Death of Saul
6 items across 1 content type
Debate Excerpts (6)
Individual points from debates discussing this topic
“How does the Bible describe the death of King Saul in 1 Samuel 31?”
1 Samuel 31:4 states that Saul 'took a sword and fell upon it' — he committed suicide. His armour bearer saw that Saul was dead and fell on his own sword as well (1 Samuel 31:5). The text is explicit: Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. This is the first account.
“What does the second account in 2 Samuel 1 say?”
In 2 Samuel 1:6-10, an Amalekite comes to David and says he found Saul leaning on his spear, still alive, and Saul asked the Amalekite to kill him. The Amalekite says: 'So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen.' He then takes Saul's crown and bracelet and brings them to David. This is a completely different account — Saul did not die by his own sword, but was killed by an Amalekite at his own request.
“Is there a third account?”
Yes. 2 Samuel 21:12 states that 'the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.' This is a third version: Saul was killed by the Philistines. So we now have three contradictory accounts in the same Bible: (1) Saul committed suicide by falling on his sword, (2) an Amalekite killed Saul at his request, and (3) the Philistines struck him down. These cannot all be true simultaneously.
“Does the Bible itself say the Amalekite was lying?”
No. The text never says the Amalekite lied. You are inserting that interpretation because you need to resolve the contradiction. But let's look at what David actually says in response. 2 Samuel 1:16 — David tells the Amalekite: 'Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I slew the anointed of the Lord.' David uses the word 'testified' — not 'lied.' Testimony is a statement of truth. David then executes the Amalekite based on his testimony. If the Amalekite was lying, David executed an innocent man based on a lie — which contradicts the biblical portrayal of David as a just king.
“What about the third account — the Philistines killing Saul?”
You still haven't addressed 2 Samuel 21:12, which attributes Saul's death to the Philistines. Even if you dismiss the Amalekite's account, you still have two contradictions: Saul killed himself (1 Samuel 31:4) versus the Philistines killed him (2 Samuel 21:12). The 'Amalekite was lying' argument doesn't resolve the problem — it only reduces three contradictions to two. And even that argument has no scriptural basis.
“Is the 'national attribution' interpretation consistent with the text?”
That's eisegesis — reading your interpretation into the text. 2 Samuel 21:12 uses the same Hebrew verb for 'slew' that is used elsewhere for direct killing. If someone dies by suicide during a war, you don't say the enemy 'slew' them. The text is making a factual claim about who killed Saul, and it contradicts the other two accounts. You're forced to reinterpret clear statements because they contradict each other — which is exactly my point. If this were truly the Word of God, preserved perfectly, these contradictions would not exist.