Saul’s death (I Samuel 31:4-5; II Samuel 1:4-10).

Copyright 2008 by Philip Thompson

Copyright Notice: This paper my be reproduced and distributed only if the author's name remains intact along with the entirety of the document.  Otherwise, all other reproductions should be limited to quotations from the source document.

 I Samuel 31:4-5 - "Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.  And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. "

II Samuel 1:4-10 - "And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also. And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord."

What kind of problem is it: Historical; Moral/Ethical; Archaeological; Textual; Theological; other (specify):

            Historical

Why is it a problem?

            Each passage seems to indicate a different manner in which King Saul died (I Samuel – Suicide; II Samuel – by an Amalekite).

List several Explanations for the problem:

1. The statement made by the Amalekite was a lie.  He was trying to make himself into a hero, but ended up incriminating himself.  In fact, the phrase “leaned upon his spear” (II Sam. 1:6) does not indicate that Saul was trying to kill himself, but that he was exhausted from the battle.  Obviously the Amalekite was just fabricating the story.  The position is backed by the fact that the inspired author does not actually accept the claim.  Another strong point of this argument is Saul’s concern that he not be killed or abused by one of the uncircumcised Philistines (I Sam. 31:4).  Why then would he ask an uncircumcised Amalekite to kill him?
2. The statement made by the Amalekite should be synthesized with the account at the end of the previous book.  Clearly, the Amalekite was nearby when the event occurred, otherwise he would not have been able to procure the crown and bracelet (II Sam. 1:10).  The Philistines would not have left these things for the passerby to find.  Although some who hold this position admit that there may be more color in this event than in reality, the fact of his presence before the Philistines reached the body cannot be denied.

Which explanation do you think is the Best one, and Why?

            It would seem that the Amalekite simply beat the Philistines to the body.  The first account states that the body was not found until “the morrow” (I Sam. 31:8).  This would give the Amalekite one afternoon and evening to find the king and his crown.  Although these hours were limited, the Amalekite found the bodies and guessed about the situation that occurred there and attempted to synthesize his testimony with any other eyewitnesses.  Ultimately, the Amalekite lied to David about what actually happened.  The proponent of this position must beware of certain arguments.  The argument that the inspired author does not accept the Amalekite’s claim is an argument from silence, and should not be used (by the same token, if someone wanted to argue on the basis of acceptance, David’s apparent acceptance of the claim is evidence that the Amalekite may have told the truth).  A synthesis of these events is not entirely possible and it is generally understood that the Amalekite did not tell the whole truth of the matter.

Works Consulted

Archer, Gleason L.  Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Cook, F. C. ed.  The Bible Commentary.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959.

Haley, John W.  Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.  New Kinsington, PA: Whitaker, 1992.

Henry, Matthew.  Commentary on the Whole Bible.  CD-ROM.  E-Sword.net CD-ROM.  Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005. 

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown.  Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.  CD-ROM.  E-Sword.net CD-ROM.  Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005.

Kaiser, Walter Jr., Peter Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch.  Hard Sayings of the Bible.  Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 1996.

Keil, Johann, and Franz Delitzsch.  Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament.  CD-ROM.  E-Sword.net CD-ROM.  Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005. 

Poole, Matthew.  Commentary on the Holy Bible.  Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, ed.  The Bible Knowledge Commentary.  Vol. 1.  Colorado Springs: Cook, 2004.

Wesley, John.  Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible.  CD-ROM.  E-Sword.net CD-ROM.  Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005.