1 Samuel Lesson 49
Saul and Jonathan Die – 1 Samuel 31 & 2
Samuel 1
Tonight we finish 1 Samuel and begin 2 Samuel because both of these
chapters are together. 1 Samuel 31 is the last part of this section; we have
dealt with chapters 1-7, how God prepared to deliver Israel by great change;
chapters 8-15 we found how God establishes the office of king and the first
incumbent failed. Then in chapter 16
through 1 Samuel 1 we find Saul decreasing and David increasing; all during
this time Saul is the picture of a man who is in compound carnality, who is
completely un-oriented to grace, works oriented all the way. David, on the other hand is a sinner also,
but the difference between the two sinners is that one is grace oriented, the
other is anti-grace, one rejects grace, the other accepts grace. And David sins, Saul sins. The difference is not that one sins and the
other doesn’t; the issue is which one appropriates God’s solution to sin.
Tonight we come to the last part of this section where Saul dies and
David is delivered. The theme of these
last two chapters, been paralleling David’s life to Christ. David is parallel to Christ in the fact that
he’s anointed, the second aspect to his life is that he is rejected; the third
aspect, he is persecuted, and now the fourth aspect, he is glorified, meaning
he is brought to his throne right. Now
David is glorified by grace, and the story ends has no story has ever ended in all
the corpus of Ancient Near Eastern literature.
In fact, this story ends like no story has ever ended that deals with
any rise to political power of any of the great leaders of man down through the
corridors of time. This story has a
very, very interesting and very, very tragic end. In its moment of triumph it’s a tragedy. And so the story bears paying attention to
because it reveals how Gold’s grace works.
I think if you pay attention to the details of this it will guard you,
protect you against getting a flippant view of grace. God is a gracious God, God loves us, but
before the fall God’s love manifests itself different. Before the fall did God love? Yes he did, because God is immutable, God
never changes, God is the same yesterday, today and forever; God does not
change. So therefore God always, there
never was a time when He didn’t, loves His creation. However, something happened, and after the
fall God loves the creation but only because of grace. Grace is love toward those unworthy of it;
grace is love toward those who warrant judgment. So you have grace and I have suggested we
begin using in our vocabulary the word “mercy,” for the reason that grace
somehow in the English language has become unloaded of its full meaning. It doesn’t carry it’s full meaning load to
it, and that word has lost something that we have to protect, and this story is
designed to give you what mercy connotes.
The word “mercy,” when you use the word mercy how does that differ from
when you use the word grace? What does
the word “mercy” really mean to you? It
means that you’re in a jam, it means that there is no way out unless someone
has mercy on you. You are utterly and
totally dependent upon somebody exercising mercy toward you. You’re trapped, you’re damned, you’re cursed,
you’re in trouble, and you need grace.
Now the word “mercy” is a better word for this.
This story, in chapter 31 and 1 is a story of mercy, and it’s a very,
very good story because it protects us against thinking of grace divorced from
our sin. Grace is always in union with
sin; grace cannot be separated from sin, always in connection with sin. If you want to speak of grace you must
remember it is this side of the fall; before the fall did God love? Yes He did, but was God a gracious God before
the fall? No, God could not be a
gracious God before the fall. Why couldn’t God be a gracious God before the
fall? Because there was no discrediting
of His creatures toward His love. And
therefore God loved but He was not gracious; grace could not begin until you
have sin. So grace always carries sin in
its background; therefore the word “mercy” is probably more accurate to use.
Now let’s look at chapter 31 because here we have the termination of
discipline in the life of King Saul.
This is the event that 1 Samuel has been looking to for a dozen chapters
at least. We’ve had over and over a
recurrence here and there of a note of doom is coming upon this man, not
because God has predestined him in the bad sense of the word, in the determinus
sense of the word, but God has predestined him in the sense that, allowing Saul
full responsibility, Saul nevertheless, you might say, has damned himself. Saul, like too many believers, has gone on
negative volition occasion after occasion after occasion, believers who love
pride and want with their pride God’s blessing, and God will not give His
blessing on the proud. And so therefore
the only way to secure blessing is the humiliation of bowing one’s knee before
God’s grace.
Now in 1 Samuel we have the battle, the participle is used, “Now the
Philistines fought against
So they’re moving down and there’s a highland here that is the Israelite
strong point,
Verse 2, “And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul,” in other words,
they’re constantly closing in, constantly pressing their advantage. Again, a sound principle of war. When your enemy is on the retreat, that’s
when you pursue; you pursue, you follow up your blows. Here the Philistines were following up an
advantage, they were pressing hard, they didn’t break off contact when they
first began to win; they followed the contact, this is when they pressed
harder, when they saw that the other side was losing. And this is what it means, they “followed
hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and they slew” all three of the sons at the
end of verse 2.
