Original Meaning

The Report of Saul’s death (1:1–10)

THE ACCOUNT OF the Amalekite messenger appears incongruous with the narrative given in 1 Samuel 31, as any cursory reading of the two chapters together will show. Some scholars have explained the differences by assuming this paragraph is a composite of two different accounts.3 Others have attempted to portray David as an uncompromising religious extremist who victimizes the truthful Amalekite.4 It seems more logical that the historian has placed these two chapters together intentionally to portray the Amalekite as a liar. His account in general agrees with 1 Samuel 31 except for 2 Samuel 1:7–10, where he enhances his own involvement in order to win the favor of David (clear from David’s subsequent reference to this event in 2 Sam. 4:10). Furthermore, deception is an important motif in the books of Samuel, and the idea that the messenger lies in order to gain favor with the new king-designate is congruous with other literary features of these books.5

The reference to David’s recent military campaign against and defeat of the Amalekites not only places this text in historical perspective but prepares us for the irony of what follows (1:1; review 1 Sam. 30). Though precise chronology is impossible, David’s return and the conclusion of the battle on Mount Gilboa are roughly contemporaneous.6

The messenger is not identified as an Amalekite until his speech to David (2 Sam. 1:8). Even as a resident alien in the borders of Israel, his identity as an Amalekite would automatically raise suspicion among David’s men and call into question his role in the events on Mount Gilboa. Not only were the Amalekites among David’s worst enemies; they are also portrayed consistently as terrorists who never fail to take advantage of weaker opponents.7 This messenger is not likely to arouse sympathy among those who have just rescued their families from the Amalekites and have only two days before returned to homes destroyed by the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:1–2). And, unlike the reader (1 Sam. 31), they have no independent report with which to compare that of the Amalekite.

How the royal insignia of crown and armlet come to be in David’s possession is an important issue to clarify (1:10). Whether or not the poor Amalekite messenger realizes it, he is delivering these important items to the very person prepared by Yahweh to wear them. Yet David’s association with the Philistines, his possession of the royal insignia, and the fact that he has much to gain from Saul’s death might implicate him in the tragic events at Gilboa. Perhaps many in Israel suspect David has in fact killed Saul and Jonathan.

One of the important subthemes of our narrative is the legitimacy of David and his innocence in Saul’s downfall. By explaining the chronology, the narrator has made it clear that David is probably just returning from the Amalekite campaign while the debacle at Mount Gilboa is taking place. He simply could not have killed Saul and Jonathan because he could not have been in two places at once. More importantly, as the text will soon show, David could never have taken such actions against Saul because his loyalties have always been with Yahweh’s anointed one and his son Jonathan.

Bridging Contexts

WITH THE DEATH of Saul and his three sons at Mount Gilboa, the text now raises the question of succession. Ish-Bosheth is still alive and will reign among the northern tribes, though we have not yet been told of him (see comments on 2:8–9). The books of Samuel are partially intended to answer the question: Who will reign suitably as king of Israel? Saul has shown himself patently unsuitable, and his ignoble death confirms the fact that future kings must be different from this first anointed one. By contrast, our historian has related the anointing of David and the remarkable way in which God has prepared and protected him. He is without question suitable as Saul’s successor.

David and Saul’s fate. Old Testament scholarship has long recognized that an important subplot in the books of Samuel is the desire to legitimize David as king of Israel against charges that he was guilty of collusion. Did he undermine a vulnerable King Saul and manipulate circumstances to take the throne when it was not rightly his? Did he in fact collaborate with the dreaded Philistines to end Saul’s life (and reign)? Could he be charged indirectly with the murder of Saul? This historian has gone to great lengths to answer these questions with an emphatic “no.” David has in no way attempted to bring about Saul’s demise. He has, on the contrary, remained faithful and loyal to Saul and to the apparent crown prince, Jonathan, to the bitter end. David is where he is solely because of Yahweh, who has anointed him and prepared him for the task.

