mind that the death of the seven men was not atonement but legal retribution.

Though David didn’t commit the crime, he had to choose the seven men who would die, and that wasn’t an easy thing to do. (Perhaps David thought about those who had died because of his sin—Bathsheba’s baby, Uriah the Hittite, Amnon, Absalom and Amasa.) Because of his vow to Jonathan to protect his descendants (1 Sam. 20:12–17), the king avoided naming Mephibosheth and chose two sons of Saul’s concubine Rizpah as well as five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab, who was married to Adriel (v. 8 niv). We aren’t told how the seven men were executed, although “fell together” (v. 9) suggests they were pushed off a cliff. This happened during barley harvest in the middle of April, and the seven corpses were exposed for about six months, until the rains arrived and the drought ended in October. To hang up a corpse was to disgrace the person and put him under a curse (Deut. 21:22–23).

Compassion (vv. 10–14). The law required exposed bodies to be taken down by sundown and buried. To be sure that Saul’s crime was sufficiently dealt with, David allowed the bodies to remain exposed until the rains came, signifying that the Lord was blessing His people again. During that time Rizpah protected the bodies of her sons and nephews, an act of love and courage. It was Rizpah who was involved when Abner abandoned the house of Saul and joined with David (3:6–12).

But David went a step further. He had the bones gathered up, along with the bones of Saul and his sons that the men of Jabesh-Gilead had interred (1 Sam. 31), and brought the whole family together in their family tomb (vv. 12–14). To have proper burial with one’s ancestors was the desire of every Israelite, and David granted this blessing to Saul and his family. Whatever questions remain concerning this unusual event, this much is true: one man’s sins can bring sorrow and death to his family, even after he is dead and buried. We must also give credit to David for dealing drastically with sin for the sake of the nation, and yet for showing kindness to the house of Saul.

The humorous poet Ogden Nash was sounding a serious note when he wrote, “People could survive their natural troubles all right if it weren’t for the trouble they make for themselves.” Ouch!

As we read the account of David’s later life, we can see the truth of that statement. All parents have predictable problems with their children, but the sins of David’s children seemed to set new records, especially those of Absalom. All leaders have problems with their followers, but in David’s case, the sword flashed repeatedly in Israel with brother fighting against brother. How painful are the consequences of forgiven sin! These chapters describe four different conflicts that David had to deal with after Absalom’s rebellion had been crushed.

The humorous poet Ogden Nash was sounding a serious note when he wrote, “People could survive their natural troubles all right if it weren’t for the trouble they make for themselves.” Ouch!

As we read the account of David’s later life, we can see the truth of that statement. All parents have predictable problems with their children, but the sins of David’s children seemed to set new records, especially those of Absalom. All leaders have problems with their followers, but in David’s case, the sword flashed repeatedly in Israel with brother fighting against brother. How painful are the consequences of forgiven sin! These chapters describe four different conflicts that David had to deal with after Absalom’s rebellion had been crushed.

These four conflicts took place much earlier in David’s reign, probably after he made Jerusalem his capital and the Philistines opposed his rise to power. All four involve “descendants of the giants” from Philistia, one of whom was a brother of Goliath (v. 19).

In the first conflict (vv. 15–17), David fought so much that he grew faint, because the Philistines would focus on him rather than the other soldiers. Ishbi-benob wanted to slay David and had a bronze spear that weighed seven and a half pounds. However David’s nephew Abishai, who more than once irritated David, came to the king’s rescue and killed the giant. It was then that the military leaders decided the king was too vulnerable and valuable to be sacrificed on the battlefield. The king was the “lamp of Israel” and had to be protected. (See 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 21:7.)

The second contest with the Philistines (v. 18; 1 Chron. 20:4) took place at Gob, a site we can’t locate with any accuracy, where Israel won the battle because one of David’s mighty men killed the giant. (See 1 Chron. 11:29.) The fact that the names of these giants were preserved shows that they were wellknown warriors.

The third conflict with the Philistines (v. 19) was again at Gob, and this time the brother of Goliath (1 Chron. 20:5) is the giant that was slain. We know little about Elhanan except that he came from Bethlehem and was one of David’s mighty men (23:24).

The fourth battle took place in Gath in enemy territory (vv. 20–22; 1 Chron. 20:6–8), and David’s nephew Jonathan killed the giant who had, like Goliath, defied Israel and Israel’s God. (See 1 Sam. 17:10.)

When as a youth David killed Goliath, he certainly gave the men of Israel a good example of what it means to trust God for victory. It’s good to know how to kill giants yourself, but be sure to help others kill the giants in their lives.

These four conflicts took place much earlier in David’s reign, probably after he made Jerusalem his capital and the Philistines opposed his rise to power. All four involve “descendants of the giants” from Philistia, one of whom was a brother of Goliath (v. 19).

In the first conflict (vv. 15–17), David fought so much that he grew faint, because the Philistines would focus on him rather than the other soldiers. Ishbi-benob wanted to slay David and had a bronze spear that weighed seven and a half pounds. However David’s nephew Abishai, who more than once irritated David, came to the king’s rescue and killed the giant. It was then that the military leaders decided the king was too vulnerable and valuable to be sacrificed on the battlefield. The king was the “lamp of Israel” and had to be protected. (See 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 21:7.)

The second contest with the Philistines (v. 18; 1 Chron. 20:4) took place at Gob, a site we can’t locate with any accuracy, where Israel won the battle because one of David’s mighty men killed the giant. (See 1 Chron. 11:29.) The fact that the names of these giants were preserved shows that they were wellknown warriors.

The third conflict with the Philistines (v. 19) was again at Gob, and this time the brother of Goliath (1 Chron. 20:5) is the giant that was slain. We know little about Elhanan except that he came from Bethlehem and was one of David’s mighty men (23:24).

The fourth battle took place in Gath in enemy territory (vv. 20–22; 1 Chron. 20:6–8), and David’s nephew Jonathan killed the giant who had, like Goliath, defied Israel and Israel’s God. (See 1 Sam. 17:10.)

When as a youth David killed Goliath, he certainly gave the men of Israel a good example of what it means to trust God for victory. It’s good to know how to kill giants yourself, but be sure to help others kill the giants in their lives.