2 Samuel 1

2 Samuel 1

Clarke - The whole account which this young man gives is a fabrication: in many of the particulars it is grossly self-contradictory. There is no fact in the case but the bringing of the crown, or diadem, and bracelets of Saul; which, as he appears to have been a plunderer of the slain, he found on the field of battle; and he brought them to David, and told the lie of having dispatched Saul merely to ingratiate himself with David.” David Guzik on the Amalekite - Though the Bible does not specifically say it, Amalek is commonly regarded as an illustration of our fleshly, carnal nature. Consider these ways in which Amalek is similar to our fleshly nature: Amalek focused its attack on the tired and weak (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). Amalek does not fear God (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). God commanded a permanent state of war against Amalek (Exodus 17:16). The battle against Amalek is only won in the context of prayer and seeking God (Exodus 17:11). God promises to one day completely blot out the remembrance of Amalek (Exodus 17:14). Amalek is defeated by God’s servant, Joshua (Exodus 17:13). Amalek was once first but will one day be last (Numbers 24:20). Amalek allies itself with other enemies in battle against God’s people (Judges 3:13). Using this picture, we see that Saul’s failure to deal with Amalek when God told him to resulted in ruin, with an Amalekite delivering the death-blow. In the same way, when we fail to deal with the flesh as God prompts us, we can expect that area of the flesh to come back and deliver some deadly strikes. Walter Kaiser - goto page 191 in Hard Sayings of the Bible - How Did Saul Die? Who is telling the truth? The narrator of 1 Samuel 31 or the Amalekite of 2 Samuel 1:6–10? Or to put the question in another way: Did Saul commit suicide, or was he killed by this Amalekite, as he claimed, at Saul’s own request? Although there have been attempts at harmonizing the two accounts, the effort always seems to fall short of being convincing. For example, as early as the first Christian century, Josephus tried to make the accounts fit each other. Josephus claimed (Antiquities 6, 370–72 [xiv.7]) that after Saul’s armor-bearer refused to kill Saul, Saul tried to fall on his own sword, but he was too weak to do so. Saul turned and saw this Amalekite, who, upon the king’s request, complied and killed him, having found the king leaning on his sword. Afterward the Amalekite took the king’s crown and armband and fled, whereupon Saul’s armor-bearer killed himself. While everything seems to fit in this harmonization, there is one fact that is out of line: the armor-bearer. The armor-bearer was sufficiently convinced of Saul’s death to follow his example (1 Sam 31:5). Thus, Josephus’s greatest mistake was in trusting the Amalekite. Also, it is most improbable that the Amalekite found Saul leaning on his sword, an unlikely sequel of a botched attempt at suicide. It is my conclusion that Saul did commit suicide, a violation of the law of God, and that the Amalekite was lying in order to obtain favor with the new administration. Gleason Archer - goto page 185 in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - First Samuel 31 gives account of Saul’s death that conflicts with another given in 2 Samuel 1. How can both be correct? 1 Samuel 31:3–4 informs us that Saul was fatally wounded by a Philistine arrow at the disastrous battle of Mount Gilboa. Realizing that he was about to die, Saul himself appealed to his own armor bearer to thrust his sword through his heart and kill him immediately—“lest these uncircumcised [Philistines] come and pierce me through and make sport of me” (NASB). But since the armor bearer could not bring himself to take the life of his king, Saul took his own sword, fastened its hilt firmly in the ground, and then fell on it in such a way as to end his misery right then and there. In 2 Samuel 1 we read that a certain Amalekite who had served in Saul’s bodyguard fled from the battlefield and made his way to David’s camp, in order to bring him news of Saul’s death. According to the account he gave to David (vv. 6–10), he was summoned by King Saul to his side while he was hopelessly surrounded by the triumphant Philistines; and he was ordered by the king to take his life immediately, in order to end his misery from his fatal wounds. The Amalekite then complied with his request (v.10): “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord” (NASB). This presents obvious discrepancies with the account in 1 Samuel 31, but it is not presented as being an actual record of what happened during Saul’s dying moments; it is only a record of what the Amalekite mercenary said had taken place. Coming with Saul’s crown and bracelet in hand and presenting them before the new king of Israel, the Amalekite obviously expected a handsome reward and high preferment in the service of Saul’s successor. In the light of the straightforward account in the previous chapter, we must conclude that the Amalekite was lying in order to gain a cordial welcome from David. But what had actually happened was that after Saul had killed himself, and the armorbearer had followed his lord’s example by taking his own life (1 Sam. 31:5), the Amalekite happened by at that moment, recognized the king’s corpse, and quickly stripped off the bracelet and crown before the Philistine troops discovered it. Capitalizing on his good fortune, the Amalekite then escaped from the bloody field and made his way down to David’s headquarters in Ziklag. But his hoped-for reward turned out to be a warrant for his death; David had him killed on the spot, saying: “Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD’s anointed’ ” (2 Sam. 1:16; NASB). His glib falsehood had brought him the very opposite of what he had expected, for he failed to foresee that David’s high code of honor would lead him to make just the response he did. It should be added that this particular Amalekite came from a different Amalekite tribe from that which Saul had earlier destroyed at God’s command—the tribe over which Agag had ruled (1 Sam. 15:7–8). Those Amalekite lived between Havilah and Shur. But there were other Amalekites not involved in this campaign, some of whom raided David’s settlement at Ziklag (1 Sam. 30). 2 Samuel 1:6 The young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold, the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely. By chance I happened Ru 2:3 1Sa 6:9 Lu 10:31 mount: 2Sa 1:21 1Sa 28:4 1Sa 31:1 Saul: 1Sa 31:2-7 2 Samuel 1 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries NOTHING HAPPENS BY CHANCE! The young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa - No, he was not there by chance, but by choice and ultimately by divine providence, that God might use this Amalekite to convey the message of Saul's death to David. And behold (hinneh; Lxx = idou), Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold (hinneh; Lxx = idou), the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely - Note rare use of the doubling of behold (hinneh; Lxx = idou)! It is interesting that he mentions the spear, the weapon David would have all too familiar with and which might even recall to his mind Saul's attempts to spear him (1Sa 18:10-11+). Saul's spear of course was also a symbol of his authority (1Sa 26:11+). The Amalekite thinks he has some remarkable information for David, and surely thinks David will reward him for his detailed disclosure! The man's story is a fabrication because 1Sa 31:4+ says "Saul took his sword and fell on it", not that he was was leaning on his spear. Clearly Saul was already dead when the Amalekite discovered his body. The Amalekite statement that the Philistines pursued Saul is further fabrication but does reveal something we have not been told before about the Philistine attack on Israel -- the attack included their dread chariots (cf Jdg 4:3+, 1Sa 13:5+)!