This text continues that emphasis. When the deceptive Amalekite arrives at Ziklag, he presumably expects to receive a reward for bringing the good news to Saul’s evident successor. Thus, the misguided messenger assumes what others in ancient Israel must have assumed—David will rejoice at the death of Saul. But he (and any ancient readers who made the same assumption) quickly learns that David is a bigger soul, who is less interested in personal gain than in proper respect for Yahweh’s anointed one. The Amalekite unintentionally becomes “the instrument by means of which Yahweh proleptically ‘crowned’ the future king of Israel.”19 The last portion of this text records David’s moving dirge, which brings the point home. This great lyrical lament shows that David is in fact incapable of leading a coup d’état against Saul. His love and admiration for the anointed one and for Jonathan have precluded any such subversive behavior. It is simply impossible to blame David for Saul’s fate.

The faithfulness of David—and of Yahweh. Beyond the concern to legitimize David as king, this chapter highlights the faithfulness of David generally. Rather than seizing by force the kingdom promised to him, David remains devoted to the royal family and to the vision of God to provide a stable monarchy. David as portrayed here is not grasping or avaricious but broken by grief. His bereavement at the loss of Saul and Jonathan as expressed in his moving eulogy is undeniable, and he commands all the inhabitants of Judah to share in his mourning (1:18).

Indirectly, our text also emphasizes the sovereign action of Yahweh. God had promised to deliver David from Saul and to make him king in Saul’s place. But instead of seeing these promises fulfilled immediately, David was forced to flee Judah and live as an exile in Philistia. During this long interval the question has been: How and when will God bring about his promises? Now Saul’s death has come prematurely because of the way he lived. Saul’s death prepares the way for a new beginning in Israel.

David has been faithful and hence is well qualified and well prepared to be king. But God also has been faithful. His faithfulness is manifested in premature death for Saul and in new possibilities and new beginnings for David. Another way of saying this is that God has been faithful to his prophetic word by seeing that Saul’s obstinate rebellion has been answered with justice and that David is positioned to become the next king in Israel.

Contemporary Significance

THE POWER OF SONG. Pivotal moments in Israel’s history are often marked by song. Just as Moses and Miriam sang after the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex. 15) and the women of Israel sang in celebration after Saul and David’s military victories (1 Sam. 18:7), so this tragic moment is preserved in mournful lament. The narrative of the report of Saul’s death is a historical prelude to David’s funeral dirge. Together, the narrative and the poem explore the depths of national and personal sorrow, even as God’s will is becoming a reality for David and Israel.

The joyful song of Israel’s women singing and dancing in Saul’s honor was that “Saul has slain his thousands” (1 Sam. 18:7). He led the nation in glorious victory over God’s enemies and was rightly hailed as God’s instrument of peace and deliverance. But now that chorus has changed to the phrase so prevalent in David’s lament, “How the mighty have fallen!” The unthinkable has occurred. The hymn of victory and celebration has turned into a funeral dirge, using the richness of Hebrew poetry to measure the depths of sorrow and death rather than the rapturous chords of celebration.

How has it happened? Why has it happened? As we have seen, Saul was dissatisfied with his “thousands” when David was praised for slaying his tens of thousands. Saul was unable to accept God’s role for him in the new kingdom. He presumed upon the grace of God by misappropriating royal power. He made too many assumptions about the power inherent to his new role as king and the nature of God’s new kingdom in Israel.

The anointed of Yahweh. The Amalekite messenger in our text is a warning about the same issues. He also presumed too much about power and the nature of God’s new kingdom. Being an Amalekite, he naturally accepted power as a means of getting what one wants. The Amalekites attacked the helpless ex-slaves from Egypt as they crossed the Sinai (Ex. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–18) and raided a defenseless Ziklag while David was away (1 Sam. 30:1–6). So this Amalekite presumes he can lie to seize power in David’s new kingdom. But he does not know David and has no idea what it means to be an anointed of Yahweh.

More tragically, even Saul did not understand what it meant to be an anointed of Yahweh. The funeral portrait in this chapter is so tragic for precisely this reason. Saul never learned to revel in God’s grace and enjoy his favor. Why have the mighty fallen so tragically? Why has the poetry of victory been turned into the poetry of sorrow? Because Saul took his position of power personally. He abused his role as king in order to persecute David, and he lost sight of his mission and God’s calling on his life.

