Outline of Chapter 1:

         vv.     1–13         An Amalekite Claims to Have Killed Saul

         vv.    14–16         David Executes the Amalekite Based on his own Testimony

         vv.    17–27         David’s Ode to Saul and Jonathan

Charts, Maps, and Short Doctrines:

         Introduction         2Samuel 1 Summarized by Great Theologians of the Past

         v.      10              Matthew Henry Believes the Amalekite’s Story

         v.      10              Matthew Henry Does Not Believe the Amalekite’s Story

         v.      10              Why Does the Story Told by the Amalekite not Ring True?

         v.      10              Why We Think This Amalekite is a Mercenary Fighting on the Philistine Side

         v.      12              Why David Mourns for Saul

         v.      13              Is this Young Amalekite Lying about His Citizenship Status?

         v.      14              We are not Allowed to Harm God’s Anointed Ones

         v.      15              Commentary About David’s Sentencing of this Young Amalekite

         v.      16              Is David a Vigilante?

         v.      16              What Really Happened on Mount Gilboa?

         v.      16              Who Witnessed Saul’s Death and Why is it Accurately Recorded?

         v.      17              Why is Saul Honored in God's Word?

         v.      18              The Doctrine of the Book of Jashar

         v.      18              The Relationship between this Psalm and the Book of Jasher

         v.      23              The Two Interpretations of 2Sam. 2:23

         v.      25              Definition of the Word Bâmâh (High Places)

         v.      25              A Comparison of vv. 19 and 25

         v.      26              How Are David and Jonathan Brothers?

         v.      27              The Bow—A Psalm Dedicated to Saul and Jonathan

I ntroduction: 2Sam. 1 is a fascinating chapter. In it, David finds out about Saul’s death from an Amalekite, which is quite interesting, as David had just finished slaughtering the Amalekites which had invaded his camp and taken his women (1Sam. 30). This Amalekite claims that Saul asked him to kill him and that he brought some of Saul’s personal effects to prove that this is true. David orders the execution of this man, as he struck down the Lord’s anointed.

The second half of this chapter is a lament by David for Saul and Jonathan, which the author/editor of 2Samuel apparently found in the book of Jasher.

Let’s break down this chapter even more. David has just returned to Ziklag from defeating the Amalekites who had invaded his camp and taken his women and things (weapons, food, ipods, x-boxes, etc.). Bear in ind that all of this was simultaneous with Saul’s final battle against the Philistines where the Philistines soundly defeated Saul’s army. We established a parallel time line for this back in the introduction to 1Sam. 31.

On the third day of David’s being in camp, a man with torn clothes and dust on his head comes to David, saying that he had come out of Saul’s camp, and that the Israelites retreated, and Saul and Jonathan were killed (vv. 1–4). David asks this young man how he knows that Saul and Jonathan are dead, and the young man tells David that he just happened to be on Mount Gilboa when this battle was taking place (vv. 5–6). According to the young man’s story, Saul calls over to the man and asks him to kill him, as he was in great pain (vv. 7–9). The young man killed Saul, and then took his crown and royal arm bracelet for proof, which he has brought to David (v. 10).

David then goes into a period of mourning, with the rest of the camp, during which time he possibly composes an ode to Saul and Jonathan (vv. 11–12). After this period of mourning (apparently), David tries the man and has him executed for killing Saul (vv. 13–16).

Then David teaches the sons of Judah an ode that he has written—an ode to Saul and Jonathan (vv. 17–18). David first asks that the deaths of Saul and Jonathan not be proclaimed in the Philistine territories, lest they celebrate their deaths (vv. 19–20). David apparently asks for a time of mourning in the mountains of Gilboa, and then praises the bravery of Saul and Jonathan (vv. 21–23). The women whose freedom has been protected for all of these years by Saul and Jonathan are called upon to mourn (v. 24). Finally, David proclaims his great sorrow over the death of Jonathan, a man whose love for him was greater than that even of women (vv. 25–27). So ends this first chapter of 2Samuel.

If you went through 1Samuel with me, you heard me complain incessantly about the division of chapters and verses. Well, here we have a division of this book of Samuel, but I have no complaints. If someone had to divide this book in any way, then as we find it divided makes the most sense. Saul, Jonathan and Samuel have all died in 1Samuel and now we begin 2Samuel with David and how he will seize the power given him by God. Bear in mind, that the original book of Samuel was one book, and that there is no book or chapter division between 1Sam. 31:13 and 2Sam. 1:1. However, if one desires to break up the book, this is the place to do it.

An Amalekite Claims to Have Killed Saul

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he is after a death of Saul, and David returned from an assaulting of the Amalekite; and so remains David in Ziklag days two.

Septuagint                              And it came to pass after Saul was dead, that David returned from smiting Amalec, and David abode two days in Sekelac.

Significant differences:           No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              Saul was dead. Meanwhile, David had defeated the Amalekites and returned to Ziklag.

The Message                         Shortly after Saul died, David returned to Ziklag from his rout of the Amalekites.

NJB                                        Saul was dead and David, returning after his victory over the Amalekites, had been at Ziklag for two days.

NLT                                        After the death of Saul, David returned from his victory over the Amalekites and spent two days in Ziklag.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         After Saul died and David returned from defeating the Amalekites, David stayed in Ziklag two days.

HCSB                                     After the death of Saul, David returned from defeating the Amalekites and stayed at Ziklag two days.

