This commentary on 2 Samuel, authored by Glenn Pease, consolidates insights from various scholars to aid Bible students in their understanding. It emphasizes David's pivotal role as a unifying king after Saul's demise, highlighting themes of restoration and the complexities of leadership amid spiritual warfare. The text also contrasts the narratives of competing kings and the consequences of moral choices, underscoring the often harsh reality of battles between good and evil.

1. II SAMUEL 1 COMMENTARY
Written and edited by Glenn Pease
PREFACE
This commentary is designed to give Bible students the thinking and wisdom of many
other authors all in one place to save the time of research. It is far from perfect, for I
quote from sources that have many imperfections, but the content is clear and valuable.
Sometimes I do not know the author, and anyone who does know the author can write
me, and I will give credit where it is deserved. Some I quote may, for some good reason,
desire that their wisdom not be made available in this way. They also can write and have
me delete their quotes. My e-mail is glenn_p86@yahoo.com I trust that many will
appreciate the convenience of this work, for if that is communicated to me, I will
continue to do this for each chapter of II Samuel. The life of David is one of the most
interesting and most valuable in all of the Bible.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Biblical Studies Foundation has this introduction, "As we approach our text,
we hardly sense that we have moved from one book to another, from 1 Samuel to 2
Samuel. The transition seems virtually seamless, which in fact it is in the original
text. In the original text, there are not two books, 1 and 2 Samuel, but just one book,
encompassing both. This one book in the Hebrew text was later divided by the
translators of the Septuagint. Since the division of the book by the Septuagint, all
subsequent Bibles have followed this precedent, calling these two books 1 and 2
Samuel. It is therefore very natural for us to move from 1 Samuel to 2 Samuel
without even realizing it"
2. Wiersbe, “One of the major themes of 2 Samuel is restoration – the restoration of
national unity, the restoration of David after he sinned, and the restoration of the
throne after Absalom’s rebellion. Intertwined with this theme is the emphasis on
power, showing how God empowered David and his people to accomplish His will.
Saul tore things apart, but God used David to start putting things back together
again.”
3. Kaynor, “David became the standard for all future kings. Forty years from the
date of our text, he would leave a strong, efficient government. He did not inherit
such a government from Saul. In fact, he was handed a difficult set of circumstances
when he took over . David had seen the loose government – the narrow, sectional
approach of Saul – and he wanted no part of that. He carried into his government
an elite six hundred (1 Sam. 27:2; 30:9) that never lost a battle. The worst they
suffered was one strategic withdrawal. David would reorganize the priesthood, and
it would flourish in his era. So many priests would serve that they would have to be
organized into “courses.” . . . The priesthood became respected under David,
whereas a whole priestly community had been annihilated by Saul. David also

2. upgraded the levitical choir to a level of high honor. In short, David was a great
king, to be exceeded only by the King of Kings, the Lord Jesus Christ. David
inherited a war-torn, feudal collection of people and left his son a strong, cultured,
godly empire. This was the golden age of Israel. Things would never be better for
the average Israelite citizen.”
4. Ray Stedman, “Second Samuel is really a continuation of 1 Samuel (in the
Hebrew Bible they are not divided and this is the first book of Kings) and it all
centers on one man -- David. The book falls into four simple divisions. Chapters 1
through 5 trace the road to dominion. David began his reign as king only over the
tribe of Judah and it was not until seven years later that he was crowned king over
all twelve tribes of Judah and Israel. The section in chapters 6 through 10 highlights
worship and victory -- these two things also go together in the Christian life. Then in
chapters 11 through 20 is the record of David's failure and God's forgiveness, and
their results in his life. The closing section comprises an appendix which sets forth
some important lessons learned by King David in the course of his reign.”
David Hears of Saul's Death
1 After the death of Saul, David returned from
defeating the Amalekites and stayed in Ziklag two
days.
1. David and his men had been ready to march at the end of the Philistine army as
they prepared to fight against Israel. By the grace of God they were relieved of this
duty and went home to fight their own battles in recovering their families from the
raiding Amalekites. They had great success and were now at home again wondering
how the war went with the Philistines and Saul. It had to be worrisome for they had
seen the enormous army Israel would have to face, and so it was with anxiety that
they awaited some news of the outcome. Fearful of bad news, but hopeful of good
news they waited. This is always a hard situation to bear, for the unknown tortures
our minds.
2. Had the young Amalekite who came to confess his killing of Saul known that David just
killed a great number of Amalekites he might have chosen a different strategy, and just ran
away with the crown of Saul rather than bring it to David.
3. Brian Morgan, “The story opens with the juxtaposition of two battles. Two kings
are simultaneously doing battle with two different enemies of Israel. One battle is
located in the north of the country, on Mt. Gilboa; the other takes place in the far
south, in Ziklag. In the first battle, Saul and the Israelite army suffer a massive

3. defeat at the hands of the Philistines, resulting in the death of Saul and his three
sons. In the second battle, David launches a successful rescue and recovery mission
against the Amalekites, whose marauding bands had leveled David's city of Ziklag
and taken captive their wives and children. The first encounter is a battle of
judgment against a rejected king; the second portrays God's redemptive grace
bestowed through the person of his chosen king.
Linking these two battles with the destinies of the two kings is a strange, shadowy
messenger. This man, who becomes the focal point of the story, deposits in David's
lap the royal insignia which he had stripped from Saul's dead body on Mt. Gilboa.
This dramatic encounter raises a number of questions. How will David react to the
news that Saul and Jonathan are dead? And how will he view this alien messenger
of death?”
2 On the third day a man arrived from Saul's
camp, with his clothes torn and with dust on his
head. When he came to David, he fell to the
ground to pay him honor.
1. It was very poor timing for the young man who came to David with the news that
he had just helped Saul die. He did so by being the one who practiced a mercy
killing that Saul begged for. David had just been in warfare with the Amalekites,
and this young man was an Amalekite. He thought he was being a hero, and that
David would be glad to hear of his mercy killing of Saul. It was unfortunately for
him, not a good time for an Amalekite message of any kind, let alone a mercy killing
of the king of Israel. Had he known where David just returned from he may have
chosen a wiser course of action. This illustrates the importance of keeping up on the
news, for being ignorant of it can make you choose dangerous and even fatal
behavior.
3 "Where have you come from?" David asked
him. He answered, "I have escaped from the
Israelite camp."
1. The first words of this young man immediately convey bad news, for he says he
escaped from the Israelite camp. You do not escape unless you have been overtaken
by the enemy, and so David knows he is about to hear really bad news. He has just
returned from battle with a victory over the Amalekites, and he is feeling good, for
he rescued his family that they had captured. Now he is faced with another crisis in

4. his emotional life, for his best friend has been killed. David went from one crisis to
another most of his life. That is why the Psalms are so full of laments.
4 "What happened?" David asked. "Tell me."
He said, "The men fled from the battle. Many of
them fell and died. And Saul and his son Jonathan
are dead."
1. The bad news is that the army of Israel was badly routed, and they fled for their
lives, and many fell dead on the battlefield. Some escaped, but among those killed
were Saul and Jonathan. The Bible gives us many examples of how the good guys,
the people of God, do not always win, but lose the battle and die in it. Sometimes we
get the impression that if you are right with God and are part of His chosen people
you cannot lose, but this is not so. Saul was out of God’s will, but Jonathan and the
others were not, yet they perished at the hands of God’s enemies. The bad guys won
this battle. We do not like this, but would rather go by our culture which always has
the hero win, and no matter how impossible it seems, he escapes death, and the story
ends happily with the bad guys defeated and not him. So it always was with Roy
Rogers, Gene Autry, Tarzan etc. This is a rejection of reality, for often in history the
good guys do lose and die at the hands of evil men. The best team can be defeated at
times by the inferior team. The cursed Philistines won this battle over the people of
God.
2. It is important to be aware of negative reality, for if we are not, it can lead to
despair when it happens, and all does not go well for the good guys. The awareness
that you can fall and lose makes it less likely you will be filled with pride and
arrogance, and more likely you will be filled with humility and dependance upon
God. God took Saul out of the picture so that David could become the king, as His
chosen one for the throne. Here was a man who had it all in power, wealth, and
pleasure, but he was not a successful person because with all of these good things he
was not a man who walked in obedience to God. He had only one kind of success,
but not the kind that lasts forever. He was rejected even though he had it all, and so
was a failure before God. Leave out obedience to God, and you ruin all other kinds
of success.
3. Dan Anderson, “We also learn in 1 Samuel 31 that it is not only Jonathan but also
Abinadab and Malchishua, the other two sons of Saul died along with a whole host
of the army of Israel. They were totally overwhelmed. It was Custer’s last stand, a
major massacre and overwhelming victory for the Philistines, and lots of
bloodshed.”
4. Custer's last stand is a good example of how sometimes the bad guys win. It
happens in all realms of life that evil sometimes wins over the good. If this was not