Then verse 3, verse 3 is very interesting from the standpoint of
previous texts because in the previous texts David has predicted that Saul is
going to die in one of three ways; God is going to have a special sickness or
accident, or he is going to die a natural death, or he’s going to die in
battle; one of those three ways, and it’s not going to be by David’s hand. Now it almost was by David’s hand because
David was almost involved in this campaign.
And if God had restrained His grace and just allowed David to carry out
his human viewpoint scheme, his little gimmick, we would have found David up
here probably in the middle of the battle, killing Saul, which would totally
have wiped out the whole plan that God was trying to move here to get him to
the throne.
Someone asked a question that’s going to be answered tonight about why
is it that God is so concerned that there not be blood on David’s hands towards
Saul when obviously there’s blood on his hands all over the place. The answer goes back to the office of mashach, that was the throne and David
had his throne right given to him by grace, and it was those throne rights that
could not be secured by human works.
David is going to have to be a king that is elevated into political
office by grace, wholly by grace. And if
David were to take up the spear and the sword against Saul personally it would
be by works. And so to make the issue
very, very clear for all time, God so works it, so arranges the process that
Saul is going to be there by grace.
Now the three sons die, they’re slaughtered in verse 2, and verse 3, an
“accident,” (quote, end quote) happens.
“And the battle went sore [heavily] against Saul, and the archers hit
him; and he was severely wounded, by the archers.” Now it says “the archers hit him,” but
actually in the Hebrew it says the archers found him; the idea can be two-fold,
we’re not sure what, but in the milieu of the battle some of the archers, who
stood in the back, the archers never were in the front, they were always in the
back, the men with the swords and the spears were in the front line and then
behind them you’d have several other lines of archers. And they’d be shooting. Now apparently from what we know of how these
wars were conducted and all the mass confusion that was involved, when it says
“the archers found him” it doesn’t mean they had a pair of binoculars and said
hey, there’s Saul, let’s get him. I can
pretty well prove that because later on in the text the Philistines don’t know
that they killed Saul. So when it says
that the archers found him apparently what it means is just the arrows are
flying and one arrow found him. In other
words, this is a (quote) “accident.”
This is a military situation and that arrow finds its mark.
There is no chance in God’s plan, there’s chaos here, but God has it
under His sovereign control; one of these arrows, no Philistine archer knows
which one it was, but just an arrow came and hit him. “…and he was sore wounded,” means he was
mortally wounded. He apparently from
certain things that are said in the text his complaint is that he doesn’t see
properly, his perception is beginning to go and it would indicate tremendous
blood loss, he’s fainting here, so the wound is apparently a very bloody one
and he has a lot of internal injuries which means he knows he is not going to
survive.
Verse 4, “Then said Saul unto his armor-bearer,” and he says, “Draw your
sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust
me through, and abuse me. But his
armor-bearer would not; for he was very much afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon
it. [5] And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon
his sword, and died with him.” Several
things are in this text; this, by the way, is one of the rare times in the Word
of God that you have to deal with that troublesome problem of euthanasia or
mercy killing. And this is a
contemporary debate in medicine, it’s a very, very difficult one, and as it
stands it’s usually left to the poor doctor and the doctor is the one that gets
involved in this and actually he shouldn’t; the doctor should be given
standards by which he can follow and certain organizations are trying to help
doctors have some sort of a standard they can fall back on in these cases. It’s a very, very difficult decision; the
latest proposal, interesting from our point of view, is Bible-believing
Christians, we’ve always said that life is connected with the breath, is that
the criterion on pulling out the tubes, for example on someone who is being
artificially sustained, it’s been proposed that this be done if after six hours
the person is incapable of breathing voluntarily and this is considered he
can’t live by natural means and so therefore there’s no sense keeping him
alive. But the problem of euthanasia is
a very real one, and it’s one of those things that a Christian has to struggle
with, and the only text that we’ve got in all of God’s Word that comes close to
mercy killing is this passage here. This
is the only passage that I know of that even approaches the problem of
euthanasia.
And Saul calls at this point for euthanasia, and it is rejected. And so we’ve come to the fact that Scriptures
at this point do not look favorably upon euthanasia. Do not look favorably at all; the alternative
to this sort of thing is found, turn to Proverbs 31:6 which seems to give about
the only guide Scripture does for this kind of a problem. This is very hard to discuss, in a way it’s
very foolish to discuss this with a mixed group of people that have mixed
presuppositions because you get ten doctors in the room talking about life and
you can have ten different definitions of what life is and since euthanasia
deals with whether we should take life, you can obviously see the problem we’ve
got. This is why as Bible-believing
Christians, and when I get in these kind of discussions I have to operate from
my presuppositions, like everybody operates from their presupposition. My presupposition is that God’s word defines
life for me. So we come to Proverbs
31:6, this appears to be the only thing God says about the problem of illness
and tragedy and pain at the point of death.
“Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish,” the idea is that
it is merciful to drug a person into unconsciousness at the point of their
death, but that’s the only positive command we’ve got in Scripture, to deal
with the problem of dying. Make them
unconscious, take them out of their pain, but beyond that, euthanasia does not
appear condoned in the Word of God.
Back to 1 Samuel, Saul tries to get his armor-bearer to thrust him
through, and then he says in the last part a sentence that seems to indicate
why euthanasia is not condoned in Scripture, because he says, after he says
“thrust me through,” notice the next purpose clause, “lest these uncircumcised
come and thrust me through,” now interestingly at this point he at least is
aware of the uncircumcised, but like Saul, he loads it with a different meaning
because usually when the word “circumcised” has been used, notice how it’s
always used to pinpoint the fact that the Philistines are on covenant land; the
Philistines being uncircumcised are not covenant people and don’t belong in the
land, therefore, out!
So the word uncircumcised has a technical meaning in 1 Samuel, but when
it’s used here Saul really isn’t concerned with the Abrahamic Covenant because
immediately after he says “lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me
through,” now “thrust me through” is a lethal movement, he’s not talking about
the cat plays with a mouse and chews one leg off and then part of its tail and
then another leg and so on. He’s not
talking about that slow death type thing, he’s talking about the Philistines,
the uncircumcised are going to kill him, that’s “thrust through,” same word
used in the first part of the first part of the verse where he talks to his
armor-bearer and says “thrust me through,” so it’s a fatal wound. So he’s not talking about the fact that he’s
afraid he’s going to be cut up in pieces, but he says I’m afraid these
uncircumcised will come and “thrust me through, and shame [abuse] me,” the word
is. Now that again shows the mentality
of self-righteous Saul. He is not
concerned with the uncircumcised in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant, in
the context these people are enemies of God.
That’s not the context of his remark; the context is that it would be
shameful for my honor, my pride, my dignity, to be killed by the
uncircumcised. Let me die valiantly, let
me die heroically. And so to the very
last breath Saul is a very proud man who can’t step down from his pride even
for a minute to look up at the grace of God. Even at his mode of death it must
be Saul’s way; Saul must not be humiliated by the Philistines. We’re going to show a very interesting
principle, when God says something to you, He is going to carry that out, and
God has said Saul, you are under discipline and I am going to carry it out and
you may not want to die shamefully but you’re going to.
And so after Saul dies is he going to be abused? Yes he is, and this is why later on details
are going to be given. So even Saul’s
death wish is not respected by God. This
is the tragedy of the man. After going
through the years of misery and sorrow because he can’t step down from his
self-induced pride, here’s the self-righteous Saul, even with his last breath,
making one last plea to God, God at least let me die heroically. God doesn’t do that, he dies miserably and
his body is going to be desecrated. This
is a principle and it’s an important one. This morning we talked about the grand cop out
in marriage, which is divorce; have a problem, too proud to solve it, take the
divorce route. Here we’ve got another
cop out, suicide; I’m too proud to solve my own problem so I’ll blow my brains
out, a brilliant solution. Suicide is
murder, your life is not your own, you didn’t make it, God gave it to you and
therefore you can’t even take your own life without violating a command of God. Now if suicide is not condoned in the Word of
God it’s probably for the same mercy-killing isn’t. It’s the fact that when we get down to the
last breath of life we want to go out our way, not God’s way. God says sorry, you’re checking out My way. So Saul takes this approach, in this case he
commits suicide, God grants his wish, and so he fell upon his sword and that’s
it.
Now verse 6, summarizing the narrative to the day he died with his
armor-bearer, all his men together, apparently they were in one same location
on the battlefield. “So Saul died, and
his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men that same day together.”
Now verse 7, presents the political result of this death. Verse 7 is not continuing the story; verse 7
is a parenthesis, like I have warned you about reading Hebrew history because
inevitably you will talk to some sidewalk skeptic some place, there’s a
contradiction in the Bible and usually it’s because he heard it from somebody
who heard it from somebody who read a book about somebody who read a book about
the Bible. Now in this situation we have
one of those things and it’s because Hebrew history is written logically, like
all other Ancient Near Eastern literature.
Read the Egyptian literature, it’s written the same way, we’re not
making a special case of the Bible.
Logically, not chronologically!
So verse 7 summarizes everything that happens from verse 6 all the way
into 2 Samuel. This is a summary of the
political results of the battle.
Now here’s what happened.