JPS (Tanakh)                         After the death of Saul—David had already returned from defeating the Amalekites—David stayed two days in Ziklag.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And it happened after the death of Saul, David returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David stayed two days in Ziklag,...

Young’s Updated LT             And it comes to pass, after the death of Saul, that David has returned from striking down the Amalekite, and David dwells in Ziklag two days,...

What is the gist of this verse? The scene is set for us: Saul has died; David has just defeated the Amalekites who had invaded his camp and he was in Ziklag, his camp, for a couple of days.

Translation: And it was after the death of Saul,... In 1Sam. 31, we saw Saul commit suicide prior to an attack which would have probably left him dead anyway. His armor bearer also committed suicide. When we begin this chapter, Saul’s death is news. That is, it took time for the results of the battle between Saul and the Philistines to be noised abroad. It was not until the next day after Saul died that his body had been identified by the Philistines. It probably was another day or so after that before they hung his headless body in Bethshan (his head and weapons were taken to Philistia in celebration of their victory). At this point, it is likely that David does not know all that happened. He did know that the Philistines and Saul were about to face off, as he was a part of the Philistine army for a short time (1Sam. 29); but the results of the war were probably not yet available to him (this would have been perhaps a day or two after Saul was killed).

Translation: ...after [lit., and] David returned from defeating the Amalekites,... David had been pressed into service by the king of Gath and had joined up to ride with the Philistine army. However, the other Philistine leaders were not about to enter into a war against Israel with David riding next to them, so they demanded that he be sent back. When David returned to his camp in Ziklag, he found that the Amalekites had raided his camp and had taken the women, children and the possessions of David and his men. You may recall that David tracked the Amalekites and slaughtered them, retrieving all that they had taken. As amazing as it might seem, none of their women or children had been harmed yet. This paragraph, by the way, is a summary of 1Sam. 29–30.

Translation: ...that he [lit., David] remained in Ziklag for two days. You may recall that David and his men were completely exhausted after these things—going up to join the Philistines, being sent back; and then going to battle against the Amalekites that invaded their camp. Some of David’s men were so exhausted that they could not even continue with David into battle against the Amalekites. Therefore, David and his men are resting, enjoying the return of their women and property.

It might be instructive to review what we know about Ziklag: Ziklag is even with the lower third of the Dead Sea, but much closer to the Mediterranean Sea. It is about midway on the diagonal line between Ashkelon and Beer-Sheba. It was originally Judæan property, gained by Joshua and first deeded over Judah and then to Simeon in the great land distribution (Joshua 15:31 19:5). Given the location of Ziklag and the nature of Philistine aggression, and this passage, we would expect this city to have fallen into Philistine possession. It is also possible that the Judæans never really took control of it; however, Judges 1:17–18 seems to imply that they did (Ziklag is not named specifically; but it would have been in that general area). No matter what the case, this city is under the control of Achish during this time period. Given the nature of the relationship between Israel and Philistia, it is reasonable to suppose that some border cities and territories changed hands one or more times.

Even after defeating the Amalekites, there was a great deal which needed to be done. First of all, David and his men required rest, as they had been on the move for several days without rest. Secondly, their camp in Ziklag had been burned down, so some sort of makeshift shelter had to be devised. More than likely, they simply slept out under the stars for the first night. However, recall that these men had just defeated a large camp of Amalekites; therefore, they very likely had all the tents that they needed. Other exegetes suggest that they were able to secure some sort of lodging by the locals; however, I don’t see that as likely. Recall that David made some unauthorized raids all over this southern area and lied about it to the King of Gath; and if his associations were too close with the locals of Ziklag (assuming that there are people living in a city here), then the King of Gath would have known the truth about what David was doing. For this reason, I see David as taking an unoccupied portion of land outside the city of Ziklag (again, assuming that there is a functioning city here at this time). Thirdly, there was all of the booty seized from the Amalekites—more than David and his men could possibly use (I would assume that this would primarily be flocks and herds of animals). David had to organize the distribution of these things throughout Judah (1Sam. 30:26–31). We do not know how far along David was on this third task when the events of this chapter unfold. There was a fourth thing which was also occurring: men from all over Israel were coming down to David, their hearts moved by God, to be in service to David—primary as a military force for Israel (1Chron. 12). Keep in mind an historical perspective here: the Philistines have just defeated Saul, his sons, and the Israeli army. At this point, there are not a lot of options. The Philistines will set up garrisons throughout Israel (primarily central Israel), as they had before, and probably exact tribute from the local Israelites. Those men who are able to fight cannot just attack the Philistines in groups of a dozen or so; therefore, they know of David, they know where he is (remember the gifts from David?), and they are coming down to him, to pledge their allegiance to him. This will take place primarily between this chapter and the next, so I will exegete 1Chron. 12 at the end of this chapter.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he is in the day the third and behold, a man came from the camp from with Saul; and his clothes torn and ground upon his head. And so he is in his coming unto David and so he falls ground-ward and so he bows down.

Septuagint                              And it came to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came from the camp, from the people of Saul, and his garments were rent, and earth was upon his head: and it came to pass when he went in to David, that he fell upon the earth, and did obeisance to him.

Significant differences: In the LXX, this man comes from the people of Saul, rather than simply from being with Saul. The Syriac and Latin are in agreement with the Hebrew (as usual).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              Three days later, a soldier came from Saul's army. His clothes were torn, and dirt was on his head. He went to David and knelt down in front of him.

The Message                         Three days later a man showed up unannounced from Saul's army camp. Disheveled and obviously in mourning, he fell to his knees in respect before David.