5. the case there would be no need for all the warnings of the Bible to flee from
temptation, and to avoid all the conduct that leads to a fall. Christians are defeated
daily because of their lack of self control, and their ignorance of the guidance of
Scripture in their daily lives. Evil is clever, and Satan knows how to get to our
weaknesses, and so it is folly to live with the assumption that good will always win. It
will only win when we are committed to be obedient to Scripture and put on the full
armor of God. History is filled with the victory of evil forces over godly forces, and
of evil people over godly people. It is being fully aware of this that will keep us from
being superficial in our faith, and staying alert to the lion who goes about seeking to
devour us. God's people lost many battles in the Old Testament, and it continues in
the New Testament on a different level of warfare. It was physical in the past, but
now it is spiritual warfare, and only as we are fully armed with the Word of God
can we be assured of victory.
5 Then David said to the young man who brought
him the report, "How do you know that Saul and
his son Jonathan are dead?"
1. David is skeptical and does not take this message at face value. He wants more
assurance that this young man knows what he is talking about. In the confusion of
war there are a lot of false messages floating around, for the enemy wants to get
propaganda out into the public mind that says they are winning and your guys are
losing. David knows this, and so doubts that he is hearing an authentic message. He
wants more proof. It is always wise to seek for more details in any account coming
from a source you do not know personally. Don't believe everything you hear
without inquiring for more information, for the world is full of rumors and false
reports.
6 "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young
man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his
spear, with the chariots and riders almost upon
him.
1. Jamison is convinced this testimony of the young man is false. He wrote, “As the
narrative of Saul's death, given in the last chapter, is inspired, it must be considered
the true account, and the Amalekite's story a fiction of his own, invented to
ingratiate himself with David, the presumptive successor to the throne. David's
question, "How went the matter?" evinces the deep interest he took in the war, an

6. interest that sprang from feelings of high and generous patriotism, not from views
of ambition. The Amalekite, however, judging him to be actuated by a selfish
principle, fabricated a story improbable and inconsistent, which he thought would
procure him a reward. Having probably witnessed the suicidal act of Saul, he
thought of turning it to his own account, and suffered the penalty of his grievously
mistaken calculation (compare 2Sa_1:9 with 1Sa_31:4-5).
2. Numerous authors are convinced that this young man is a conman lying deceiver
seeking to take advantage of David, and get a great reward by lying about what
happened. It makes him a hero in his own eyes, for he killed the man that prevented
David from becoming king. Now David is the king, and he felt he should be
rewarded, and even maybe getting some position in the new government. Others see
him as authentic, for he had the kings crown and band, and he had to be there, and
if he was lying, David killed him for a lie rather than for murder, which would be
the case if his story is true. David took it to be true, and that is why he had the right
to kill him. If he was just lying, David had an obligation to arrest him for fraud and
deception rather than dealing out capital punishment for a misdemeanor rather
than a felony. We need to ask the question, why did David believe his story that he
actually killed the king? There is more debate on this to come in following verses.
7 When he turned around and saw me, he called
out to me, and I said, 'What can I do?'
1. Saul was in bad shape, but still able to carry on a conversation with a total
stranger. He had the breath to shout out, and the curiosity to ask this stranger to
identify himself. If this is what happened Saul was still very much alive.
8 "He asked me, 'Who are you?'
" 'An Amalekite,' I answered.
1. Clarke, “Dr. Delaney remarks that an Amalekite took that crown from off the
head of Saul, which he had forfeited by his disobedience in the case of Amalek.”
2. Gill, “I am an Amalekite: which he might be; but it is not likely he should tell Saul
he was, which would not recommend him to him; though indeed he was now in such
circumstances, that the Amalekites had nothing to fear from him; and if he was
slain by him, as Josephus affirms he was, it seems to be a just retaliation on him for
sparing any of that race, contrary to the will of God.”
3333.... Robert Roe, "Kind of interesting. What does that tell you about the Amalekites,
about the flesh? Either you get it, or it will get you. Saul refused to destroy the

7. Amalekites, and he ended up being destroyed by an Amalekite, by a mercenary.
Now they had mercenaries in Judah's army. Intriguing thing is God had an
Amalekite down there, the one type of person that all through Scripture never
feared Jehovah. Deuteronomy 25 states the Israelites were to blot out the
memory of Amalek from under heaven because he did not fear Yahweh. The
Israelites, in desperation, were hiring Amalekites to fight for them and had made
peace with them when God had said to destroy them. So Saul is finally slain by
what he will not deal with.
4. Roe goes on, “Of course, the young man embraces David, because, look what he
has done for David. What does he expect from David? He's got a gold crown and a
gold bracelet. That would melt down to a pretty good nugget of gold, but what do
you think he really expects from David? Yes! He is handing David the kingdom. "I
killed Saul. He is gone. Jonathan , the heir apparent is dead. The kingdom is yours,
and I should get a piece of the action." No thought about killing God's anointed.
Just thought about himself. I think he expected to stay with David for the rest of his
natural life. Unfortunately for him, David was not impressed.”
9 "Then he said to me, 'Stand over me and kill
me! I am in the throes of death, but I'm still alive.'
1. Here is the issue of assisted suicide. Saul could not kill himself and so seeks for
someone to do it for him. Since this is disputed and the story is considered a lie
made up by the young man, it has no historical significance. But it is the case that
many feel this way, and request someone to take their life.
2. Many believe that he found Saul dead and took the crown and band and sought
to use it to his advantage. He thought David would be pleased with his story, and
often people assume that you will be pleased with what pleases them. They will tell
dirty stories thinking you will laugh with them, but they fail to realize that there are
people who do not get kicks out of the same things they do. Simon thought Peter
was just like him but Peter responds to him with “to hell with you and your
money.” Acts 8:18-23 The world wants us to conform to their values, but we are to
be different and show them a higher way. This young man had no idea how much
David would hate the story he was telling. He thought it would one of the greatest
stories ever told, and such is the deception of those who do not grasp that not
everybody sees things as they see them. It cost him his life to be unaware of this.
3. The fact is, if Saul was wounded but not able to die from it, it would be a terrible
thing to be captured by the enemy, for that would be worse than death. In that
situation it is easy to believe he would plead for help to die. His enemies would make
his future far worse than death. It would be pure pleasure to escape what his future
held if he was captured. Poor Samson had to endure the pain, mocking and torture
of being captured by these enemies of Israel. Saul would rather die than endure