But David understands what it means to be Yahweh’s anointed one. Not only does he twice refuse to strike down Saul; he also refuses to condone someone else who struck him down. He is intolerant toward the enemies of God. David is passionate about the things of God. Opportunities for personal gain cannot possibly be framed in terms of losses for God’s people, and he refuses to play power politics. The Amalekite learns too late what David believed about God and God’s anointed.

Power and its (ab)use. Sociologists and philosophers speak in terms of Realpolitik or the abuse of human power structures in social groups.20 There is nothing more heartbreaking than the abuse of political power in Christian institutions, whether they are churches, parachurch organizations, or educational institutions. Some of the most harmful and hurtful consequences for the Christian gospel I have witnessed have been brought about by individuals within the church who abuse their roles in the power structures.

Yet power among all social groups, including churches, is inevitable. Power itself is not inherently evil, but the way people use it often is. The Bible has much to teach us on this point. At this transitional chapter in the books of Samuel, it is appropriate to consider Saul’s abuse of power as narrated in 1 Samuel, and this chapter serves to demonstrate the results. Conversely, David has served in 1 Samuel as an example of the right use of power, and he will continue to serve this way in the next few chapters. Unfortunately, however, David will not be so exemplary throughout all of 2 Samuel.

Original Meaning

David Mourns Saul and Kills the Amalekite Messenger (1:11–16)

SOME MAY HAVE EXPECTED DAVID and his men to rejoice at the death of Saul. After all, he has been forced to run for protection and has for months been living as an exile among the Philistines. His hopes of returning to his family are not good, much less his dreams of fulfilling his God-given mission of becoming king over Israel. It could be argued that Saul has ruined his life. Why not rejoice? It might have been a dramatic scene, even a celebration of God’s confirmation, had David and his men broken forth in songs of praise and thanksgiving.

But instead of rejoicing, David and his men show signs of catastrophic grief, and they are unanimous in their mourning and sorrow (1:11–12). All of this proves for the reader that David has remained loyal to Israel and God’s people. He was forced to flee from Saul’s wrath and live among the Philistines, but he never lost his love and faithfulness for Israel.

Furthermore, his execution of the Amalekite messenger manifests an important theological point that also motivates David. He has the highest reverence for the sanctity of the Israelite king, the anointed one of Yahweh. He himself passed up more than one opportunity to kill Saul (see 1 Sam. 24 and 26). That which he refused to do out of respect for the king, this “foreigner, a man belonging to the nation of the Amalekites, Israel’s greatest foes, had actually done for the sake of gain, or at any rate had pretended to have done.”8 Unlike the narrator and the reader, David does not know the Amalekite is lying. It makes no difference; he has confessed to a terrible crime (“Your own mouth testified against you,” 1:16). Far from rejoicing at the news and rewarding the messenger, David is full of grief, which now comes to fruition in song.

Bridging Contexts

WITH THE DEATH of Saul and his three sons at Mount Gilboa, the text now raises the question of succession. Ish-Bosheth is still alive and will reign among the northern tribes, though we have not yet been told of him (see comments on 2:8–9). The books of Samuel are partially intended to answer the question: Who will reign suitably as king of Israel? Saul has shown himself patently unsuitable, and his ignoble death confirms the fact that future kings must be different from this first anointed one. By contrast, our historian has related the anointing of David and the remarkable way in which God has prepared and protected him. He is without question suitable as Saul’s successor.

David and Saul’s fate. Old Testament scholarship has long recognized that an important subplot in the books of Samuel is the desire to legitimize David as king of Israel against charges that he was guilty of collusion. Did he undermine a vulnerable King Saul and manipulate circumstances to take the throne when it was not rightly his? Did he in fact collaborate with the dreaded Philistines to end Saul’s life (and reign)? Could he be charged indirectly with the murder of Saul? This historian has gone to great lengths to answer these questions with an emphatic “no.” David has in no way attempted to bring about Saul’s demise. He has, on the contrary, remained faithful and loyal to Saul and to the apparent crown prince, Jonathan, to the bitter end. David is where he is solely because of Yahweh, who has anointed him and prepared him for the task.