NLT                                        On the third day after David’s return, a man arrived from the Israelite battlefront. He had torn his clothes and put dirt on his head to show that he was in mourning. He fell to the ground before David in deep respect.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         On the third day a man came from Saul's camp. His clothes were torn, and he had dirt on his head. When he came to David, he immediately bowed down with his face touching the ground.

JPS (Tanakh)                         On the third day, a man came from Saul’s camp, with his clothes rent and earth on his head; and as he approached David, he flung himself to the ground and bowed low.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And on the third day, behold, a man came from Saul's camp, with his clothes torn and dirt on his head. And when he came to David, he fell to the ground and paid homage.

LTHB                                     And it happened on the third day, behold, a man came in out of the camp from Saul. And his garments were torn, and earth on his head. And it happened as he came to David, he fell to the earth and prostrated himself.

Young’s Updated LT             ...and it comes to pass, on the third day, that lo, a man has come in out of the camp from Saul, and his garments are torn, and earth on his head; and it comes to pass, in his coming in unto David, that he falls to the earth, and does obeisance.

What is the gist of this verse? On the third day, a man comes from Saul’s camp to David. His garments are torn and there is dirt on his face and forehead. When he comes in to speak with David, he first prostrates himself before David.

Translation: And it is on the third day... This chapter along with the previous several chapters all occur simultaneously. We carefully examined a time-line in 1Sam. 31 the introduction. We followed the various armies and where they went and at what time they moved from point A to point B. 1Sam. 28–2Sam. 1 all take place within a week’s time. These chapters are not ordered chronologically, but topically, which makes more sense. So, David was sent back from the Philistine front as the kings of Philistia did not trust him. He returns to his camp in Ziklag, in a territory in southern Judah which is controlled by the Philistines. His camp had been raided by Amalekites and David had struck them and had returned to his camp. It was three days after his successful raid against the Amalekites.

Translation: ...that [lit., and behold] a man came from the camp from being with Saul,... Seemingly out of nowhere, a man comes to David. He was with Saul in his camp when Saul warred against the Philistines. The prepositions used here indicate that he did not just come from that general vicinity, but that he came from exactly where Saul was at his death.

This is actually not an unusual situation; God is going to move the hearts of hundreds, if not thousands, of men, to come down to David in Ziklag, as we will examine when we exegete 1Chron. 12.

For whatever reason, people have tried to identify this man—and it is suggested that he is Doeg the Edomite or that he is Saul’s armor-bearer. Now, as you know, I have no problems with speculating about this or that; however, this man is nowhere identified; and there are enough people in this territory for this to be someone that we have never heard of. God the Holy Spirit may have purposely left his name out; and, similarly, included the names a hundreds of heroes to flocked to David in 1Chron. 12. This man is trying to take advantage of this tragic situation, so there is no reason that we need to know his name.

Now, we already know that Saul has foreigners in his army, as we have dealt with Doeg the Edomite back in 1Sam. 21–22. Therefore, it is possible that this man is a mercenary serving under either the Philistines or the Israelites. He is not fighting for the freedom of the Israelites, but is rather an opportunist, as this narrative will bear out. For him to be found right where Saul was killed very likely indicates that he fought on one side or the other. In the midst of the battle, when he saw Saul dead, he very likely began to formulate in his mind a plan to exploit this situation. Now, if this speculation is true, the man cannot tell David that he belonged to either army. He does not want to come to David, an Israelite, and say, “I fought along the Philistines against your people.” However, he does not want to represent himself as part of Saul’s army, else David would ask him, “Why did you not die there with your lord?” That is, how could he and Saul be in the same place, and he is unscathed and Saul is killed?

Translation: ...and his clothes were torn and there was dirt on his head. This man has torn clothes and there is dirt on his face and forehead. Probably, this was done to indicate great sorrow, as the Jews have always been very demonstrative. Had this man been a Lutheran, he would be dressed in a clean black suit and he would have a somber expression, rather than dirt, on his face.

As we will soon find out, this man is looking to play David here, so his torn clothes and the dirt on his forehead were probably something which he did, anticipating this meeting with David. Maybe he intends to convey mourning and maybe he wants to suggest recent involvement in a war. I want you to recognize that either approach is incongruous with what the man will say. Let’s say that he tore his clothing and put dust on his forehead to indicate mourning; this will be incongruous with his bragging to David that he killed King Saul. This man is not coming to David simply to give him the news of King Saul’s death, as he will claim to have killed Saul, and will expect that David will want to reward him in some way for doing so. Therefore, looking like he is in mourning makes little sense. The other possibility is, this man wants it to appear as though he was just in a war, but, he was not just in a war. We will find out that he is an Amalekite. The war was between the Philistines and the Israelites. He will claim to have simply been on Mount Gilboa on this particular day. He makes no claims to fighting for either side (as we have previously discussed, if he claims to have been on either side, he will be in trouble with David). However, he shows up before David as though he has been in this battle himself (or, as if he is in mourning). Again, this is incongruous with his story.

Some men, who are the bearer of bad tidings, show up with torn clothing and dust on their heads to indicate that they are bringing bad news to the hearers. We observed this back in 1Sam. 4:12, when a man came to Shiloh to tell the people and to tell Eli that Eli’s sons were killed in battle, Israel lost the war against the Philistines, and that the Ark had been captured. This man—the Amalekite—was probably following protocol. However, and follow my reasoning here: what reason would an Amalekite have to come to David to tell him this bad news? It would be reasonable for a fellow Israelite to come down to Ziklag and gives David a heads up on what happened. However, this man makes no claim on being an official messenger from Saul’s army. He comes to David because he wants something. He is going to use this to his advantage to parlay Saul’s death into some kind of a reward or high governmental position (perhaps David will appoint him the head of FEMA).