8. that.
4444.... The Biblical Studies Foundation gives this account as to how they interpret this
passage. "This young man just happens to be on Mount Gilboa when he comes upon
Saul. He does not really tell us what he is doing there. If I were to guess, I would say
it was not to go down fighting to defend Saul from the Philistines, but rather to loot
Saul’s post before the Philistines arrive. He certainly is not defending Saul from the
Philistines. He comes across Saul while he is still alive. Saul is on the ground, or as
the text reads, “he had fallen” (1:10). Saul’s body, riddled with Philistine arrows, is
now run through by his own sword. Nevertheless, he is not yet dead. He seems to be
propping himself up by leaning upon his spear, which probably relieves some
pressure and pain from the arrows and the sword.
Looking around, Saul sees the young man arrive and size up the situation. Saul calls
out to the fellow, and he responds, “Here I am.” He then asks this young man who
he is. He may wonder if he is a Philistine, since they are pressing their attack and
will soon be closing in on him (verse 6). The young man informs Saul that he is an
Amalekite. Saul then appeals to this fellow to put him out of his misery.
5. The Biblical Studies Foundation goes on, “I am indebted to the insight of my
friend and fellow-elder, Hugh Blevins, at this point. Hugh points out that the author
makes much of the fact that the young man is an Amalekite. Saul seems to take
courage in this fact. He seems more confident to ask this fellow to kill him because
he is an Amalekite. After all, he has just asked his armor bearer, who declines. An
Amalekite will not have such scruples about killing the king of Israel. Indeed, when
Saul ordered his servants to kill Ahimelech and the other priests, they declined, and
so Saul turned to Doeg, the Edomite, who willingly complied with his orders (see 1
Samuel 22:16-19). Thus, even if an Israelite will not put Saul to death, the king feels
relatively certain that an Amalekite will.
Saul asks the young man to come and “stand over” him and put him to death. The
NASB renders it more generically: “Please stand beside me and kill me” (verse 9).
The King James Version is more starkly literal when it renders these words, “Stand,
I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. . . .” The young man then says, “So I stood upon
him, and slew him” (verse 10, KJV). My point in emphasizing these words is that
the young man must have “been there and done that” to be so precise in his
description of Saul’s last few moments and death. Saul is lying on the ground,
partially propped up by his spear (not his sword). Saul begs the young man to come
and stand over him because he is on the ground, and the young man would have to
do this to kill him. The young Amalekite obliges Saul by killing him. We are not told
what weapon he uses or how he uses it to dispatch Saul. The irony is that Saul would
have been dead in a few moments anyway. This “murder” (recounted as though it
was a mercy killing) deprives Saul of but a few minutes of life. Nonetheless, it is
murder.”

9. 10 "So I stood over him and killed him, because I
knew that after he had fallen he could not survive.
And I took the crown that was on his head and the
band on his arm and have brought them here to
my lord."
1. Here is a clear confession to murder of a king. It is assumed that Jonathan is
already clearly dead, and needed no help to get there. It is suspicious that king Saul
was the only one alive yet, and needed this assistance. It could be, but it could also
be that he made up the whole story to get a reward. There is no way to prove one
way or the other. He may have been an angel to Saul to put him out of his misery, or
he could be just a clever con man taking advantage of the situation. All we know for
sure is that David took him for a bad man and had him killed.
2. Chris Appleby, “Now notice what’s happening here. We, the readers, know
what’s happened, but David doesn’t. We know that this man is an out and out liar,
an opportunistic con man. He’s torn his clothes and covered himself with dust to
make his appearance seem authentic. He elaborates his story with all sort of details:
where they were; the chariots and riders bearing down on them; Saul leaning on his
spear on his last legs; his heroic action in dealing Saul the death blow and then
taking the crown and arm band to bring to David. And it’s all made up! But he
knows that the best liars are the ones who can fabricate a believable story with lots
of detail. Clearly this Amalekite expects to receive a substantial reward from David.
After all he’s done him a great favor, hasn’t he?”
3. Jim Bomkamp, “Interestingly, if the Amalekite did in fact kill King Saul then it is
only just that he should have done this, for if King Saul had been obedient and
killed off all of the Amalekites in battle as he was told to do many years earlier then
this man would not have been around to do this to him.” Here would be another
case of poetic justice where a man's own evil action comes back on him to judge him
for that action.
4. Barnes offers his opinion, “The Amalekite was one of those who came “to strip
the slain” on “the morrow” after the battle 1Sa_31:8, and had the luck to find Saul
and possess himself of his crown and bracelet. He probably started off immediately
to seek David, and invented the above story, possibly having heard from some
Israelite prisoner an account of what really did happen.”
5. Henry adds his perspective, “It is doubtful whether this story be true. If it be, the
righteousness of God is to be observed, that Saul, who spared the Amalekites in
contempt of the divine command, received his death's wound from an Amalekite.
But most interpreters think that it was false, and that, though he might happen to
be present, yet he was not assisting in the death of Saul, but told David so in

10. expectation that he would reward him for it, as having done him a piece of good
service. Those who would rejoice at the fall of an enemy are apt to measure others
by themselves, and to think that they will do so too. But a man after God's own
heart is not to be judged of by common men. I am not clear whether this young
man's story was true or no: it may consist with the narrative in the chapter before,
and be an addition to it, as Peter's account of the death of Judas (Act_1:18) is to the
narrative, Mat_27:5. What is there called a sword may here be called a spear, or
when he fell upon his sword he leaned on his spear. (3.) However he produced that
which was proof sufficient of the death of Saul, the crown that was upon his head
and the bracelet that was on his arm. It should seem Saul was so foolishly fond of
these as to wear them in the field of battle, which made him a fair mark for the
archers, by distinguishing him from those about him; but as pride (we say) feels no
cold, so it fears no danger, from that which gratifies it. These fell into the hands of
this Amalekite.”
Saul spared the best of their spoil, and now the best of his came to one of that
devoted nation. He brought them to David, as the rightful owner of them now that
Saul was dead, not doubting but by his officiousness herein to recommend himself to
the best preferments in his court or camp. The tradition of the Jews is that this
Amalekite was the son of Doeg (for the Amalekites were descendants from Edom),
and that Doeg, who they suppose was Saul's armour-bearer, before he slew himself
gave Saul's crown and bracelet (the ensigns of his royalty) to his son, and bade him
carry them to David, to curry favor with him. But this is a groundless conceit.
Doeg's son, it is likely, was so well known to Saul that he needed not ask him as he
did this Amalekite (2Sa_1:8), Who art thou? David had been long waiting for the
crown, and now it was brought to him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve his
own purposes of kindness to his people, even by designing (ill-designing) men, who
aim at nothing but to set up themselves.”
6. Keil, “This statement is at variance with the account of the death of Saul in
1Sa_31:3.; and even apart from this it has an air of improbability, or rather of
untruth in it, particularly in the assertion that Saul was leaning upon his spear when
the chariots and horsemen of the enemy came upon him, without having either an
armour-bearer or any other Israelitish soldier by his side, so that he had to turn to
an Amalekite who accidentally came by, and to ask him to inflict the fatal wound.
The Amalekite invented this, in the hope of thereby obtaining the better recompense
from David. The only part of his statement which is certainly true, is that he found
the king lying dead upon the field of battle, and took off the crown and armlet; since
he brought these to David. But it is by no means certain whether he was present
when Saul expired, or merely found him after he was dead.”
7. Rich Cathers, “The problem with thinking that this story is made up is that we’re
never told that. For example, there will be a story about a prophet who was sent on
a mission to give a message and return home immediately. But when word got out
about this prophet, another prophet wanted a chance to talk to him:(1 Ki 13:18
KJV) He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto

11. me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house,
that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. We were told that he
lied. But here in 2Samuel, we aren’t told that. I tend to get into trouble when I end
up teaching on something that the Scripture doesn’t say.”
8. Brian Morgan, “The messenger is a liar both in words and in appearance. His
dress gives the impression that he is in mourning, but he is actually an opportunistic
scavenger, seeking to profit from his prey. His account differs widely from the
original story, recorded in 1 Samuel 31. When Saul was mortally wounded by
archers, he asked his armor bearer to slay him, but the man refused to kill the
Lord's anointed, and Saul committed suicide by falling on his own spear. Whenever
there is a conflict in the Biblical story between what the narrator says and what a
character reports, the narrator is always to be considered factually correct.
Fokkelman makes a very good case that the youth was quite likely on Mt. Gilboa by
chance, and he was an eyewitness to the events that occurred: "The point...is that
the innocence attaching to his accidental presence was subsequently polluted and
lost when the man decided to take advantage of Saul's death and his position as an
eyewitness."[5] His story rings true right up to the moment of Saul's conversation
with the armor-bearer. At that point he inserts himself in the role of the armor
bearer and claims that he did what the servant refused to do, i.e. kill the king. The
armor bearer was characterized by awe, the Amalekite by the absence of awe. The
messenger probably returned that night to strip the dead body of Saul of his royal
insignia, thinking that David would reward him handsomely now that he would
inherit the royal crown.”
9. Bob Deffinbaugh, “I am indebted to the insight of my friend and fellow-elder,
Hugh Blevins, at this point. Hugh points out that the author makes much of the fact
that the young man is an Amalekite. Saul seems to take courage in this fact. He
seems more confident to ask this fellow to kill him because he is an Amalekite. After
all, he has just asked his armor bearer, who declines. An Amalekite will not have
such scruples about killing the king of Israel. Indeed, when Saul ordered his
servants to kill Ahimelech and the other priests, they declined, and so Saul turned to
Doeg, the Edomite, who willingly complied with his orders (see 1 Samuel 22:16-19).
Thus, even if an Israelite will not put Saul to death, the king feels relatively certain
that an Amalekite will.
Saul asks the young man to come and “stand over” him and put him to death. The
NASB renders it more generically: “Please stand beside me and kill me” (verse 9).
The King James Version is more starkly literal when it renders these words, “Stand,
I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. . . .” The young man then says, “So I stood upon
him, and slew him” (verse 10, KJV). My point in emphasizing these words is that
the young man must have “been there and done that” to be so precise in his
description of Saul’s last few moments and death. Saul is lying on the ground,
partially propped up by his spear (not his sword). Saul begs the young man to come
and stand over him because he is on the ground, and the young man would have to
do this to kill him. The young Amalekite obliges Saul by killing him. We are not told

12. what weapon he uses or how he uses it to dispatch Saul. The irony is that Saul would
have been dead in a few moments anyway. This “murder” (recounted as though it
was a mercy killing) deprives Saul of but a few minutes of life. Nonetheless, it is
murder.”
10. “Josephus, in The Antiquities Of The Jews, writes regarding Saul the following.
"As for he himself he fought with great bravery, and when he had received so many
wounds that he was not able to bear up, nor to oppose any longer, and yet was not
able to kill himself...[he] asked a certain young man that stood by, who he was, and
when he understood that he was an Amalekite, he desired him to force the sword
through him, because he was not able to do it with his own hands, and thereby to
procure him such a death as he desired. This young man did accordingly..."
(Josephus, The Antiquities Of The Jews, book 6, 370-372). Thus, after he did this
deed, he brought to David the news, and showed David the crown and bracelet of
the king to verify what he had done, and waited for a reward from David. He will be
rewarded for his deeds, but not the way he thinks.”
11. What we learn from the above comments is that there are things that we have no
way of knowing for sure, and often it makes no difference that we must remain
ignorant. What we need to do in such situations is refrain from being dogmatic as if
we know the full truth, and those who see it differently are communicating
falsehoods. Both perspectives can be made to seem very possible, and so the wise
way to go is to show both perspectives and let people think for themselves.
11 Then David and all the men with him took hold
of their clothes and tore them.
1. Saul tried to kill David several times, but here we see David lamenting his death.
Most would be rejoicing at the death of such an enemy, but David loved this enemy
and felt truly bad at the news of his demise. Prov. 24:17 , “Do not gloat when your
enemy falls; when he stumble, do not let your heart rejoice...”
2. Biblical Studies Foundation, “As I read this chapter in 2 Samuel, I am reminded
of the old “good news, bad news” jokes. I’ll spare you any examples. I think the
messenger is thinking in terms of “good news” and “bad news” when he reaches
David. I believe he expected to come to David in this way: “David, I’ve got some bad
news, and I’ve got some good news. The bad news is that Israel has been defeated by
the Philistines. Many men have been killed, and many more have fled from the
battle, and even from their land and homes. The good news is that your enemy Saul
is dead, and so is his heir, Jonathan. This means that you can now place this crown
on your head and rule as king over Israel.”For David, this is all bad news. He is
grief-stricken over the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul. He is devastated by the

13. death of his closest friend, Jonathan. Any thought of personal gain at the expense of
others is cast aside.
3. Jim Bomkamp, “One of the things that we must be perfectly clear on here is the
fact that David was not feigning grief at hearing of the death of King Saul. David
had refused to let his heart get bitter against King Saul ( even though for years King
Saul had continually been hunting David like an animal trying to kill him ), and plus
David still had respect for Saul because of his office as king, even if Saul as a man
didn’t deserve that respect.”
12 They mourned and wept and fasted till evening
for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the army of
the LORD and the house of Israel, because they
had fallen by the sword.
1. One might be tempted to think that David should be jumping for joy that his
enemy Saul has been killed, but it was not so, for this was a sad day for Israel. Chris
Appleby put it this way: “David has been anointed some time before, but has had to
wait 15 or 20 years for Saul to die before receiving the promised kingdom. And as 1
Samuel finishes, as Saul is defeated by the Philistines and dies on his own sword,
we’re tempted to sigh a sigh of relief, perhaps even to cheer that at last the hero is
free to take up the promise of the kingship. But there’s no sense of triumphalism as
the story unfolds, is there? This is no fairy tale where the wicked king dies and the
prince who was banished from the kingdom returns to claim his inheritance. No,
this is a sad day in the history of Israel. Her first king is dead. The grand
experiment is a dud. Not quite a failure but there’s much more to be done if it’s to
succeed.”
2. Henry, “David's reception of these tidings. So far was he from falling into a transport of
joy, as the Amalekite expected, that he fell into a passion of weeping, rent his clothes
(2Sa_1:11), mourned and fasted (2Sa_1:12), not only for his people Israel and Jonathan his
friend but for Saul his enemy. This he did, not only as a man of honor, in observance of that
decorum which forbids us to insult over those that are fallen, and requires us to attend our
relations to the grave with respect, whatever we lost by their life or got by their death, but
as a good man and a man of conscience, that had forgiven the injuries Saul had done him
and bore him no malice. He knew it, before his son wrote it (Pro_24:17, Pro_24:18), that if
we rejoice when our enemy falls the Lord sees it, and it displeases him; and that he who is
glad at calamities shall not go unpunished, Pro_17:5. By this it appears that those passages in
David's psalms which express his desire of, and triumph in, the ruin of his enemies,
proceeded not from a spirit of revenge, nor any irregular passion, but from a holy zeal for
the glory of God and the public good; for by what he did here, when he heard of Saul's
death, we may perceive that his natural temper was very tender, and that he was kindly
affected even to those that hated him. He was very sincere, no question, in his mourning for

14. Saul, and it was not pretended, or a copy of his countenance only. His passion was so strong,
on this occasion, that it moved those about him; all that were with him, at least in
complaisance to him, rent their clothes, and they fasted till even, in token of their sorrow;
and probably it was a religious fast: they humbled themselves under the hand of God, and
prayed for the repairing of the breaches made upon Israel by this defeat.”
3. Here we see the reality of life, for even the people of God can be defeated by those who
are the enemies of God. Saul was out of God's will, and we might think he was being judged
by God, which was probably the case, but we see that the good men, like Jonathan, also died
in this battle, along with many others who we have no reason to believe were living out of
God's will. These are the good guys who are losing. History is full of the accounts of the
good guys getting defeated. The North in the Civil War lost many a battle, and American
forces suffered great loses in one war after another, and are still losing men today to enemy
forces. It is dangerous to be deceived by the thinking that if one is faithful to God there is
nothing to fear. The enemy is real, and believers need to be always on the alert, for they can
be deceived and even killed by enemy forces who are out of God's will. I have a complete
study showing that death is not always God's will, and he does not appoint all death. Godly
soldiers in Israel died often, and they still do today, for there is no promise that God's
children will be preserved from all dangers, and especially so in times of war. See my
message Death Is Seldom the Will of God on scribd at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15073344/Death-is-Seldom-the-Will-of-God
4. Dennis Deese makes it clear that people everywhere are getting this same negative
message every day. He wrote, “The number of deaths in the world may fluctuate widely
from one year to the next, but a rough estimate of annual deaths is 60,000,000 or about two
every second. The word bereave means to deprive ruthlessly or by force. I believe the real
agonizing pain of death is its earthly finality. Being deprived or denied the presence of
somebody we love for the remainder of our life is the most severe of all heartaches.”
13 David said to the young man who brought him
the report, "Where are you from?"
"I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite," he
answered.
1. Chris Appleby, “So as the mourning and lament subside, he calls the man over.
He asks where he comes from. The man tells him that he’s the son of a resident
alien, an Amalekite. Now the fact that he’s an Amalekite isn’t the issue here, despite
the fact that David’s just come back from fighting an Amalekite raiding party. No,
it’s more that he’s a resident of Israel, probably since birth. That means that he
would have been aware of the significance to the Israelites of Saul as God’s anointed
king. He should probably even have understood David’s attitude to Saul as God’s