This text continues that emphasis. When the deceptive Amalekite arrives at Ziklag, he presumably expects to receive a reward for bringing the good news to Saul’s evident successor. Thus, the misguided messenger assumes what others in ancient Israel must have assumed—David will rejoice at the death of Saul. But he (and any ancient readers who made the same assumption) quickly learns that David is a bigger soul, who is less interested in personal gain than in proper respect for Yahweh’s anointed one. The Amalekite unintentionally becomes “the instrument by means of which Yahweh proleptically ‘crowned’ the future king of Israel.”19 The last portion of this text records David’s moving dirge, which brings the point home. This great lyrical lament shows that David is in fact incapable of leading a coup d’état against Saul. His love and admiration for the anointed one and for Jonathan have precluded any such subversive behavior. It is simply impossible to blame David for Saul’s fate.

The faithfulness of David—and of Yahweh. Beyond the concern to legitimize David as king, this chapter highlights the faithfulness of David generally. Rather than seizing by force the kingdom promised to him, David remains devoted to the royal family and to the vision of God to provide a stable monarchy. David as portrayed here is not grasping or avaricious but broken by grief. His bereavement at the loss of Saul and Jonathan as expressed in his moving eulogy is undeniable, and he commands all the inhabitants of Judah to share in his mourning (1:18).

Indirectly, our text also emphasizes the sovereign action of Yahweh. God had promised to deliver David from Saul and to make him king in Saul’s place. But instead of seeing these promises fulfilled immediately, David was forced to flee Judah and live as an exile in Philistia. During this long interval the question has been: How and when will God bring about his promises? Now Saul’s death has come prematurely because of the way he lived. Saul’s death prepares the way for a new beginning in Israel.

David has been faithful and hence is well qualified and well prepared to be king. But God also has been faithful. His faithfulness is manifested in premature death for Saul and in new possibilities and new beginnings for David. Another way of saying this is that God has been faithful to his prophetic word by seeing that Saul’s obstinate rebellion has been answered with justice and that David is positioned to become the next king in Israel.

Contemporary Significance

THE POWER OF SONG. Pivotal moments in Israel’s history are often marked by song. Just as Moses and Miriam sang after the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex. 15) and the women of Israel sang in celebration after Saul and David’s military victories (1 Sam. 18:7), so this tragic moment is preserved in mournful lament. The narrative of the report of Saul’s death is a historical prelude to David’s funeral dirge. Together, the narrative and the poem explore the depths of national and personal sorrow, even as God’s will is becoming a reality for David and Israel.

The joyful song of Israel’s women singing and dancing in Saul’s honor was that “Saul has slain his thousands” (1 Sam. 18:7). He led the nation in glorious victory over God’s enemies and was rightly hailed as God’s instrument of peace and deliverance. But now that chorus has changed to the phrase so prevalent in David’s lament, “How the mighty have fallen!” The unthinkable has occurred. The hymn of victory and celebration has turned into a funeral dirge, using the richness of Hebrew poetry to measure the depths of sorrow and death rather than the rapturous chords of celebration.

How has it happened? Why has it happened? As we have seen, Saul was dissatisfied with his “thousands” when David was praised for slaying his tens of thousands. Saul was unable to accept God’s role for him in the new kingdom. He presumed upon the grace of God by misappropriating royal power. He made too many assumptions about the power inherent to his new role as king and the nature of God’s new kingdom in Israel.

The anointed of Yahweh. The Amalekite messenger in our text is a warning about the same issues. He also presumed too much about power and the nature of God’s new kingdom. Being an Amalekite, he naturally accepted power as a means of getting what one wants. The Amalekites attacked the helpless ex-slaves from Egypt as they crossed the Sinai (Ex. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–18) and raided a defenseless Ziklag while David was away (1 Sam. 30:1–6). So this Amalekite presumes he can lie to seize power in David’s new kingdom. But he does not know David and has no idea what it means to be an anointed of Yahweh.

More tragically, even Saul did not understand what it meant to be an anointed of Yahweh. The funeral portrait in this chapter is so tragic for precisely this reason. Saul never learned to revel in God’s grace and enjoy his favor. Why have the mighty fallen so tragically? Why has the poetry of victory been turned into the poetry of sorrow? Because Saul took his position of power personally. He abused his role as king in order to persecute David, and he lost sight of his mission and God’s calling on his life.