Translation: And it is, when he comes in to David... This man apparently speaks to David’s guards and convinces them that he needs to speak to David. No doubt he said, “I have news about King Saul.” They speak with David and he gives this man an audience.

Despite the fact that the Amalekites had burned down Ziklag (at least, the tents and buildings where David and his men stayed), apparently something had been done in order to separate David from the rest of the men. Recall that they had just successfully invaded the Amalekites who plundered them; therefore, they probably had a wealth of tents from that raid.

McGee: David did not know what had happened in the battle. He and his men had been recovering their own loved ones from the Amalekite marauders. They had been back in Ziklag for two days without hearing a word. Finally a man all disheveled, covered with mud and dirt and wearing torn clothes, stumbled into David's camp. He said he had come from the war. He told David that the Philistines had won the war and that Saul was dead. Then he told David what happened.

Translation: ...that he falls to the ground and prostrates himself. The first thing that this stranger does is he prostrates himself before David. This is something which is commonly done before a world leader. (Gen. 37:7–10 43:28 2Sam. 14:4 Psalm 66:3 Rev. 3:9) Furthermore, this was not something completely unknown to David (see 1Sam. 20:41 24:8 25:23, 41). However, even given these passages, it is unclear whether this was common to David. Nevertheless, this man is not going to screw up protocol. He is certainly going to be, if anything, too polite and too ingratiating.

Matthew Henry comments: The messenger presents himself to David as an express, in the posture of a mourner for the deceased prince and a subject to the succeeding one. He came with his clothes rent, and made obeisance to David, pleasing himself with the fancy that he had the honour to be the first that did him homage as his sovereign, but it proved he was the first that received from him sentence of death as his judge. So, in Henry’s opinion, this man was trying to convey that he was also in mourning.

At this point, Clarke makes the comment: 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 despatched Saul, merely to ingratiate himself with David.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says to him David, “Where from this do you come?” And so he says unto him, “From a camp of Israel I was delivered.”

Septuagint                              And David said to him, “From where did you come?” And he said to him, “I have escaped out of the camp of Israel.”

Significant differences: No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              David asked, "Where did you come from?" The man answered, "From Israel's army. I barely escaped with my life."

The Message                         David asked, "What brings you here?" He answered, "I've just escaped from the camp of Israel."

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         "Where did you come from?" David asked him. "I escaped from the camp of Israel," he answered.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

LTHB                                     And David said to him, From where do you come? And he said to him, I have escaped out of the camp of Israel.

Young’s Updated LT             And David says to him, “From Where did you come?” And he says unto him, “Out of the camp of Israel I have escaped.

What is the gist of this verse? David asks from whence this man came and he answers that he has escaped out from the camp of Israel. .

Translation: So David asks him [lit., said to him], “From where do you come?” David first of all wants to ascertain where this man came from. David is the one in authority, so he asks the questions. The man does not initiate any of this dialogue. He shows David respect, but it is a pseudo respect. We are dealing with a man who intends to manipulate David and to get from him what he can.

As Gill points out, it is very likely that David knew where this man came from, and suggests this because of the man’s appearance. However, this man was probably screened by David’s underlings before he came in to speak to David; so David probably knew some of these things up front. However, given this man’s appearance, and given that David knew Saul was going to war against the Philistines, even without being briefed, I am sure that David could have made a reasonable guess that he came from the battle.

Translation: And he answered him [lit., said to him], “I escaped from the camp of Israel.” David and Saul’s falling out was well-known throughout Israel. It had gone on for several years—possibly as long as a decade. That David was exiled was also well-known; and, apparently, this man knew where to find David (how he knows this makes from some interesting speculation later on). He tells David that he has come from the camp of Saul. Obviously, this will be of interest to David.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says unto him David, “How is the word? Make [this] known please to me.”

And so he says, “Have fled the people from the battle and also many have fallen from the people and so they die. And also Saul and Jonathan his son are dead.”

Septuagint                              And David said to him, “What is the matter? Tell me.” And he said, “The people fled out of the war, and many of the people have fallen and are dead, and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead.”

Significant differences: No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              "Who won the battle?" David asked. The man said, "Our army turned and ran, but many were wounded and died. Even King Saul and his son Jonathan are dead.".

The Message                         "So what happened?" said David. "What's the news?" He said, "The Israelites have fled the battlefield, leaving a lot of their dead comrades behind. And Saul and his son Jonathan are dead."

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         "What happened?" David asked him. "Please tell me." The man answered, "The army fled from the battle, and many of the soldiers died. Saul and his son Jonathan are dead too."

HCSB                                     "What was the outcome? Tell me," David asked him. "The troops fled from the battle," he answered. "Many of the troops have fallen and are dead. Also, Saul and his son Jonathan are dead."

.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

WEB                                      David said to him, How did it go? Please tell me. He answered, The people have fled from the battle, and many of the people also have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

Young’s Updated LT             And David says unto him, “What has been the matter? Declare, I pray you, to me.” And he says, that “The people has fled from the battle, and also a multitude has fallen of the people, and they die; and also Saul and Jonathan his son have died.”.