15. anointed one.
But of course he isn’t a theologian, he’s an opportunist. He’s thinking on a purely
secular political level. He thinks that he can manipulate David to his own advantage.
It’s interesting, by the way, that in the OT history of Israel there are 2 other
Amalekites who come to prominence. One is Agag whom we encountered in 1 Sam
15 and who in the end was put to death by Samuel. The other is Haman, who
appears in the story of Esther. There he manipulates events, first to rise to power in
the court of King Xerxes of Persia, then uses his power to arrange for a great
slaughter of all the Jews living there. But in the end his opportunism is overcome
and he suffers a similar fate to his other 2 countrymen.”
2. An unknown author gives us this insight: “The Amalekite's reply that he was the
"son of an alien" is important. That term, "alien" [ger] refers to someone who was a
foreigner but who lived in Israel, with certain limited rights and obligations. Think
of someone with a "green card". He was a resident of Israel, in other words. As such
a resident, he was obliged to respect and honor the king's person. Whether the man
really was a resident alien we are not told. He may have lied about that too and in so
doing tied the noose around his own head. He would have been better to bury Saul's
body or drag it off to prevent desecration by the Philistines.”
14 David asked him, "Why were you not afraid to
lift your hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?"
1. Barnes, “Whether David believed the Amalekite’s story, or not, his anger was
equally excited, and the fact that the young man was an Amalekite, was not
calculated to calm or check it. That David’s temper was hasty, we know from
1Sa_25:13, 1Sa_25:32-34.”
2. Biblical Studies Foundation, “This messenger has confessed to putting Saul to
death. This may not seem wrong to him, but it is an outrage to David. How many
times has he refused to put Saul to death, even though he might have claimed self-defense?
And yet this Amalekite had no reservations about finishing off Saul. This
Amalekite messenger has no idea of the situation into which he has gotten himself.
He speaks openly of being an Amalekite, without realizing what he is saying. He
almost brags about killing Saul, with no sense of hesitation or impending danger. He
also speaks lightly about the death of Jonathan, David’s dearest friend. This young
man has put a noose around his own neck, and he never realizes it until it is too late.
The issues are clear and simple to David, and not as the young man sees them. The
young man sees Saul as David’s enemy, an obstacle to his rise to the throne. He sees
the death of Saul as good news to David. He sees killing Saul as “putting him out of

16. his misery,” like shooting a horse with a broken leg. David sees it much more
simply: he killed the Lord’s anointed. It does not matter that Saul would have died
anyway -- it does not matter that he made David’s life hell. It does not matter that
Saul was suffering. It does not matter that Saul wanted to die, or that Saul had only
moments of life left. It does not matter that the Philistines may soon be upon him.
This man killed the Lord’s anointed. And now David has him put to death.”
3. Don Anderson, “1 Samuel 24:6 “So he said to his men, ‘Far be it for me, because
of the Lord, that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch
out my hand against him, since he is the Lord’s anointed.” 1 Samuel 26:9-11
“But David said to Abishai, ‘Do not destroy him. For who can stretch out his hand
against the Lord’s anointed and be without guilt?’ David also said, ‘As the Lord
lives, surely the Lord will strike him; or his day will come that he dies; or he will go
down into battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand
against the Lord’s anointed. But now please take the spear that is at his head and
the jug of water, and let us go.’” That explains why David feels the way he does
toward this Amalekite on this particular occasion. If he had known the ethics by
which David operated he would have never come on a suicide mission like this to say
the things he said.”
4. Roger Christopherson portrays this young man is the worst way. He wrote, “He
was robbing Saul's corpse. Here it appears that one of those that Saul spared some
years prior came back to claim the death of Saul. This was an humiliation of the
body of Saul, and no doubt it was even this man that called attention to the
Philistines as to who Jonathan and Saul were, for he had the crown and the
bracelets of the Saul. It was at this man's words that identified Saul to where the
Philistines could take the bodies and desecrate them in the temple of their gods at
Beth-shar. Remember the worship at Beth-Shar was Ashorath, the religion of sex
orgies and idols, and they used Saul's parts and those of his son Jonathan, separated
and hung on the wall as part of these Philistines religious practices. Can you see why
David was getting outraged over the whole matter. David knows that this man was
responsible for all the disrespect that came to Saul and his friend Jonathan.” The
implication, if this is all true, is that David killed him in an angry rage for being
such a bold face liar. This could all be true, but there is a lot being read into the
account that is not there. David seems to be angry that he would have the audacity
to kill the man anointed by God to be the king. It seems to be the truth of what he
said that made him worthy of death, and not his lies.
15 Then David called one of his men and said,
"Go, strike him down!" So he struck him down,
and he died.

17. 1. David has just been king for a matter of a few hours, and now he carries out his
first order of capital punishment. He orders that this young man who had the
audacity to kill the Lord's anointed to be killed himself.
2. Henry, “The reward he gave to him that brought him the tidings. Instead of
preferring him, he put him to death, judged him out of his own mouth, as a
murderer of his prince, and ordered him to be forthwith executed for the same.
What a surprise was this to the messenger, who thought he should have favor shown
him for his pains. In vain did he plead that he had Saul's order for it, that it was a
real kindness to him, that he must inevitably have died; all those pleas are
overruled: “Thy mouth has testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's
anointed(2Sa_1:16), therefore thou must die.” Now, David herein did not do
unjustly. For, (1.) The man was an Amalekite. This, lest he should have mistaken it
in his narrative, he made him own a second time, 2Sa_1:13. That nation, and all that
belonged to it, were doomed to destruction, so that, in slaying him, David did what
his predecessor should have done and was rejected for not doing. (2.) He did himself
confess the crime, so that the evidence was, by the consent of all laws, sufficient to
convict him; for every man is presumed to make the best of himself. If he did as he
said, he deserved to die for treason (2Sa_1:14), doing that which, it is probable, he
heard Saul's own armor-bearer refuse to do; if not, yet by boasting that he had done
it he plainly showed that if there had been occasion he would have done it, and
would have made nothing of it; and, by boasting of it to David, he showed what
opinion he had of him, that he would rejoice in it, as one altogether like himself,
which was an intolerable affront to him who had himself once and again refused to
stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed.And his lying to David, if indeed it
was a lie, was highly criminal, and proved, as sooner or later that sin will prove,
lying against his own head.”
16 For David had said to him, "Your blood be on
your own head. Your own mouth testified against
you when you said, 'I killed the LORD's anointed.'
"
1. Barnes, “David might well think his sentence just though severe, for he had more
than once expressed the deliberate opinion that none could lift up his hand against
the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless (see 1Sa_24:6; 1Sa_26:9, 1Sa_26:11,
1Sa_26:16).”
2. Gill, “The blood that he had shed, let him suffer for it; for as he had shed blood,
his blood ought to be shed, according to the law of God; and for proof of this, that
he had so done, he appeals to his own confession: for thy mouth hath testified
against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed; and what might serve to