But David understands what it means to be Yahweh’s anointed one. Not only does he twice refuse to strike down Saul; he also refuses to condone someone else who struck him down. He is intolerant toward the enemies of God. David is passionate about the things of God. Opportunities for personal gain cannot possibly be framed in terms of losses for God’s people, and he refuses to play power politics. The Amalekite learns too late what David believed about God and God’s anointed.

Power and its (ab)use. Sociologists and philosophers speak in terms of Realpolitik or the abuse of human power structures in social groups.20 There is nothing more heartbreaking than the abuse of political power in Christian institutions, whether they are churches, parachurch organizations, or educational institutions. Some of the most harmful and hurtful consequences for the Christian gospel I have witnessed have been brought about by individuals within the church who abuse their roles in the power structures.

Yet power among all social groups, including churches, is inevitable. Power itself is not inherently evil, but the way people use it often is. The Bible has much to teach us on this point. At this transitional chapter in the books of Samuel, it is appropriate to consider Saul’s abuse of power as narrated in 1 Samuel, and this chapter serves to demonstrate the results. Conversely, David has served in 1 Samuel as an example of the right use of power, and he will continue to serve this way in the next few chapters. Unfortunately, however, David will not be so exemplary throughout all of 2 Samuel.

Original Meaning

David’s Lament for Saul and Jonathan (1:17–27)

IN THE EVENT that any reader could conceivably doubt David’s sincerity in mourning for Saul and Jonathan, the text now moves to an elegy in which David’s deepest emotional responses are expressed lyrically. Old Testament tradition assumes that David was a man especially gifted in music and song (1 Sam. 16:18, 23; 18:10; 2 Sam. 23:1; Amos 6:5; often in the Psalms, where seventy-two individual psalms are associated with his name). Many have noted that at various levels this poem implies that David himself is the composer, and the burden of proof lies with anyone denying this assertion.9 The poetry has a lofty quality; “only a rare spirit deeply moved by an event of great moment is likely to have produced a little masterpiece like this.”10

In one of the most emotional and moving scenes of the Bible, David’s genuine pain comes through with singular clarity. In a series of vocatives, David addresses first the nation Israel, then the specific geographical location of the fateful battle (Mount Gilboa), and finally the “daughters of Israel” (1:19, 21, and 24). The theme of the dirge is clear from the phrase repeated three times (vv. 19, 25, and 27): “How the mighty have fallen!” This simple phrase (only three words in Hebrew) powerfully captures the depth of David’s emotions and serves as a literary marker for the structure of the poem.11

Just before the end of the poem, we have a verse that is at the heart of one of the great ethical debates of our times. In verse 26, David becomes intensely personal in his lament for Jonathan:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;

you were very dear to me.

Your love for me was wonderful,

more wonderful than that of women.

We have already seen how the narrator of 1 Samuel emphasizes the love between David and Jonathan (see comments on 1 Sam. 18:1–4). Some modern interpreters take this statement as evidence that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship.12 Thus, certain aspects of the narrative of 1 Samuel are thought to have been subverted by later editors because of cultural abhorrence of homosexuality, while other aspects such as Saul’s irrational outbursts against David (1 Sam. 20:30–34) are explained as the senseless rage that accompanies homophobia.13

However, this interpretation should be rejected for the following reasons. (1) The noun for “love” used here (ʾah^abah, and its verb ʾhb) has important political and diplomatic connotations.14 Since David’s and Jonathan’s relationship has already been marked as a covenant sealed by their love (same word), this part of the poem is referring to the depth of that covenant relationship (1 Sam. 18:3). By contrast, the standard Old Testament verb for sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is “know” (ydʿ ), and it is never used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan.

(2) David’s comparison of his relationship with Jonathan with that of women is probably a subtle reference to the promise of 1 Samuel 17:25, when the young David learned that whoever killed Goliath would receive the king’s daughter as reward. But David did not immediately receive Saul’s daughter. Instead, he won the immediate admiration and love of Jonathan (1 Sam 18:1–4). The love and covenant relationship between David and Jonathan has been referred to in the text elsewhere (19:1; 20:17); now upon the occasion of Jonathan’s death, David returns to the theme. He realizes that his covenantal relationship with Jonathan, which had nothing to do with sexual activity, proved more meaningful to him than his relationships with women.

