|
SUBJECT: Saul
QUESTION: How did Saul die? There seem to be more than
one different account of how he died. Don’t all these
different accounts prove contradiction in the Bible?
ANSWER:
No, there is no contradiction. Let us look at the accounts.
SAUL COMMITTED SUICIDE:
1 Samuel 31:4-6
"Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul
died."
1 Chronicles10:4
"Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and
thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come
and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was
sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it."
SAUL WAS KILLED BY AN AMALEKITE:
2 Samuel 1:8-10
"And he [Saul]
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. So I stood upon him, and slew him."
SAUL WAS KILLED BY THE PHILISTINES:
2 Samuel21:12
"The Philistines had slain Saul."
GOD KILLED HIM:
1 Chronicles10:13-14
"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed
against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which
he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a
familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the
LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto
David the son of Jesse."
Here is what we believe:
1) We believe the scripture is specific that Saul took his
own life.
2) We believe the commentaries are correct to say the
Amalekite was lying and looking to get a reward. Note in 2
Sam. 1: 15-16 that David killed this Amalekite.
3) The Philistines do get the credit too, for Saul killed
himself BECAUSE of the fear he had of what the Philistines
would do to him, which they did do to his dead body.
Therefore if the Philistine army came up against him and he
kills himself because of that fact and the fear he had, they
get partial credit for the kill.
Add to this a verse:
1 Samuel 31:3
And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit
him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.
And notice one of the commentaries:
1 Samuel 31:3
[He was sore wounded of the
archers.] It is likely that Saul's sons were
killed by the archers, and that Saul was now mortally
wounded by the same. Houbigant translates, The archers
rushed upon him, from whom he received a grievous wound. He
remarks further that had not Saul been grievously wounded,
and beyond hope of recovery, he would not have wished his
armour-bearer to despatch him; as he might have continued
still to fight, or have made his escape from this most
disastrous battle. Some of the versions render it, He FEARED
the archers greatly; but this is by no means likely.
~from Adam Clarke's Commentary
Here is another commentary:
1 Samuel 31:3-8
He was sore wounded. The LXX and the Vulgate read, (he was
wounded in the abdomen). The story does imply a wound that
prevented his escape. ~from
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
We see that the Philistines mortally wounded him and had he
not killed himself, they would have gotten full credit for
the kill. Also notice what I have below on this point.
4) God clearly allowed the Philistine army to come up
against Saul, allowed them to prevail in that battle, to
mortally wound him and did not stop Saul from killing
himself. These verses give the reasons why God allowed Him
to die.
Interestingly, one of the verses which state that Saul took
his own life is just 10 verses away from the one that says
God killed him.
Now look at this which we found on the Internet. It states
it well.
Q.
A skeptic wrote to ask the following question: “Bible
contradictions, are they real?” He then answered his own
question (which makes one wonder why—if he already knew the
answer—he was writing us in the first place): “Yes. How did
Saul die? 2 Samuel 21:12 says he was killed by a Philistine.
1 Samuel 31:4 says he killed himself. 2 Samuel 1:18-20 says
he was killed by an Amalekite. Which one is it?”
A.
With just a few short sentences, the skeptic appears to have
documented a legitimate discrepancy within the biblical
text. The key word here, however, is “appears.” As is so
often the case, there is much more to the matter than merely
quoting a single verse or two in an effort to make the Bible
appear to contradict itself. An examination of these
passages—in their historical context—makes for an
interesting and educational study.
Let us begin with the skeptic’s claim that 2 Samuel depicts
Saul as having been killed by “a Philistine.” The context
for the statement in 2 Samuel 21:12 can be found one book
earlier in 1 Samuel 31, which centers on the fact that the
Israelites and the Philistines were engaged in an important
battle against each other. 1 Samuel 31:1 indicates that “the
Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel
fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in
mount Gilboa.” From this simple commentary by the writer, it
is clear that the battle was not going well for God’s
people. Israel’s finest-trained armies had been thoroughly
and completely routed. Her battle-weary soldiers not only
were in disarray, but full retreat. Even their king, Saul,
was in peril. In fact, the next two verses go on to explain:
“And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his
sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and
Malchishua, the sons of Saul. And the battle went sore
against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was
greatly distressed by reason of the archers.”
Israel’s first king was mortally wounded by the Philistines’
arrows. Knowing he was in his death throes, Saul determined
not to fall into the hands of his enemies while still
living. He therefore turned to his armorbearer and said:
“Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith, lest these
uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me”
(21:4a). Verses 4-6 present the conclusion of the matter:
“But his armorbearer would not; for he was sore afraid.
Therefore Saul took his sword, and fell upon it. And when
his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell
upon his sword, and died with him. So Saul died, and his
three sons, and his armorbearer, and all his men, that same
day together.”