18. confirm the truth of what he had said were the crown and bracelet which he
brought along with him; and besides he was an Amalekite, of a nation that was
devoted to destruction; and, as Abarbinel thinks, David might suppose that he killed
Saul to take vengeance on him for what he had done to their nation; but, after all,
both he and Maimonides (n) allow the punishment of him was not strictly according
to law, but was a temporary decree, an extraordinary case, and an act of royal
authority; for in common cases a man was not to be condemned and put to death
upon his own confession, since it is possible he may not be in his right mind (o); but
David chose to exercise severity in this case, partly to show his respect to Saul, and
to ingratiate himself into the favor of his friends, and partly to deter men from
attempting to assassinate princes, who himself was now about to ascend the throne.
3. Victor Yap, “The Amalekite account did not do justice to Saul because he hardly
knew what the king was made of and up against. The original version did not state
clearly whether Saul and his sons fled together with the army or, worse, that the
army fled and left them fending for themselves. According to 1 Samuel 31, the
Israelite army fled and Saul¡|s sons were killed; however, Saul fought bravely like a
warrior, a hero, and a king. The Philistine army surrounded him menacingly and
mercilessly, but he fought fiercely (1 Sam 31:3), and obstinately. He single-handedly
took on more than one soldier, attacks from various directions, and weapons hidden
from view. Archers, not just archer, had to be summoned to lend a hand, take their
position and shoot him down.
4. An unknown author gives us the perspective of those who are convinced that the
Amalekite is telling the truth. A number of scholars feel this young man is merely
telling David a tale that he made up. I find this conclusion hard to accept, however.
Our author tells us specifically that this young man “came out of the camp from
Saul” (verse 2). Further, the young man’s description of Saul’s physical condition,
of the closing pursuit of the Philistines, and of his request to be put to death (not to
mention the fact that he has obtained Saul’s crown and bracelet), almost forces us to
conclude that he was indeed there just as he said. Also, we must note that David
takes his words at face value. David does not have this young man put to death for
claiming to kill Saul, but for having done so. As David takes this man’s words at
face value, so should we.
Some think this is inconsistent with the description of Saul’s death in chapter 31 of 1
Samuel. I do not. I believe that when Saul’s armor bearer hesitated (or refused) to
kill his master, Saul fell on his own sword. The armor bearer did not stop to
pronounce Saul dead, or even to wait for him to be completely dead. He knew Saul
either was dead or would soon be. And so he quickly fell on his own sword, dying
quickly and leaving Saul still alive. This is the point at which the young Amalekite
seems to come on the scene.”

19. 17 David took up this lament concerning Saul and
his son
1. Victor Yap, “David and his men did not dance at Saul's death, call him a coward
or spit at his name. They mourned for the loss of a human life, of Israel¡|s first king,
and of the first family. David was not interested to write a tell-all book about Saul's
personal life, double life, and family life, or publish an eyewitness account of how
the king treated his son Jonathan, his daughter Michal, and his son-in-law David.
He left the evaluation to the historians, the theologians, and the Lord. He did not
diminish or disparage Saul's legacy. He had nothing but good to say about he man
who hated him, humiliated him, and hunted him. He lost his first wife, his best
friend, and his army job because of Saul. His parents and brothers had to flee with
him (1 Sam 22:1), and people with him had to leave the country (1 Sam 27:1) and
lived as exiles.
Instead, David penned for Saul a beautiful eulogy, which is the first record of a
lamentation in the Bible, and encouraged future generations to think of the good
Saul had done and the things he had accomplished (v 18). He eulogized Saul as the
Lord's anointed (vv 14, 16), Israel's glory (v 19), warriors, or the mighty, four times
(vv 21, 22, 25, 27), loved and gracious, swifter than eagles, and stronger than lions (v
23). David even coined for Saul the word gracious, or pleasant, which occurred for
the first time in the Bible. Of course, readers know that Saul was anything but
gracious or pleasant to David, but David chose to view Saul's legacy as a whole, and
not with a grudge. The best fighting unit in Israel's history was the tandem of Saul,
Jonathan and David.
2. An unknown author wrote, “Here is a song of sadness and it helps get out the
grief at loss. Express your true feelings out loud and it can help the grieving process.
The animosity of David is gone and he sings only of affection and admiration for the
good side of Saul. He did have one, and that is what is remembered. “Say nothing
but what is good of the dead.” is what David exemplifies here.”
2B. Dr. Constable points out, “over the deaths of individuals are not uncommon in
the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kings 13:30; Jer.22:18; 34:5; Ezek. 28:12-19; 32:2-15). The
only other of David's laments over an individual's death recorded in Scripture was
for Abner (3:33-34).”
3. Barnes, “words lamented and lamentation must be understood in the technical
sense of a funeral dirge or mournful elegy. (See similar dirges in 2Sa_3:33-34; and
2Ch_35:25.) This and the brief stanza on the death of Abner are the only specimens
preserved to us of David’s secular poetry.”
4. Keil, “An eloquent testimony to the depth and sincerity of David's grief for the
death of Saul is handed down to us in the elegy which he composed upon Saul and

20. his noble son Jonathan, and which he had taught to the children of Israel. It is one
of the finest odes of the Old Testament; full of lofty sentiment, and springing from
deep and sanctified emotion, in which, without the slightest allusion to his own
relation to the fallen king, David celebrates without envy the bravery and virtues of
Saul and his son Jonathan, and bitterly laments their loss.”
5. Jamison, “It has always been customary for Eastern people, on the death of great
kings and warriors, to celebrate their qualities and deeds in funeral songs. This
inimitable pathetic elegy is supposed by many writers to have become a national
war song, and to have been taught to the young Israelites under the name of "The
Bow," in conformity with the practice of Hebrew and many classical writers in
giving titles to their songs from the principal theme (Psa_22:1; Psa_56:1; Psa_60:1;
Psa_80:1; Psa_100:1). Although the words "the use of" are a supplement by our
translators, they may be rightly introduced, for the natural sense of this
parenthetical verse is, that David took immediate measures for instructing the
people in the knowledge and practice of archery, their great inferiority to the enemy
in this military arm having been the main cause of the late national disaster.”
6. Jim Bomkamp, “David’s eulogy says nothing negative about Saul. When David
mourns the death of Saul, there is not even a hint of the mention of any of the evil or
unkind things Saul did against David or others. How easy it would have been to
include some of these details, to have indicated some kind of divine vindication, but
David does not do so. David’s psalm honors both Saul and Jonathan as fallen
heroes. David not only restrains himself from speaking ill of the dead, he honors
Saul and Jonathan as war heroes, as men worthy of respect and honor. David’s
psalm begins by focusing upon Saul and ends with the focus on Jonathan. While
David has good things to say about his king, it is evident in this psalm that David
has a deep love and commitment to Jonathan. What may have been somewhat
private while Jonathan was alive, David now makes public. Here is something the
Amalekite totally missed. He seemed to think that Jonathan was David’s enemy, not
his closest friend.
David’s response to the death of Saul is remarkable, but is it sincere? Is David
simply gilding the lily here? Is he sweeping all of the evils Saul has committed under
the rug? Is this hypocrisy on David’s part? I think we must conclude that David is
completely sincere. There is no hypocrisy to be found in what David says or does
here. I believe everything David says is true. This leads to a very important principle
which is frequently violated today: Being honest and truthful does not require
telling everything that could be told, or everything we know to be true. David is
honest and truthful, and godly, while not telling everything he knows to be true of
Saul. One principle of pop psychology holds that we should “get it all out,” that
every frustration should be vented, every grievance aired, every thought expressed.
The Bible simply does not teach this. The Book of Proverbs, in particular, teaches
that the wise man carefully chooses what he will say, and how and when he will say
it. Some things ought not to be said at all. The New Testament contains a very
important guiding principle which should govern what we say or do not say: “We