(3) We possess an interesting parallel in the greatest literary piece from ancient Babylonia, the “Gilgamesh Epic.”15 The hero of the story, King Gilgamesh, is informed in a dream that a friend will come into his life who will match him in strength and whom he will love like a woman. The account explains how Enkidu soon arrives on the scene. They engage in a titanic battle, in which Gilgamesh and Enkidu prove to be of equal strength. Instead of one prevailing over the other, they become close friends, and the epic continues with a series of adventure themes involving both of them. Most scholars agree that it would be a misinterpretation of the story to assume this has anything to do with homosexuality. The phrase is merely a rhetorical expression of the great depth of friendship experienced between Gilgamesh and his friend, Enkidu.16

(4) Homosexual acts were unequivocally condemned in Israelite law (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). It would be incongruous for a narrative so devoted to portraying David in positive light to describe him engaged in homosexual love with Jonathan.

In short, the controversy surrounding verse 26 is more a reflex of our modern society’s impulse to defend and justify homosexual activity than it has to do with accurate exegesis of this text.17 The controversy itself also illustrates an unfortunate contrast between modern Western culture and that of the ancient Near East. Ancients (and some moderns of the Middle East) refer to and display affection between members of the same sex easily without implying homosexual attraction. Conversely, public displays of affection between men and women are scandalous in the Middle East today.18

Bridging Contexts

WITH THE DEATH of Saul and his three sons at Mount Gilboa, the text now raises the question of succession. Ish-Bosheth is still alive and will reign among the northern tribes, though we have not yet been told of him (see comments on 2:8–9). The books of Samuel are partially intended to answer the question: Who will reign suitably as king of Israel? Saul has shown himself patently unsuitable, and his ignoble death confirms the fact that future kings must be different from this first anointed one. By contrast, our historian has related the anointing of David and the remarkable way in which God has prepared and protected him. He is without question suitable as Saul’s successor.

David and Saul’s fate. Old Testament scholarship has long recognized that an important subplot in the books of Samuel is the desire to legitimize David as king of Israel against charges that he was guilty of collusion. Did he undermine a vulnerable King Saul and manipulate circumstances to take the throne when it was not rightly his? Did he in fact collaborate with the dreaded Philistines to end Saul’s life (and reign)? Could he be charged indirectly with the murder of Saul? This historian has gone to great lengths to answer these questions with an emphatic “no.” David has in no way attempted to bring about Saul’s demise. He has, on the contrary, remained faithful and loyal to Saul and to the apparent crown prince, Jonathan, to the bitter end. David is where he is solely because of Yahweh, who has anointed him and prepared him for the task.

This text continues that emphasis. When the deceptive Amalekite arrives at Ziklag, he presumably expects to receive a reward for bringing the good news to Saul’s evident successor. Thus, the misguided messenger assumes what others in ancient Israel must have assumed—David will rejoice at the death of Saul. But he (and any ancient readers who made the same assumption) quickly learns that David is a bigger soul, who is less interested in personal gain than in proper respect for Yahweh’s anointed one. The Amalekite unintentionally becomes “the instrument by means of which Yahweh proleptically ‘crowned’ the future king of Israel.”19 The last portion of this text records David’s moving dirge, which brings the point home. This great lyrical lament shows that David is in fact incapable of leading a coup d’état against Saul. His love and admiration for the anointed one and for Jonathan have precluded any such subversive behavior. It is simply impossible to blame David for Saul’s fate.

The faithfulness of David—and of Yahweh. Beyond the concern to legitimize David as king, this chapter highlights the faithfulness of David generally. Rather than seizing by force the kingdom promised to him, David remains devoted to the royal family and to the vision of God to provide a stable monarchy. David as portrayed here is not grasping or avaricious but broken by grief. His bereavement at the loss of Saul and Jonathan as expressed in his moving eulogy is undeniable, and he commands all the inhabitants of Judah to share in his mourning (1:18).

