David and Goliath

3.(a)In what ways do these two opponents represent opposite views of life? (b)How do the descriptions of their weapons emphasize these contrasting outlooks?

Goliath: A grand, well adorned warrior. He is thought highly of by himself and his people and has an air of arrogance about him.

David: A small shepherd. He is devout in his beliefs and is relatively modest (until after the battle).

Their professions instantly portray a difference in their personality, for Goliath works in a profession that is perceived to feed egos and bully the Israelis and David is in the simple business of herding sheep, obviously modest and poor.
Another blatant comparison is the religious difference, David being a devout monotheist and Goliath a Pagan. This sets the scene for conflict between the different ideas, the Pagans having "defied" God, according to the Israelis.

The descriptions of their weapons emphasizes their differences in this respect: David is simple and chooses simple weapons, but he has God on his side. Goliath is chauvinistic warrior who chooses shiny swords, spears and shields, obviously no match for the divine favor granted to David.

The story aims to prove that faith in God is one of the best things one can have, illustrated by David's (the underdog) victory.

4. Is it fair to call the combat between David and Goliath a contest between good and evil? Explain.

I believe not, but it is hard to determine for it can certainly be implied. No where in the text is a battle between good and evil mentioned. David is not revered by God, and Goliath condemned nor vise versa, and neither city is defined in terms of good or evil. However, it can easily be inferred that the philistines are "evil" in comparison to the Israelis who are "good" where David declares that he shall win because God is protecting him and the philistines hath defied God. It can be inferred because it appears that David wins because God was upset that the philistines hath defied him and granted divine protection over David. Afterward, the philistines are "punished" (just as God has done with the other evils in the bible) by having their village pillaged. Therefore, one could see that God was favoring the Israelis and could decide that it must be a conflict of good and evil or God would have no interest in it. However, in order to avoid false judgement based on inferences I'm going to say that it is not between good and evil, just a conflict of interest. If it is, then it justifies killing "defy-ers" in the name of God, a concept that cannot be allowed to prevail in today's society.

3. David refuses to use conventional weapons. How is this refusal a statement about the relationship between the Hebrew people and God?

This refusal highlights the Hebrews deep seated connection to God. He decides to enter the battle with no armor or swords all based on the premise that his God will protect him. It takes an immensely strong faith to put ones life in such a precarious position in the name of their God. The victory of David even greater emphasizes this deep connection, for when the Hebrews stay faithful, God provides. The Hebrews obviously have an extremely intense, devout, connection to their God.