Remember when we went over the military strategy of the Philistine
advance; they are coming down the valley of Jezreel, it’s very sound military
strategy. Why? It splits the tribes in
the north and it splits the tribes in the northeast area, Transjordania. Now this is exactly the political result;
they win the battle and it has a calculated effect. Let’s read it: “And when the men of Israel
who were on the other side of the valley,” what valley? The valley of Jezreel,
all right, those are the northern tribes, “and they who were on the other side
of the Jordan,” those over in northern Transjordania, now that’s what the
Philistines wanted, so look what happened, when all the residents up here and
here, “saw that the men of Israel had fled, and that Saul and his sons were
dead,” now they didn’t learn about it an hour after the battle; this took days,
days, weeks to learn, but they finally learned it. See, verse 7 summarizes over a time
period. What did they do? What was the political result? “…they forsook the cities, and fled; and the
Philistines came and dwelt in them.” So look
at the mess we’ve got. Now when David assumes the throne what kind of a kingdom
does he have to start with? A real great
area, Judah, that’s about it, a little bit of Ephriam, all the northern tribes
are shot, all the tribes in northern Transjordania are shot, the whole coastal
plain is under Philistine control, so look, that’s what David has when he
ascends the throne, and there’s going to be some struggles as David tries to
solidify the mess that he inherited.
David comes into a very bad political situation here.
Verse 8 picks up the story again, “And it came to pass on the next day,
when the Philistines came to strip the slain,” this was always done for various
reasons. Armor was very expensive in the
ancient world; those of you who have read Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey
understand this stripping of the slain, it occurs over and over in Homer. The idea is that the armor is specially made,
think of Achilles special armor for example, and this armor is very precious. It’s not only used for a trophy, it’s used
for the person who takes the armor if it fits.
If it doesn’t fit he uses it as a trophy. But then the stripping of the slain also
means that there’s clothing there, and cloth was very precious in the ancient
world, they’d go home and wash it out and they’re remake it into other clothes
and they’d give the spoils to the women.
So the spoiling of the slain was an ancient commonly accepted practice.
“…that they found Saul and his three sons fallen in Mount Gilboa.” Now that phrase tells you that they didn’t
now at first that they’d killed Saul.
They just knew that they had a military victory and then when they were
surveying the battlefield they said hey, look at this, here he is. And so verse 9, what did Saul want by way of
his death wish, what was it that he said, Lord, let me not be abused, and what
happens. “And they cut off his head, and
stripped off his armor, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about,
to publish it in the house of their idols, and among the people. [10] And they
put his armor in the house of Ashtaroth; and they fastened his body to the wall
of Beth-shan.” A very humiliating end to
the righteous proud Saul.
Now the cutting off of the head is what David did to Goliath. Remember David cut off Goliath’s head and
what did he do with it? He took it to
the tabernacle, which was what? It was
the house of Yahweh. All right, when the
Philistines cut off somebody else’s head where do they put it? In the house of their god, in this case
that’s Ashtaroth, the house of Ashtar, she was a goddess, the goddess of
warfare; in the Ugaritic texts you can read how she appeared, she just wallowed
in blood. One scene I remember
translating when we had Ugaritic, she would be wallowing in blood, throwing the
skulls of the slain all over the place, and she was pictured as a vicious
bloody virgin. She was one of the
perpetual virgins, which, by the way, has crept down and has become part of the
Roman Catholic tradition behind the virgin Mary which isn’t Biblical at all.
The concept of the perpetual virgin is all over the ancient east, and many
trace it back to a residue in ancient culture of a memory of how evil
begin. You always have a perpetual
virgin, she’s always having babies but she’s always a perpetual virgin, and
she’s always connected with bloodthirsty and evil, so some have thought that
this was a strain coming out of Eve, it’s a faint memory and recollection that
evil has come through the woman.
Therefore the woman bears this in mythology, she is the goddess, the
goddess of evil and strife. Ashtaroth
was that kind of a god.
Now when Saul’s body was taken, notice his body was left at a place
called Beth-shan. Again on our map,
there’s a town here, Beth-shan, and it was very smart politically for them to
do this because they hung the body up to public exposure, and this was a
reminder that this whole area was now under Philistine domination, the anointed
of Yahweh had been destroyed, see, look at him, his body is hanging up on the
wall. It was also politically smart because
they knew that this angered the Jews; Jews could not stand to have a body after
sunset displayed. This was why Jesus
body had to be taken down from the cross at sunset. A body could not be left
there. And so it was deliberately
designed to hack off the Jews and to teach them a lesson that the Philistines
own this area, this is their land.