Indirectly, our text also emphasizes the sovereign action of Yahweh. God had promised to deliver David from Saul and to make him king in Saul’s place. But instead of seeing these promises fulfilled immediately, David was forced to flee Judah and live as an exile in Philistia. During this long interval the question has been: How and when will God bring about his promises? Now Saul’s death has come prematurely because of the way he lived. Saul’s death prepares the way for a new beginning in Israel.

David has been faithful and hence is well qualified and well prepared to be king. But God also has been faithful. His faithfulness is manifested in premature death for Saul and in new possibilities and new beginnings for David. Another way of saying this is that God has been faithful to his prophetic word by seeing that Saul’s obstinate rebellion has been answered with justice and that David is positioned to become the next king in Israel.

Contemporary Significance

THE POWER OF SONG. Pivotal moments in Israel’s history are often marked by song. Just as Moses and Miriam sang after the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex. 15) and the women of Israel sang in celebration after Saul and David’s military victories (1 Sam. 18:7), so this tragic moment is preserved in mournful lament. The narrative of the report of Saul’s death is a historical prelude to David’s funeral dirge. Together, the narrative and the poem explore the depths of national and personal sorrow, even as God’s will is becoming a reality for David and Israel.

The joyful song of Israel’s women singing and dancing in Saul’s honor was that “Saul has slain his thousands” (1 Sam. 18:7). He led the nation in glorious victory over God’s enemies and was rightly hailed as God’s instrument of peace and deliverance. But now that chorus has changed to the phrase so prevalent in David’s lament, “How the mighty have fallen!” The unthinkable has occurred. The hymn of victory and celebration has turned into a funeral dirge, using the richness of Hebrew poetry to measure the depths of sorrow and death rather than the rapturous chords of celebration.

How has it happened? Why has it happened? As we have seen, Saul was dissatisfied with his “thousands” when David was praised for slaying his tens of thousands. Saul was unable to accept God’s role for him in the new kingdom. He presumed upon the grace of God by misappropriating royal power. He made too many assumptions about the power inherent to his new role as king and the nature of God’s new kingdom in Israel.

The anointed of Yahweh. The Amalekite messenger in our text is a warning about the same issues. He also presumed too much about power and the nature of God’s new kingdom. Being an Amalekite, he naturally accepted power as a means of getting what one wants. The Amalekites attacked the helpless ex-slaves from Egypt as they crossed the Sinai (Ex. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–18) and raided a defenseless Ziklag while David was away (1 Sam. 30:1–6). So this Amalekite presumes he can lie to seize power in David’s new kingdom. But he does not know David and has no idea what it means to be an anointed of Yahweh.

More tragically, even Saul did not understand what it meant to be an anointed of Yahweh. The funeral portrait in this chapter is so tragic for precisely this reason. Saul never learned to revel in God’s grace and enjoy his favor. Why have the mighty fallen so tragically? Why has the poetry of victory been turned into the poetry of sorrow? Because Saul took his position of power personally. He abused his role as king in order to persecute David, and he lost sight of his mission and God’s calling on his life.

But David understands what it means to be Yahweh’s anointed one. Not only does he twice refuse to strike down Saul; he also refuses to condone someone else who struck him down. He is intolerant toward the enemies of God. David is passionate about the things of God. Opportunities for personal gain cannot possibly be framed in terms of losses for God’s people, and he refuses to play power politics. The Amalekite learns too late what David believed about God and God’s anointed.

Power and its (ab)use. Sociologists and philosophers speak in terms of Realpolitik or the abuse of human power structures in social groups.20 There is nothing more heartbreaking than the abuse of political power in Christian institutions, whether they are churches, parachurch organizations, or educational institutions. Some of the most harmful and hurtful consequences for the Christian gospel I have witnessed have been brought about by individuals within the church who abuse their roles in the power structures.

Yet power among all social groups, including churches, is inevitable. Power itself is not inherently evil, but the way people use it often is. The Bible has much to teach us on this point. At this transitional chapter in the books of Samuel, it is appropriate to consider Saul’s abuse of power as narrated in 1 Samuel, and this chapter serves to demonstrate the results. Conversely, David has served in 1 Samuel as an example of the right use of power, and he will continue to serve this way in the next few chapters. Unfortunately, however, David will not be so exemplary throughout all of 2 Samuel.