The Emperor’s Clothes

Reflections on 1 Sam. 17:32-40

Mark Twain once said, “Clothes make the man.” Certainly, a man dressed in a three-piece suit will act differently than one dressed like a clown. On the other hand, dressing a drunken bum in a three-piece suit does not make him a businessman any more than a lion’s body made the lion a courageous beast in The Wizard of Oz.

ARMOR WITHOUT BRAVERY. Saul's royal armor did not give him a kingly heart. David could see, as everyone could, that he was as terrified of Goliath as any of his soldiers. But David wisely did not mention Saul's fear when he spoke to him saying, “Let no man’s heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with this Philistine” (1 Sam. 17:32 ESV).

BRAVERY WITHOUT ARMOR. Although impressed with David’s bravery, Saul obviously thought David was too young. Saul reminded David that he was merely a youth (probably younger than 20 years; see Num. 1:3; 26:2) and that he was not experienced in the ways of war. Ignoring the statement about his youth, David argued that as a shepherd he was experienced in battle having fought with vicious lions and bears while protecting his father's flocks. Still, Saul appeared to be unconvinced. When Saul said nothing in response to his exploits against the wild beasts, David delivered the final thrust of his argument: God had delivered him from the mouths of the lion and the bear, and He would deliver him from Goliath, too.

ARMOR OFFERED. Saul could not argue with David without appearing impious, but he still thought that David was poorly armed for the battle. In his own heart he still relied more on the “arm of flesh” than on the “arm of the Lord,” so he clothed David in his own armor. After doing so, Saul demonstrated how much he had become a king like the kings of the nations. All those kings relied on superior armor and weapons. Likewise, Saul naively thought that armor and weapons would make a victorious soldier, but he was wrong. God did not want a person who relied on them to be the king.

ARMOR REJECTED. When David rejected Saul’s armor, he was not naïve. He simply knew that the armor and sword did not suit his skills or experience. The armor would limit his ability to use the weapon God had trained him to use, the shepherd’s sling. He undoubtedly knew that in skilled hands the sling could be an effective weapon (see Judges 20:16) even if it was outdated and unconventional. But more importantly, David was not going to be a king who relied on the “arm of flesh” or on armor, weapons, numbers, and physical strength. By rejecting Saul’s armor, he rejected the kind of king Saul had become (Bergen, 1996, p. 194). Unlike Saul, he would rely on the God in whom he had placed his faith. He understood that if God fought for Israel, Israel had no need to become like the nations. Accordingly, he removed Saul's armor, chose five stones for his sling, and went out to meet the blasphemous giant as he carried his shepherd's staff and the invisible shield of faith.