What is the gist of this verse? David asks about the battle, and the young man tells him that the people (i.e., the Israelites) retreated in defeat, and that many of them were killed, including Saul and Jonathan.

Translation: David then said, “How is the matter? David was of course aware of the war between the Philistines and the Israelites. He had been recruited by Achish king of Gath to go to war against the Israelites and against King Saul, who had chased him out of Israel—which put David into a very difficult spot, morally speaking. However, God kept David from being involved in this sort of battle. However, even with his own personal drama, David wanted to know what had happened in this war.

Translation: Please make [this] known to me.” David is polite in his request for information. He wants all that this man knows to be made known to him.

Translation: He answered [lit., And so he said], “The people fled from the battle... He tells David that the citizen-soldiers began by retreating. There is no indication that they put up a battle against the Philistines. Recall that there was no indication that Saul’s forces put up much of a fight. Almost immediately, they are said to retreat and to be killed as they retreated (1Sam. 31:1). Now, bear in mind that there are times when we are given little detail about this or that matter in the Bible; however, also realize that Saul went into battle knowing that he and his sons would die and that Israel would lose (1Sam. 28:19). Given this, it makes sense that Israel would have retreated almost from the beginning.

Furthermore, in the next chapter, we will see the Saul’s youngest son will be set up as king by Abner, Saul’s general and uncle; and that Abner will have an army. As I suggested back in 1Sam. 31:1, Saul probably set all of this up the morning of the battle. I have speculated that Saul told Abner to go east across the Jordan with a small army and with his son Ishbosheth (who may have been home because of his age and not at war at this time). In other words, I think a lot went on at the beginning of this battle between the Israelites and the Philistines which caused Israel to retreat early on.

Translation: ...and many of the people fell... This matches the historical account from 1Sam. 31:1—the Israelites began to retreat from the Philistines and were killed as they ran from them.

I have suggested that this young man—this Amalekite—was a mercenary for the Philistines. Notice how his description of the battle is consistent with his view, as an aggressor against Israel.

Translation: ...and they have died. This verb is applied to the people of Israel, the citizen-soldiers, who fought under Saul (or, in this case, retreated while under Saul’s command). Saul apparently was fairly well-hidden at this time, but, as you may recalled, had been struck by any arrow (1Sam. 31:3). This does not mean that Saul could be seen. He could have been in heavy cover and hit with an arrow while in this heavy cover. Apparently, the Philistines knew approximately where he was.

Translation: Also, Saul and his son Jonathan have died.” This is an interesting statement. Saul was in this war with 3 of his sons, all of whom died in this battle (1Sam. 31:2). I don’t think that this man mentioned Saul and all 3 sons by name, but I think he knew enough about David to know that Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths would be those which would be most affecting.

I have suggested that there are problems with this Amalekite and his story, and this is one of them: he tells David that both Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle. Now, his story is, he is some lone soul who just happened to be on Mount Gilboa when this battle broke out. From whatever vantage point he had, he observed the death of Saul, and Saul could see him and speaks to him. How can this man also observe Jonathan’s death? If Jonathan died near his father, why is that not included in the narrative of 1Sam. 31? Why doesn’t this Amalekite tell David something about Jonathan’s death, since he observed it? My point is, if this Amalekite is a mercenary for the Philistines, then he would have been in a position to observe several deaths—probably hundreds; and his location during the battle would not have been so specific as to be standing near Saul the whole time.

Now, Matthew Henry suggests that David has heard more information from other sources about this war; however, given his very general line of questioning, and given the final disposition of this matter, I believe that this Amalekite is the first one to deliver this news to David. Not only does he observe that Saul is killed, but he apparently doubles back and takes personal possessions of Saul to show to David. The Philistines were more disciplined than that. They continued to fight unto the next day; then they went back for the bodies of Saul and his sons (1Sam. 31:8). This Amalekite would have had to get to Saul’s body before the Philistines did; and then he would need to get to David as quickly as possible with the news. Therefore, I believe him to be the first to report to David news of this battle. Recall that a time frame had been given at the beginning of this chapter. David and his men had been camped for 2 days and this was the beginning of the 3^rd. Recall that, simultaneous with David and his men fighting the Amalekites, the Philistines had charged the Israelites. These are simultaneous events. Therefore, David has been in camp for 1–2 days about the same time the Philistines go back to Saul’s body to desecrate it.

David did, on a later date, receive a more accurate accounting of Saul’s death, which information we find recorded in 1Sam. 31. It is possible that even this Amalekite, when he finds out that he is to be executed, tells David the real story (however, this is not recorded in Scripture).

Bear in mind that someone had to know what happened when Saul was killed, and that there would not be a lot of people who observed this. This young Amalekite probably did observe Saul’s death, even though he gives an incorrect accounting of it. It would be unlikely that any other survivors would have seen this, apart from the Philistine aggressors. Although Saul could have kept Abner nearby until his death, I don’t think that is what happened.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says David unto the young man the one making known to him, “How do you know that are dead Saul and Jonathan his son?”

Septuagint                              And David said to the young man who brought him the tidings, How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?

Significant differences: None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              David asked, "How do you know Saul and Jonathan are dead?.

The Message                         David pressed the young soldier for details: "How do you know for sure that Saul and Jonathan are dead?"

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         "How do you know Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?" David asked the young man who had brought him the news.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       Then David said to the young man who told him, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?"

Young’s Updated LT             And David says unto the youth who is declaring it to him, “How do you known that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?”

