What exactly happened to King Saul?

[Sovereign Grace]

Then Saul said to his armor bearer, “Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, otherwise these uncircumcised will come and pierce me through and make sport of me.” But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it. When his armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died with him. Thus Saul died with his three sons, his armor bearer, and all his men on that day together.[1 Samuel 31:4-6]

“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. When he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I said, ‘Here I am.’ He said to me, ‘Who are you?’ And I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ Then he said to me, ‘Please stand beside me and kill me, for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me.’ 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.”[2 Samule 1:6-10]

In 1 Samuel 31 it says King Saul fell upon his sword and died. In 2 Samuel 1, it says the Amalekite killed him. So, is 2 Samuel 1 a more detailed account of how King Saul died, or did the Amalekite lie to David?


Any thoughts, ideas, opinions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[EvanF]

He killed himself. The Amalekite claimed he was the killer because he thought David would reward him and no one could say any different.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

He killed himself. The Amalekite claimed he was the killer because he thought David would reward him and no one could say any different.

That does make a lot of sense and I can't help but believe it to be true.


It just shows that lying never prospers in the end.

 

[EvanF]

A question I have is, how did the writer come to know the truth of Saul's end? Was it by revelation, or were there perhaps other witnesses?

 

[ArminianOnceWas]

That does make a lot of sense and I can't help but believe it to be true.


It just shows that lying never prospers in the end.

While "lying never prospers in the end" is true indeed, I'm not certain that should be a prioritized homiletical point of this passage. Of course, you didn't even suggest that you are teaching/preaching this pericope, rather I am imposing.

Of course, many do prosper by maintain lies throughout their life, and their "end" is in judgment while they never face consequence within this lifetime.

However, I think the greater focal point is on David's integrity, which is paramount from his introduction in 1 Samuel until his moral disintegration in 2 Samuel. The idea, in part, is that David did not seek to eliminate Saul. Accordingly, the Amalekite could find no good will from David. Later in 2 Samuel, it could not be accurately said David undermined Saul, even while others were attempting to overthrow and threaten David.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

While "lying never prospers in the end" is true indeed, I'm not certain that should be a prioritized homiletical point of this passage. Of course, you didn't even suggest that you are teaching/preaching this pericope, rather I am imposing.

Of course, many do prosper by maintain lies throughout their life, and their "end" is in judgment while they never face consequence within this lifetime.

However, I think the greater focal point is on David's integrity, which is paramount from his introduction in 1 Samuel until his moral disintegration in 2 Samuel. The idea, in part, is that David did not seek to eliminate Saul. Accordingly, the Amalekite could find no good will from David. Later in 2 Samuel, it could not be accurately said David undermined Saul, even while others were attempting to overthrow and threaten David.

I was saying lying never prospers in the end in a generic way, not using it to posit it into what the Amalekite did. Him lying got him killed.