But they did something else, that was what they did to his body, but all
the rest, his head and his armor they sent around to all the cities in the
south. Now why did they send it down in
the south? It says “to publish it,”
what’s that word “publish” mean. It’s a
very interesting word; that’s the Hebrew word that comes over into the Greek,
that comes over from the Greek into the English as “evangelize.” It’s the word that means announce good
tidings, it is the word from which we get the gospel Now that is how the word “announce good
tidings” was used in the ancient world.
It was used to announce a victory.
In Jewish culture it was used to announce a victory that had been
foretold, so there was a prophetic element in it, but in the other cultures it
was used to announce a victory, and here’s where you have the gospel
message. Now why do you think the news
of the New Testament is called the gospel.
I know what some of you think of the word “gospel.” You think of someone
singing just as I am and everybody is trotting down the aisle or something,
this kind of thing and that’s what you have in
your background for the word “gospel.”
Sorry, it’s not in Scripture. The
word “gospel” in Scripture has to do with victory, a tremendous victory
militarily speaking.
Now if that’s the case, why is the New Testament message called the
“gospel?” It’s because of the victory
which Christ secured on the cross which doesn’t make sense unless you believe
in the principalities and powers, unless you believe in a literal Genesis,
unless you believe in all these things.
You can’t talk about the gospel unless you believe in a literal Old Testament. Well, here’s the word “gospel.” The word “gospel” used here for a victory, a
victory “in the house of their idols and among their people.”
Now verse 11-12, what the Jewish men did about in a place called
Jabesh-gilead, which is just over the Jordan River. Apparently this town was not threatened and
they had some men who had their heads screwed on, and so they got together a
little raiding party. Now it had to be a
raiding party because this body was obviously guarded. “And when the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead
herd of that which the Philistines had done to Saul, [12] All the valiant men
arose, and went all night,” did a night attack, “and took the body of Saul and
the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and came to Jabesh, and
burned them there.” Less you think this is something out of ancient practice,
if you read World War II history you know what they did to Mussolini,
Mussolini’s body was displayed like this when he was found, so this is not
something that’s just out of the archives of history some place. This occurs over and over.
Verse 13, “And they took their bones,” notice what they did to them,
verse 12 they burnt them there. By the
way, nowhere in Scripture do you have cremation mentioned except here; this is one of those rare places where
cremation is mentioned. “And they took
their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven
days.” Now some have said why is it that
Christians are often times anti-cremation?
The reason is not because the Bible says so much about it but because
cremation in some areas was associated with defying the resurrection. Cremation was used by many religious groups
that we’ll stop the resurrection, we’ll burn the body and so cremation was used
in many practices to defy God to resurrect that body that had been burned. And that’s why Christians sometimes have
problems with cremation. But here
cremation was apparently used because you can imagine what condition the body
was in hanging up there for a few days, the flies and everything else. So the body had partly deteriorated and so
they couldn’t do anything with it and they just buried the bones, and “fasted
seven days.”
Now 2 Samuel chapter 1. 1 and 2
Samuel are together in the Jewish literature; they are separated in your
English Bibles; they are part of one book.
When I prepared for tonight, when I translated the text, you just
translate right on, there’s no break, this goes right into chapter 1. There’s no break between these books.
“Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David had returned
from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in
Ziklag.” Now where is David when all of
this is going on? Ziklag is down here
to the south, here’s where David is; now he’s in a jam too. Here’s why?
The Philistines occupy this whole area.
What they’re going to do now, because they know they pulled out all
their forces from this area, you saw what happened when they did that, the
Amalekites moved in to raid the vacuum, so they know this and they’re going to
start bringing their forces down, and it takes them three days to deploy their
forces back into the Philistine pentapolis.
Now here again you have God’s amazing sovereignty in history. This little note that you read in verse 1 is
a warning note to show you that had three days elapsed, the Philistines would
have been back. Now can you imagine the
mess, here David is, part of their pentapolis, surrounded by thousands of
Philistines, the King of Israel now, and he can’t even get out of Philistia. So it’s very critical that David move out of
Ziklag, get into the hills of Judah before those Philistines come back, and
he’s got three days to do it. So for two
days he sits with his men at Ziklag.
Then on the third day this event happens, verse 2, “It came even to pass
on the third day that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his
clothes torn, and earth was upon his head; and so it was, when he came to
David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance.” This man, if you’ve read classical literature
will understand this man, the classic bringer of good news. This man is the courier and in the ancient
world the young man who would bring the new king the story, the fact that he
was now king, he was bringing him the crown, would be a high official in that
king’s administration. He would be
rewarded. So this boy is cast in the
role of a man who brings the good tidings that the enemy has died, and now you
are king. And the king would take his
crown, he’d put it on, he’d sit in his office, and then he would make him his
prime minister, he’d make him a high official.
So this youth, if you understand the culture of it, he has certain
things on his mind other than just telling the good news of this thing.