What is the gist of this verse? David then asks, “How do you know that Saul and Jonathan are dead?” Does this Amalekite actually know how to recognize them? Why did he stick around in the battle?

Translation: So David said to the young man who made [this] known to him,... David asks for more information here. This is a life-changing event for David and a very significant event in the history of Israel; so David needs to put together more information.

Translation:...“How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?” David solicits more information by asking, “How do you know that they are both dead?” The fact that David asks this question indicates to me that they discussed Saul and Jonathan only (Saul’s other two sons are not mentioned). This question also indicates to me that David is seeking information; that he has not been given this information from some other source. That is, I don’t think that David is asking questions of this young man in order to trip him up. At least one commentator thought that many people brought information to David, and that this guy is just one out of those many. I don’t see it that way. I see him as being David’s first source of information about Saul and Jonathan’s deaths. I believe that all we read in this narrative is consistent with this understanding.

At this point, David is going to lean back in his chair and just listen. He is going to let this young Amalekite give the complete story, which he will do in the next 4 verses.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says the young man the one making know to him, “To meet by chance I met in a mountain of Gilboa and behold, Saul was leaning upon his spear; and behold, the chariots and the lords of the horses were caused to adhere [to] him.

Septuagint                              And the young man that brought the tidings, said to him, “I happened accidentally to be upon mount Gelbue; and, behold, Saul was leaning upon his spear, and, behold, the chariots and captains of horse pressed hard upon him.

Significant differences: The final couple verbs are somewhat different; but this may have been the best guess of the Greek translators.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              The young man replied: I was on Mount Gilboa and saw King Saul leaning on his spear. The enemy's war chariots and cavalry were closing in on him.

The Message                         "I just happened by Mount Gilboa and came on Saul, badly wounded and leaning on his spear, with enemy chariots and horsemen bearing down hard on him.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The young man answered, "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa. Saul was there leaning on his spear, and the chariots and horsemen were catching up with him.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And the young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and behold, the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him.

Young’s Updated LT             And the youth who is declaring it to him says, “I happened to meet in mount Gilboa, and lo, Saul is leaning on his spear; and lo, the chariots and those possessing horses have followed him;...

What is the gist of this verse? The young man tells David that he just happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and he observes Saul leaning on his sword while the Philistines follow after him.

Translation: So the young man—the one making [this] known to him—said,... David is trying to elicit enough information from this young man to make certain that what he tells him is credible. Also, as mentioned, the information will impact Israel and David greatly. So this young man continues.

Translation: “[It was] by chance I happened [to be] on Mount Gilboa,... Although the verb is doubled, intensifying its meaning, it’s exact meaning is difficult to determine here, unless you understand this man’s motivation. The verb is often used for actually meeting someone—coming face to face with them; however, Saul is not named yet in this phrase. So, the idea is, this young man came to find himself on Mount Gilboa. It just happened. That is, he was just out walking one day, and he’s out by Mount Gilboa, and all of a sudden, he finds himself in the middle of a war. There is little explanation given here as to why this man—an Amalekite, as we will see later—found himself to be on Mount Gilboa during a battle between the Jews and the Philistines. We actually have no idea how he happens to find himself here. It is by chance that he happens to be there. Here is the idea he is selling: “I wasn’t there as a soldier for the Israelites or the Philistines. I just happened to be here.”

This man has left out a lot of details in this regard. He doesn’t tell us why he is there, miles and miles away from the souther Amalekite population. He never tells us what business he is on. He doesn’t tell us if he was extremely well-hidden, for whatever reason, and observed what occurred here. What is clear is, he probably did witness what occurred. At the very least, he did come through this area just at the right moment, after the battle had moved from where Saul was, so that Saul’s body was lying there, but the Philistines had continued to pursue the Israelites. Do you see the problems here? Do you see what a wild coincidence that this Amalekite just happens to be here? There is no reason to assume that this young man is telling the complete truth here—but, he is certainly offering a half-truth. It is my opinion that this young man was a mercenary for the Philistine army.

This is not the general area where Amalekites live and roam. To be caught up in the middle of a war seems like the last place anyone would want to be. Furthermore, this war did not start suddenly. The armies moved into place first. And, if this man observes Saul’s death (he will claim to have caused it), then he is right at the hottest part of the battle. Why would anyone stay that close?

In any case, Mount Gilboa is where Saul and his army retreated to. Their backs were to this mountain, possibly with the idea that retreat would be possible. Even if that were the reasoning, there were simply too many Philistines to hide from.

Translation: ...and I saw [lit., and behold], Saul leaning upon his spear... Now, this partially accurate. According to what we read in 1Sam. 31, which seems to be a fairly straightforward narrative of the events which transpired, Saul first asked his sword-bearer to kill him and then he leaned on his own sword and died. Always, when presenting a lie, it needs to be mixed with as much truth as possible in order to sell it. Saul, at first, leans on his sword, and then falls upon it to kill himself. However, that part of the story the Amalekite changes. He says nothing about Saul trying to kill himself, and that he was leaning upon his spear, not his sword.

Remember, this man has had some time, a day or so, to get his story straight as he goes to find David. Saul is clearly wounded by the Philistines, so he cannot change that part of the story. However, it is going to seem like a bit much for Saul to be severely wounded, then he falls on his sword, and then, that doesn’t kill him, so he calls out to this Amalekite who just happens to be nearby, to kill him again. That seems like just too many wounds, so the Amalekite decides to modify this story so that Saul only leans on his spear, but does not try to commit suicide. David would not buy that it took 3 sets of wounds to take Saul out, including a self-inflicted wound by a seasoned soldier who knew how to kill. So, instead of Saul killing himself, this Amalekite will claim to do that.