21. should speak only that which edifies (builds up or benefits) the hearer(s)” (see 1
Corinthians 14:4-5, 17, 26). Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians teaches that the church is
edified by our silence as well as by our speech. It is not a sin to refrain from saying
what would prove to be unprofitable, even if it is true. David does not say anything
about Saul that is untrue. He says only what is true. He tells no lies. Yet he does not
tell all. That is the way it should be.”
18 and ordered that the men of Judah be taught
this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of
Jashar):
1. This is not a song for worship but is a secular song and so is in the secular book of
Jashar which is lost. It is valid to have secular songs that are not in any way
religious. It is a great honor to Saul that David wrote a song to keep his memory
alive in the fighting men of his nation. David considered Saul a great man even
though he was a fool for disobedience to God.
2. Chris Appleby, “Mourning is something that needs to be done with our
community. That’s why we join together for funerals. You know, one of the saddest
funerals I’ve ever taken, wasn’t one of those I’ve conducted for a young child who’s
died, and you know how sad they’ve been. No, it was for a woman who had no-one
there to mourn for her except a niece and the nurse who’d looked after her to the
end. We need a community around us when we mourn the loss of a loved one, don’t
we? The person who’s died needs a community to express the loss that their death
has brought on the world and to acknowledge their contribution to the lives of
others. And so David calls on the community to mourn together.”
3. Barnes, “The bow” is the name by which this dirge was known, being so called
from the mention of Jonathan’s bow in 2Sa_1:22. The sense would then be: And he
commanded them to teach the children of Israel the song called Kasheth (the bow),
i. e. he gave directions that the song should be learned by heart (compare
Deu_31:19). It has been further suggested that in the Book of Jasher there was,
among other things, a collection of poems, in which special mention was made of the
bow. This was one of them. 1Sa_2:1-10was another; Num_21:27-30was another;
Lam. 2 was another; Lam. 3 was another; Jacob’s blessing Gen. 49; Moses’ song
Deut. 32; perhaps his Blessing (Deut. 33. See 2 Sam. 1:29); and such Psalms as Ps.
44; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_76:1-12, etc.; Hab. 3; and Zec_9:9-17, also belonged to it. The
title by which all the poems in this collection were distinguished was “the bow.”
When therefore the writer of 2 Samuel transferred this dirge from the Book of

22. Jasher to his own pages, he transferred it, as we might do any of the Psalms, with its
title.”
4. Gill, “Philistines, especially the Cherethites, were expert in archery, David found
ways and means to get some of them afterward into his service, and by whom he
might improve his people in the art, see 2Sa_8:18; though some (r) are of opinion
that the word "keshet", or bow, was the title of the following lamentation or song,
taken from the mention of Jonathan's bow in it; which song the children of Judah
were to be taught to sing; but then, as has been observed by some, for this there
would have been no need of the following reference, since the whole this song is here
recorded:”
5. Leslie Grant, “David was not so anxious to attempt to take the throne of Israel as
to neglect the chastening of his own soul before God in view of the sadness of the
death of Saul and Jonathan. He genuinely lamented over them with a lamentation
recorded from verse 19 to 27. But verse 18 first mentions that David gave orders
that Israel's warriors should be taught the use of the bow. It was through archery
that Saul was wounded, and this was possibly the deciding factor in the victory of
the Philistines (from a human point of view). Israel now must learn this long-range
warfare.”
6. Spurgeon, “Why should David teach the people the use of the bow because Saul
and Jonathan were slain? Why is the military order concerning the use of a certain
instrument of war inserted here, when the passage is full of lamentation?” If any
ask, I say, I answer most fitly, as I shall have to show youit was the best memorial
of that skillful archer, Jonathan, and of the other princes who had fallen by the
arrows of the Philistines, that from the disastrous day of their slaughter, David
caused his own tribe, over which he had chief power, to be trained in the use of that
special weapon of war.The people were very grieved, for Saul and Jonathan, the
king and the crown prince, were slain. David indulges their griefhe writes them a
plaintive song which the daughters of Israel may sing. But to take their minds off
their distress, he, at the same time, issues the order to teach the children of Judah
the use of the bowfor activity is an effectual remedy in the time of sorrow.
Certainly the opposite of it would tend towards blank despair.”
19 Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your
heights. How the mighty have fallen!
1. Keil, “The ode is arranged in three strophes, which gradually diminish in force
and sweep (viz., 2Sa_1:19-24, 2Sa_1:25-26, 2Sa_1:27), and in which the vehemence
of the sorrow so gradually modified, and finally dies away. Each strophe opens with
the exclamation, “How are the mighty fallen!” The first contains all that had to be
said in praise of the fallen heroes; the deepest mourning for their death; and praise

23. of their bravery, of their inseparable love, and of the virtues of Saul as king. The
second commemorates the friendship between David and Jonathan. The third
simply utters the last sigh, with which the elegy becomes silent.”
2. Brian Morgan, “It seems that in Israel's tradition, the poem was the most natural
and powerful vehicle for grief: a poem crafted by an individual, publicly presented
in community, and offered to God as an act of worship; a tool to integrate the
individual with life's harsh realities, within a community, and ultimately, to God.
The poem was used widely in public worship in Israel. One-third of the psalms were
written as psalms of lament. Even many of the psalms of thanksgiving have
discordant notes of lament. One entire book of Scripture, Lamentations, is a
carefully constructed acrostic poem of lament. The book of Job has lengthy speeches
of lament.
So the poem is an apt setting for the expression of grief. Paul Celan, a German-speaking
eastern European Jew who overnight lost his parents to Nazi deportation
and spent the rest of his life an exile on earth, found that the only language adequate
to describe his pain is poetry. He explains, It is when we are in our deepest grief
that the soul cries out for language, not to be more precise, but to lead us to
transcendence.[1] The poet creates his work by the selective use of concrete images
that emerge out of the story, images that are designed to evoke deep emotions from
sacred memory.”
3. Deffinbaugh deals with the honor that David is giving to Saul, which is clearly a
New Testament principle as well. He wrote, “Render to all what is due them: tax to
whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor
(Romans 13:7). Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (1
Peter 2:17). In these verses, God calls upon us to honor others due to their position.
In most cases, this honor is clearly to those in a position of authority over us
(parents, kings). As Christians, we should honor all men, not only because God
created them, but because we are to put their interests above our own (Philippians
2:1-8). David provides us with an excellent example of how we are to honor others.
We should also recognize that honoring the king of Israel had special significance.
The king held a very special position of honor. He was referred to as God’s “son” in
this capacity (see 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7-9). In this sense, the Lord Jesus Christ
was God Son, partly because He was God's appointed King. The king was “God’s
anointed.” This expression is first employed in 1 Samuel and is used in reference to
Saul and then David. It also refers to future kings, especially the Messiah. The
Hebrew word rendered “anointed” is the term transliterated “Messiah” in the
English language. David honors Saul as “God’s anointed,” and in so doing, honors
the “Anointed One” who was to come. As the Old Testament revelation progresses,
this becomes more and more clear.
In his eulogy, David speaks of Saul as Israel’s beauty. This same word, translated
“beauty” in our text, is employed in Isaiah to refer to Israel’s coming Messiah, who
is Israel’s beauty and glory: In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful
and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the

24. survivors of Israel (Isaiah 4:2). In that day the LORD of hosts will become a
beautiful crown And a glorious diadem to the remnant of His people (Isaiah 28:5).
20 Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the
streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the
Philistines be glad, lest the daughters of the
uncircumcised rejoice.
1. Do not give the ungodly the news they need to rejoice. Do not make the heathen
happy by publishing the news of the godly who have fallen. In our day it is big
business to publish the scandal of the godly who fall and bring disgrace on the
people of God. The world loves such scandal, for it makes them feel good about
their godless lives, which they feel is superior to such hypocrisy.
2222.... The rejoicing of the daughters of the Philistines refers to the custom of employing
women to celebrate the victories of their nation by singing and dancing (cf.
1Sa_18:6). Someone commented, “The idea of Philistine women celebrating what
has been such a tragedy for David is hard for him to take. Not unlike, by the way,
seeing folk, and many women, in the middle East rejoicing at the terror strikes in
the United States.” We can understand how this was disturbing to David, for it is
like a group of people laughing at you because you stumbled and fell, and was
seriously hurt. It would be humiliating, and you would feel a strong sense of
rejection, which is something you want to prevent rather than promote.
3. Ray Pritchard, “Lest you think David is simply responding in anger, read on. The
last half of II Samuel 1 is called the Song of the Bow. It is a poem David composed
on hearing of the death of Saul and Jonathan. He wrote it and then ordered that the
men of Judah learn it by heart. It is a funeral dirge. We would call it a eulogy. If you
want an insight into David's heart, read these verses. The theme is repeated three
times-How the mighty are fallen (vv. 19, 25, 27). He begins by saying, Tell it not
in Gath … lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad. (v. 20) Gath was the
Philistine capital. David's main concern is the tragic death of Saul not become an
occasion for the enemies of God to rejoice. Therefore, he says, keep it quiet.
That is a good word for today. In the last few years we have experienced a series of
sad and sometimes shocking scandals in the Christian community. And some of us
have been too quick to share the news. Did you hear that Jack and Sandy are
getting a divorce? Did you know their daughter got pregnant at college? He