Verse 3, “And David said unto him, From where do you come? And he said
unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped.” And verse 4, well what happened, and he
describes it, Saul, Jonathan, they’re all dead.
“And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, 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.” Verse 5, “And David said unto the young man who told
him, How do you know that Saul and Jonathan, his son, are dead?”
And verse 6, “And the young man who told him said, As I happened by
chance upon Mount Gilboa,” in the Hebrew text here it’s stressing the word
“chance.” As I said to you before, the
Hebrews had a strange way of making a verb, and I don’t know how to translate
it into English, and most translators don’t do anything with it, but here’s
what happens. “Chance, chance,” they
repeat the verb and they put one verb the normal way it should be in the language,
indicative mood, and then they tack on an infinitive absolute after it, same
verb just repeated again. And whenever the Hebrews did that, it means it
emphasizes the mood of the first verb, so here you have the mood. Now what is the mood? The mood here is indicative, it’s a reporting
mood and so what he’s saying, look, it’s really by chance, I just
happened. Now that is a very unusual
thing you see, because if he was thinking spiritually, he wouldn’t have said
chance, wouldn’t have emphasized it this way, so immediately things begin to
look awry here; that’s the first thing that looks suspicious about this, it
happened by chance, “behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots
and horsemen followed hard after him.”
They could technically quibble with that one, if they were fighting on
Mount Gilboa the horses and chariots wouldn’t have been on top of the
mountain.
Verse 7, “And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto
me. And I answered, Here I am. [8] and
he said unto me, Who art thou? And I
answered him, I am an Amalekite.” Not
this is a strange thing, what is an Amalekite doing inside the Hebrew army,
especially when who is David fighting to the south? The Amalekites. Well, suppose we explain it as he tries to,
as a sojourner; that still doesn’t get him off the hook. Verse 9, “He said unto me again, Stand, I
pray thee, over me, and slay me; for anguish is come upon me, because my life
is yet whole in me.” Now we know this is
a lie because 1 Samuel 31 reports how Saul really died. This guy is prefabricating this whole
thing. Now some would say oh, it’s just
two accounts, here’s one of those doublets again. It’s a doublet in 1 Samuel 31 and here’s the
other side of it in 2 Samuel 1. It’s not
a doublet at all, I’m going to prove it to you.
But for this point just watch the text, just observe it.
So he lies to him, at least by the standards of 1 Samuel 31, and he said
Saul told me to come over and kill him.
And then Saul’s reason, very interesting, he says “anguish is come upon
me,” now here is where we suspect we know why or how Saul was dying. If he really said this what he’s saying is
I’m losing my ability to perceive. It’s
a very strange usage, it’s a word that means multicolored, variegated colors,
and it’s strange he’s using it in this kind of a context. So you have to figure out, what does this
verb mean in this kind of a situation.
Apparently what Saul is saying is I can’t see right, it’s like I’m
fainting, my eyes, my vision is going.
And the reason why we think this is also the meaning of the verb is
because he has to ask the guy who is he.
Not it could be this kid is making it all up, or it could be that he’s
just simply saying this because he’s seen it happen on the battlefield so many
times. Then Saul says “because my life
is yet whole in me,” now for those of you who are interested in the psychology
of the soul, there is an interesting verse because he’s saying my life is my nephesh… [tape turns] …and that shows you that they conceived of
the fact that the life went out by pieces, in other words, as a person died the
life went out slowly. And this
expression actually is used for the dying; in the Old Testament when the people
die, they say “my nephesh is
leaving.” It doesn’t go just like
that. It’s leaving, by a process of
time. But Saul is saying, when he says
all “my life is yet whole in me,” he says I haven’t even begun to die yet. In other words, he’s got a wound that pains
him and he’s afraid of the Philistine abuse, and that’s why he wants mercy
killing or suicide.
In verse 10 the boy said, again it’s a lie, “So I stood over him, and
slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after he was fallen. And I took the crown that was upon his head,
and the bracelet that was on his arm, and brought them here unto my lord.” He thought David would be happy about this
because under Ancient Near Eastern custom the bearer of good news, the bringer
of the crown, was honored. So he was
simply following Ancient Near Eastern rules.
Now what happens from verse 11 on to the end of this chapter is what is
radically different from the whole of the Ancient Near East. In fact, this is radically different,
basically, from normal political results in this kind of a thing. This is absolutely different, the boy did not
expect this at all to happen. He was
simply going on what he’d seen time and time again, it was his opportunity as
an ambitious young man to be the bearer of good tidings, and he’d be welcomed,
he’d be a hero because I killed your enemy David, you’re going to be happy.