Translation:...“[It ...and [lit., and behold] the chariots and horsemen were coming upon him. The Philistine soldiers were closing in on Saul. They had chariots, something which Saul and his men did not have, which made it easy for them to overtake the Israeli army. The Philistine soldiers apparently pinpointed where Saul was (it is not clear whether they knew this was Saul or not) and pelted that area with arrows, one of which wounded Saul severely.

Now, I want you to picture this. Saul is not going anywhere. We know that he is conversing with his armorbearer asking him to kill him. The Philistines have wounded him and are coming up fast on him. We are talking, at the most, a minute. If Saul is not moving, and the Philistines spot him and come after him, not much time can transpire. And, somehow, this Amalekite is hanging around somewhere observing this. In fact, as we will see, Saul even strikes up a brief conversation with him. He just happens to find himself far north of where the Amalekites usually are; and he just happens to find himself not on the periphery of the battle, but almost dead smack in the middle of the most intense part of the battle, as this is Saul, and the Philistines want to kill him more than anyone else. Do you see, this story just makes little sense?

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And he turns around behind him and so he sees me and so he calls unto me, and so I say, ‘Behold me.’

Septuagint                              And he looked behind him, and saw me, and called me; and I said, Behold, me.

Significant differences: Even though the first verb is different, this is probably a lose translation from the Hebrew into the Greek. As usual, there is no real change in the overall meaning.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              When he turned around and saw me, he called me over. I went and asked what he wanted.

The Message                         He looked behind him, saw me, and called me to him. 'Yes sir,' I said, 'at your service.'

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         When he looked back and saw me, he called to me, and I said, 'Yes?'

HCSB                                     When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, so I answered: I'm at your service.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered, Here am I.

Young’s Updated LT             ...and he turns behind him, and sees me, and calls unto me, and I say, ‘Here am I.’

What is the gist of this verse? The young man is still giving David his view of the events. Saul looks around and he sees the young man and he calls out to him. The young man answers, “Here I am.”.

Translation: So he turned around... Or, more literally, he turned toward behind himself. For some reason, in all of the panic of war and his impending death, Saul decides to look behind himself. Bear in mind, this is the account of this young Amalekite, who may or may not be telling the entire truth. Now, even though this might be unusual for a king to do, facing certain death within minutes; this does not mean that Saul did not do this. This is not an impossible situation that Saul is leaning on his spear, wounded (not mentioned by this young man), that he looks behind himself. It is possible that he thought, for an instant, maybe there is somewhere to hide. Obviously, this is speculation. Furthermore, this is speculation which assumes the young man is telling the truth, and we already know of one clear discrepancy: in the narratives of 1Sam. 31 and 1Chron. 12, Saul falls on his sword; and, in this young man’s account, Saul leans on his spear, as if it is holding him up.

Translation: ...and saw me... Now, when Saul turns around, in the midst of this battle, he sees this Amalekite. Now, this is a bit suspicious. Saul and his armorbearer cannot find a safe place to hide; Saul has been hit with an arrow; and yet, there is an Amalekite there, not struck by the arrows; and someone who would be able to escape. This is not an impossibility; but it is highly unlikely. It is unusual for the Amalekite to be standing right there; it is unusual for the Amalekite to manage to walk away from this battle unhurt; and it is unusual for Saul to turn around and see him.

Have you ever seen the movie where this guy and this girl are in love, but they are estranged, and then, they just happen to run into each other on the streets of New York City. The movie plot just won’t move along unless they just happen to be on the same street at the same time, walking toward one another; so, we often accept these things in the movies. However, this man just happens to find himself in the middle of a war, not on either side, and here he is, just standing right next to the king of Israel just before he dies, and before the Philistines come upon him. He just happens to be here. If we like the movie, sure, we are going to let these two people meet by accident in the middle of a city of 10 million, because we want them to. However, I just don’t really like this Amalekite and I’m not buying into the idea that he just happens to be on Mount Gilboa, standing next to Saul, seconds after Saul is mortally wounded by Philistines, who are advancing toward him on horseback and by chariot. I’ll believe it in a movie, but not in real life.

Translation: ...and he called to me,... When Saul sees this young man (according to the young man), he calls out to him. Interestingly enough, arrogant Saul uses a preposition which often implies deference. The king of Israel calls unto this Amalekite, showing him great respect and deference.

Translation: ...and I answered [lit., said] ‘Here I am.’ the young man answers Saul and says, “I am right here.” What better time to chat things up than right in the midst of the battle, with the mortally wounded king, and the enemy fast approaching. Of course, it is time to strike up a conversation with someone who just happens to be walking by.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he says to me, ‘Who [are] you?’

Septuagint                              And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ and I said, ‘I am an Amalekite.’

Significant differences: None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              Saul asked me, "Who are you?" "An Amalekite," I answered.

The Message                         He asked me who I was, and I told him, 'I'm an Amalekite.'

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         "He asked me, 'Who are you?' "I said to him, 'I'm an Amalekite.'

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And he said to me, Who are you? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.

Young’s Updated LT             And he says to me, ‘Who are you?’ And I say unto him, ‘An Amalekite I am .’

What is the gist of this verse? Saul asks the young man “Who are you” and the young man admits to being an Amalekite.