So how did Saul die? Did “a Philistine” kill him, as the
skeptic alleges? Or did Saul commit suicide to escape
capture and possible torture at the hands of some of his
most feared enemies, as 1 Samuel 31:4 seems to indicate?
First, notice how cautiously the skeptic’s question to us
was worded in its original form. The skeptic carefully
crafted his statement to read: “2 Samuel 21:12 says he was
killed by a Philistine.” But the text nowhere states
that a Philistine killed Saul. Rather, it says, “the
Philistines (plural) slew Saul in Gilboa.” This is a
subtle but important difference. Considering the context,
was it not the Philistines (as they battled against the
Israelites) who ultimately were responsible for Saul’s
self-inflicted wound and subsequent death? Indeed it was.
Suppose a modern-day soldier were in the same situation.
Wounded by an enemy’s bullet, he takes his own life on the
battlefield to avoid capture and torture. Were a journalist
to write an article for a national or local newspaper, might
he not (justifiably) report that the soldier died at the
hands of his enemy as a direct result of the battle? Indeed
he might, for had the events never unfolded as they did,
obviously the solider would not have died under such
circumstances.
But if the reporter continued his story in the next day’s
edition of that same newspaper, and in giving additional
details of the circumstances surrounding the battle went on
to state that the young man had taken his own life rather
than fall into the enemy’s possession and possibly become a
tool of betrayal against his comrades, would any reader of
the two-part account suggest that the journalist had
“contradicted” himself? Hardly. The normal reader, with
average common sense, would recognize that in the general
context, the enemy had caused the young soldier’s death. In
the immediate context, his death had been at his own
hand as a direct result of his fear of being captured by
that enemy.
The circumstances surrounding Saul’s death were no
different. The writer of 2 Samuel 21 was correct, in the
general context, in assigning Saul’s demise to “the
Philistines” (not “a Philistine,” as the skeptic alleged),
because it was in the battle with the Philistines that Saul
found himself dying of wounds caused by their arrows and
thus committed suicide. The writer of 1 Samuel 31:4 was
correct, in the immediate context, in providing
additional information regarding exactly how that
death occurred—i.e., at Saul’s own hand as he lay mortally
wounded and in danger of capture and torture.
But what about the story that is recorded in 2 Samuel
1:1-16, wherein an Amalekite claimed to have killed the
Israelite’s beloved king? The context of this story is as
follows. David had just returned from a battle with the
Amalekites. While in the city of Ziklag, a young man in
ragged clothing appeared before him with a report of Saul’s
death. The young man, himself an Amalekite, stated:
“As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was
leaning upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and the
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.’ And he said unto me, ‘Stand, I pray
thee, beside me, and slay me; for anguish hath taken hold of
me, because my life is yet whole in me.’ So I stood beside
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” (2 Samuel 1:6-10).
David’s response to this story was one of outrage. At
hearing the young man’s report, he inquired: “How wast thou
not afraid to put forth thy hand to destroy Jehovah’s
anointed?” (2 Samuel 1:14). Turning to the Amalekite, he
sternly said: “Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth
hath testified against thee, saying, ‘I have slain Jehovah’s
anointed’.” David then ordered one of his own soldiers to
slay the young man as punishment for the atrocity he claimed
to have committed—the murder of Israel’s king, Saul (2
Samuel 1:15-16).
How can this story be reconciled with the accounts in 1
Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 21? Isolated from both the general
and immediate historical context, the simple fact is that it
cannot. Is there, then, an unavoidable, unexplainable
contradiction as the skeptic has alleged? No, there is not.
There is another possible explanation. In his book,
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer
elaborated on this possibility when he wrote that the
Amalekite’s story
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.... 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 (1982, pp.
181-182, emp. added).
It would not be unusual for a Bible writer to record a story
that was told at the time as the truth when, in fact, it was
a lie. Moses recorded Satan’s lie to Eve in Genesis 3:4,
without comment on its false nature. The writer of 1 Kings
13 recorded the lie of the older prophet to the younger
prophet (a lie that ultimately caused the younger prophet’s
death). John recorded Peter’s three-fold lie when he denied
being one of Christ’s disciples (18:15-27). Other similar
examples could be offered. The point is, just because the
Amalekite mercenary claimed to have killed King Saul
does not mean that he was telling the truth when he made
such a claim. In fact, we know he was not because elsewhere
(e.g., 1 Samuel 31:4-5) the actual facts of the case are
presented with great clarity. Once again, the skeptic’s
claim of a biblical discrepancy can be answered by a
common-sense appeal to reason that provides a solution
consistent with the available facts.
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
back to the top |