Two things, verses 11-12, and it’s an intense mourning. If you can conceive of this as a story, if
you’d like to write a novel of this sometime, or make a film of it, a neat
thing to have is to have a picture of this kid’s face, because here he is in
anticipation that David is going to give him something, welcome into my
kingdom, and all of a sudden everybody goes into hysterics. The kid looks around, what’s going on, I
didn’t expect this, what are you guys, crazy or something, I’m telling you good
news, your enemy is dead, and this is the reaction he gets.
Verse 11, “Then David took hold of his clothes, and tore them; and
likewise all the men who were with him. [12] And they mourned, and wept, and
fasted until evening; for Saul, and for Jonathan, his son, and for the people
of the LORD, and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the
sword.” Strange reaction, he certainly
wasn’t prepared for that reaction.
Then in verse 13, an even more disastrous reaction, “And David said unto
the young man who told him, Where are you from?
And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite,” a gur, that means one who dwelt
temporarily in the nation Israel, probably a traveling businessman. Verse 14, “And David said unto him, How come
you were not afraid to stretch forth your hand to destroy the LORD’s
anointed?” [brief blank spot in
tape] Verse 15, “And David called one of
the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him, so that he died.” You can just imagine the horrible shock on
this kid’s face, he’d brought David the crown, he’d brought David the bracelet
that was always kept on the king’s arm.
And he hands it to him and what does he do? Kill him; what kind of a reaction is
this? Strange reaction, certainly not a
grateful reaction for all he’s done for David.
Why this strange reaction?
There definitely is trouble with this passage and we have to understand
what’s going on here, what’s the Holy Spirit have in this for us. Well, fortunately elsewhere in the Bible there’s
a commentary on this passage, so turn to 1 Chronicles 10:9-10 here’s where you
can prove that this is not a doublet.
Some people like to find contradictions. After all, it is true if you
can find a contradiction you can get out from under the pressure that the Word
of God might be trying to bring to your conscience. So it’s a convenient psychological device to
escape God’s pressure. But unfortunately
if you look carefully you always find solutions to the contradictions. So what do we read here? It’s a parallel passage, describes the same
event, and verse 9, “And when they had stripped him they took his head,” just
like the other text, “and his armor, and sent into the land of the Philistines
round about, to carry tidings,” there’s your word gospel, “unto their idols,
and to the people. [10] And they put his
armor in the house of their gods, and fastened his head in the temple of
Dagon. [11] And when all Jabesh-gilead
heard all that the Philistines had done to Saul, [12] They arose,” and so on.
Then verse 13-14 are added as a comment.
“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 inquire of her, [14] And inquired
not of the LORD; therefore, he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David, the
son of Jesse.” So this is a commentary
on why, this tells only half of the problem, this tells us part of the problem,
in that why is all this mourning? It’s because
there’s discipline, and there’s mourning over discipline, never rejoicing in
the middle of chastening; oh I’m glad he got it, huh-un, that’s not the
attitude of David. Saul has received
discipline and you don’t rejoice in it.
But there’s even more, and this tells you a little bit about what was
going on in David’s mind. Turn back to 2
Samuel 4:10 and you’ll see that David knew this boy, and he knew what he was
after. This is another very interesting
comment; it shows you what he wasn’t doing in the middle of this thing; you
might get the impression form 2 Samuel 1 that David lost his bananas or
something, what’s going on, I thought David hated Saul, why now does all of a
sudden he loves the man. Here’s your
answer. “When one told me, saying,
Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought me the gospel [good tidings]”
the good news, “I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I
would have given him a reward for his tidings.”
Then significantly he adds verse 11 because of a future situation, “How
much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon
his bed?” because in that context, of 2 Samuel 4, he’s giving a whole new
situation, but that whole new situation is contrasted, and what is the contrast
in verse 11, “when wicked men have slain a righteous person,” what is the
implication that David thinks about Saul?
That he’s not a righteous person.
David never loses his estimation for Saul, he’s no righteous person,
he’s an apostate, and to the very end David says Saul is an apostate, this
verse he compares him with a righteous person.
David has not changed his estimate of Saul.
All right, but what do you about 2 Samuel 1; let’s go on and find
out. There is a solution to this; why it
is that we can have this apparent contradiction, David is a lifelong enemy of
Saul, God gives him deliverance by grace, and David cries… David cries and he
laments. And then he writes, one which
has been considered the most famous heroic lament in all the world’s
literature, that begins at verse 19 and goes to verse 27. Oftentimes you’ll
hear this lament quoted, out of context, or you’ll see pieces of it. But to my knowledge it’s never… it was put in
one hymn book, called the book of Jasher, in verse 18. The book of Jasher was a military training
manual for the young men of Israel. It
had two parts, a musical part and one on the martial arts. It had these two parts, where the men would
be trained both in hand to hand combat, with sword, spear, but then they would
also be trained in music. And when I
went through the area in music in 1 Samuel I tried to bring out why; because
the ancient people believe that music was a system of molding your mental
attitude, of giving energy and concentration to your soul, and they used music
as a device, a tool of war, weapon. And
that’s why this strange book of Jasher, in verse 18, was some book, it’s lost
in history, the modern day book of Jasher, it’s problematic whether that’s
really the one, that in this book were compiled the following hymn, it’s a
lamentation.