Translation: So he asked me [lit., and so he says to me], ‘Who [are] you?’ According to this young man’s story, Saul looks and sees this man, and recognizes that he is a foreigner. When he asks “Who are you?” Saul is not looking for the man’s name, but, essentially asking, “Are you friend or foe?” Again, this is from the standpoint of the Amalekite standing before David. Although part of what he tells David is true, it will become obvious that part of what he tells David is a lie as well.

Translation: I answered [lit., and so I said unto him], ‘I [am] an Amalekite.’ The Amalekite understands the nature of Saul’s question and answers that he is an Amalekite.

Now, it is fair to ask at this point, does this question which Saul asks really mean, “Are you my enemy?” This may or may not be the case. However, this in and of itself is not necessarily a lie. The young man can simply be putting this in the Hebrew language the best that he can. We do not have difficult Hebrew in this narrative of the young man. Therefore, we cannot point to this particular question and say, “This can’t be right; this is not what Saul was asking; it does not mean this in the Hebrew.” Bear in mind, you are hearing an Amalekite speak in Hebrew, so the Hebrew is going to be overly-simplified. I know a smattering of Spanish. I once held a short conversation with a Mexican in Acapulco and we pretty much covered everything from chapter 1 of my Freshman high school book. After that, I was at a loss, and he knew it. I spoke to one person on the internet in Spanish, and, since I had time to think and to type, I did slightly better. However, everything that I said sounded, to one who speaks Spanish, like I was a moron. So, when speaking another language that he does not know from birth, we can grant certain allowances to this Amalekite. Of course, rather than try to explain this as though it really happened, bear in mind, this is mostly a fabricated story.

I hope you see the irony here: Saul was supposed to wipe out the Amalekites, and here is one, right at the end of his life. I do believe the Amalekite to be there, but that he is among the Philistines advancing against Saul.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he says unto me, ‘Take a stand please upon me; kill me, for the anguish SeptuagintAnd he said to me, Stand, I pray you, over me, and slay me, for a dreadful darkness has come upon me, for all my life [is] in me.

Significant differences: The noun which is different is found only here in the Hebrew; therefore, we would expect the Greeks (and ourselves) to have some difficulty translating it.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                              Then he said, "Kill me! I'm dying, and I'm in terrible pain."

The Message                         "Come here," he said, "and put me out of my misery. I'm nearly dead already, but my life hangs on."

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         "He said to me, 'Please stand over me and kill me. I'm alive, but I'm suffering.'

HCSB                                     Then he begged me, 'Stand over me and kill me, for I'm mortally wounded, but my life still lingers.'

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

WEB                                      He said to me, Stand, I pray you, beside me, and kill me; for anguish has taken hold of me, because my life is yet whole in me.

Young’s Updated LT             “And he says unto me, Stand, I pray you, over me, and put me to death, for seized me has the arrow, for all my soul is still in me.

What is the gist of this verse? This is still the account of the young Amalekite, and we are continuing in his supposed conversation with Saul. Saul tells him to stand over him and kill him because he is in great pain and agony.

Translation: Then he said, ‘Stand over me, please... Saul asks the young man to come to him and stand over him. The verb is used often for a person who takes a decisive stand (or is urged to take a decisive stand). Again, all of this is occurring according to the story of the young Amalekite.

Translation:...[and] kill me,... In the Hebrew, it is common to string together two imperatives without a conjunction; whereas, we tend to string imperatives together with conjunctions. The request of Saul is for this young man to kill him.

This story is probably mostly a fabrication and that this Amalekite is looking to capitalize on the situation. He does not want to take any chances. He cannot say, “I saw Saul there, so I went up and killed him.” He does not know exactly how David is going to respond to that. However, it sounds better if Saul personally requested that he be killed. This is a service to Saul and a service to David. This young man, if he is fabricating this story, has thought it out well. He just happened to be there and Saul just happened to ask his help in killing him. In his own mind, he cannot be faulted for what he did. He expects that David is going to reward him for this.

Translation: ...for horrible pain [or, anguish] has taken a hold of me;... Even Owen has a question mark here. The general consensus of most translators is, Saul claims to be seized by great overwhelming pain. However, this is a word whose meaning is taken principally from the context rather than from its usage elsewhere or its cognates.

Translation:...[and] because my soul [is] yet whole within me.’ Saul knows that he is going to die. That is a given at this point. Samuel had told him this the night before (1Sam. 28). So he simply asks this young man to kill him. He is in great pain and his soul still clings to life.

Again, you will notice that the vocabulary does not convey this exactly. It is close, but it does not seem to say this precisely. Again, this is an Amalekite speaking Hebrew; therefore, we cannot fault him for his weak language skills. He speaks better Hebrew than I do Spanish.

Also, as we study this, bear in mind that the Amalekite has most certainly fabricated portions of this story. Most people realize that David will become king of Israel. What better way to ingratiate yourself to the man at the top than to say that you have killed his rival—and killed his rival at his rival’s request. The plan seems foolproof to the young Amalekite.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so I stand upon him and so I killed him for I knew that he would not live after his falling. And so I take [the] crown [?] which [was] upon his head and [the] armlet [?] which [was] upon his arm and so I bring them unto my lord here.”

Septuagint                              So I stood over him and slew him, because I knew he will not live after he was fallen; and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was upon his arm, and I have brought them hither to my lord.

Significant differences: None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       So I killed him. I knew he was too badly wounded to live much longer. Then I took his crown and his arm-band, and I brought them to you, Your Majesty. Here they are.