Notice verses 17-18, “And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul
and over Jonathan, his son, [18] Also he ordered them to teach the children of
Verse 19, the announcement, “The beauty of
And so this is why he curses in verse 20, damn their victory, but of
course, he can’t stop it because they’re already celebrating in the
And then in verse 22-24 we have the eulogy that he makes, a eulogy not
because Saul is a righteous man, but because he after all is the Lord’s
anointed. Not because of his
scintillating personality, but because of the position he held in God’s
plan. “From the blood of the slain, from
the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of
Saul returned not empty.” That’s a
eulogy to their bravery. You could argue
well Saul didn’t show much bravery; nevertheless, David honored him in his
position. Saul was brave, when he wanted
to be, Saul was a brave man.
Verse 23, “Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives,
and in their death they were not divided;” and again we’ve raised questions
about Jonathan’s loyalty to his father over his loyalty to Jehovah, but David
says nevertheless, here was a son who stuck with his father. “…they were swifter than eagles, they were
stronger than lions.” And then he turns
to the women, because part of these laments were always carried by the women in
the choruses, and I think that you can imagine that when this lament was sung
it was sung by both the men and the women, the men would then sing toward the
women who were in the middle of this lament, [24] “Ye daughters of Israel, weep
over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on
ornaments of gold upon your apparel.”
See, there’s the spoils of war.
The women would take the spoils of war and use them in their households.
And then in verse 25-26 he has a special note of praise for
Jonathan. “How are the mighty fallen in
the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, you
were slain in thine high places. [26] I
am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to
me. Thy love to me was wonderful,
passing the love of women.” Very, very
stupid foolish critics have said oh, there was a homosexual relationship
between David and Jonathan; not at all, this isn’t talking about a homosexual
relationship, this is talking about a deep love and respect that David had for
Jonathan. Notice what he says, he’s
open, this is a lament, David doesn’t say well, the Lord’s will be done, we’ll
move on. There was a genuine emotion of
sadness here, which is not unholy. It’s
not unscriptural at this point, in this kind of a context to weep, and this is
what they’re doing, they’re weeping because of what has happened.
Then verse 27, just as the lament opens, so it closes. “How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons
of war perished!” “The weapons of war”
is a metonymy for Saul and Jonathan; it’s not talking about the sword, it’s not
talking about the spear, it’s talking about the men who led in the weapons of
war. Now we want to bring this down to
the Christian application. We have to
ask ourselves once again, as we did when we started, why in David’s most
glorious moment, when God has exercised mercy toward him, when He’s got him out
of the despair of being mixed up with the Philistines, He’s put him on the
throne, David is king now, why, when David is king, he’s put onto the throne,
is he weeping. Why does David weep at
his moment of joy? Because he sees sin;
remember what I said when I started, grace always works in polluted atmosphere;
it always works with sin. You can’t be
flippant about grace. When grace works
it’s good, but grace always works with sin.
When God delivers us it’s always because somebody suffers. When you’re saved it’s because Jesus Christ
suffered. So before you take a too
flippant view of grace, remember, Jesus Christ went through hell for you. Grace
made it necessary; grace delivered David, but it had to have the whole nation,
including his best friend, Jonathan die, to make David king.
Another way of looking at it, David recognizes that when God delivers
you by grace, you’re feet are standing on debris of death; when we stand before
the throne of grace, you’re standing, really, on the back of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Grace can never be
flippant. Turn in conclusion to the New
Testament that applies this to the discipline on the believer. 1 Corinthians 5:5; I’ve given you the
application as far as salvation is concerned, but there’s another application
as far as how we treat each other as believers in Christ. Discipline is always under Satan’s immediate
control; under God’s ultimate sovereign control, but the immediate instrument
of pressure is Satan. And so in verse 5
what does Paul say; here is a believer who needs to be disciplined, and he says
I want “to deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit may be saved,” that’s a horrible, horrible thing, but what he’s
saying is that this is a believer who’s out of line, the only way God can be
merciful to him is let Satan have a field day with him. Now if that’s the case, then make your
analogy between the believer in 1 Corinthians 5:5 and Saul. Saul was turned over to Satan. The Philistines had a field day, and so
Christians who come under intense form of discipline, Satan is having a field
day with them. Remember that before you
rejoice in someone else’s trouble.