25. lost his job because he couldn't get along with his boss. I think she's started
drinking again. And on and on and on it goes. How quick we are to spread bad
news, how slow to spread the good. It is all too easy for us to gloat when a Christian
brother who we don't like falls into sin. That sort of thing not only demeans us but it
harms the cause of Christ. Whenever a good man falls, it gives the scoffers another
reason to laugh at the Christian faith.”
4. Brian Morgan, “David's anguished cry describes the painful image of the royal
crown slain on Gilboa. Death has set in emotion his worst fears and he feels
impotent to do anything about it. Tell it not in Gath! he cries. Israel's worst fears
have been realized. Her king is dead. Saul was left unprotected, abandoned by God,
to be slaughtered, defiled, dismembered, and displayed by his enemies. Israel's king
has suffered the same fate as Goliath, and now the news is going to spread, of all
places, to Gath, Goliath's home town. How painfully ironic! We can imagine the
jeering and gloating of the victorious army on their homeward march. Upon arrival,
they are greeted with the cheers and songs of the Philistine women whose
gospel[2] (good news) is Israel's defeat. Once the Israelites were the victors, and
their women sang; now the Philistines are the victors, and their women are singing
while the women of Israel are weeping (v 24). The unthinkable has happened! The
uncircumcised exult, and Israel's God is implicated. Shame slaps them in the face,
and David cannot do anything about it.”
5. Pritchard goes on, “Then David rehearses the death of Saul and Jonathan and
says a good word about each man. The key is what he says about Saul. Before we go
on, just remember that Saul chased him for ten years trying to kill him. He hunted
David like an animal and certainly would have killed him if he had had the
opportunity. Now he is dead. Many of us would say, Good riddance. Let me tell
you what that bum was really like. But David doesn't. In fact, he doesn't say a
word about what Saul had done to him. Not a word. It is as if the memory has been
erased from his mind. The great thing is what this eulogy does not say. David does
not mention the things that brought Saul to a disgraceful end. He loved Saul too
much to bring it up now. He will only speak of the good that Saul did while he was
alive.
What is the principle at work here? It is the principle of honoring those whom God
has used in your life even when they have turned against you. In this case that
meant honoring a man whose major goal in life had been to kill David. And yet the
principle stands: From Saul, and through Saul, and because of Saul, God had been
working in David's life. Saul had been God's instrument to prepare David for the
throne. If David was a diamond in the rough, then Saul was God's chisel to remove
the rough edges and expose the beauty within. Indeed, God had chosen David to be
king and he had also chosen Saul to be the unwitting instrument of preparation.
If you put together the various lessons David has learned, three of them go together.
When David spared Saul's life in the cave at En Gedi (I Samuel 24), God was
teaching him to spare his enemies. When David snuck into the camp after midnight
and took the spear but did not kill Saul (I Samuel 26), God was teaching him to love

26. his enemies. And now that Saul is dead (II Samuel 1), God is teaching David to
honor his enemies. First to spare, then to love, then to honor. Great, Greater,
Greatest. This last lesson is the highest point of the spiritual life, and many of us
never reach it.”
21 O mountains of Gilboa,
may you have neither dew nor rain,
nor fields that yield offerings of grain .
For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,
the shield of Saul-no longer rubbed with oil.
1. Robert Roe sees this as a curse upon the mountain. He wrote, “O mountains of
Gilboa, [A curse on the site where the death occurred] Let not dew or rain be on
you, nor fields of offerings [The fields that produced the first fruit offerings.Why
curse that land?] For there the shield of the mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul,
not anointed with oil. Saul's shield which should have protected his life was now
stained with his own blood. Worse than that it was hanging in the temple of
Ashtaroth, the goddess of fertility, rusting away and stained with the dried blood of
Saul. It was totally defiled. Its location was even defiled.
2. An unknown author wrote, “In typical Hebrew hyperbole, the mountain is cursed
as if, being the location of Saul and Jonathan's death, it was somehow responsible.
This is akin to Jeremiah expressing his mental anguish not only by saying that he
wished he had never been born, but by calling down a curse on the unfortunate man
who had brought his father the news of Jeremiah's birth. Poetry is a way of saying
things in a radical way that does not need to be taken literally, as when Job cured
the day he was born, but there is no curse on any such day. The idea of cursing the
land is foreign to us, but cursing was common in Bible times, and people even
cursed the day they were born when they were deeply saddened about life.”
3. Gill, “let there beno dew, neither let there berain upon you; which is not to
understood as a real imprecation; for David would never curse any part of the land
of Israel, for which he had so great a regard; but only as a poetical figure,
expressing his concern for, and abhorrence of what happened on those mountains;
much less did this in reality take place, as some have feigned, as if never dew nor
rain descended on them (t) afterward; which has been refuted by travelers,
particularly Borchard (u), who, speaking of this mountain, says, that as he was upon
it, there was such a violent shower fell, that he was wet through his clothes; and in

27. the year 1273, laying all night upon this hill, there was a great dew fell upon him,
nor fields of offerings; of heave offerings; the meaning is, that he could wish almost
that those hills were not fruitful, and that they brought no fruit to perfection, so
much as that heave offerings for the service of the sanctuary might be taken; which
is expressive of great sterility and scarcity, see Joe_1:13,
For there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away; mighty men were obliged to
cast away their shields and flee, which were greatly to their reproach and scandal,
and to that of the whole nation: it was always reckoned very scandalous, and a great
crime, even punishable with death, to cast away a shield, both with the Greeks and
others (w): yea, also the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil;
as if he was not the anointed king of Israel, but a common soldier: or else this
respects his shield, as if that was not anointed, as shields used to be, that they might
be smooth and glib, and missile weapons, as arrows and others, might not pass
through them, but slide off, see Isa_21:5; though Gersom gives a different turn, that
Saul's shield being in continual use, needed not to be anointed, as those did which
for a time had been laid aside. Abarbinel interprets these words thus, that he, who
was the shield of the mighty, even Saul himself, was vilely cast away, or become
loathsome; and that his shield was anointed, not with oil, but with the blood of the
slain, and the fat of the mighty, connecting them with the words following.”
4. Barnes, “Let there be no dew ... - For a similar passionate form of poetical
malediction, compare Job_3:3-10; Jer_20:14-18. Nor fields of offerings - He
imprecates such complete barrenness on the soil of Gilboa, that not even enough
may grow for an offering of first-fruits. The latter part of the verse is better
rendered thus: For there the shield of the mighty was polluted, the shield of Saul
was not anointed with oil, but with blood). Shields were usually anointed with oil in
preparation for the battle Isa_21:5.”
5. Keil, “Even nature is to join in the mourning. May God withdraw His blessing
from the mountains upon which the heroes have fallen, that they may not be
moistened by the dew and rain of heaven, but, remaining in eternal barrenness, be
memorials of the horrible occurrence that has taken place upon them.”
6. Chuck Smith: “When the Jews began to return to the land of Israel, they began
great reforestation projects all over Israel. Hundreds of millions of trees were
planted all over Israel. But they have left an area on mount Gilboa without trees.
“Let it be barren.” And really, because of this lamentation of David and his
declaration, “let it be barren”, they won’t plant trees on this northern most portion
of mount Gilboa. When you go there today, it is still a barren area. It is,
interestingly enough, an area that gets very little rain. It is just geographically
positioned so that it gets very little rain, and thus, it is pretty barren on that
northern most portion of mount Gilboa. And when you go there today in the tour
busses, and you look at it, the tour guides will often read to you this passage of

28. Scripture: as you look at that barren mount Gilboa, they will read this passage of
Scripture. And it becomes very graphic, and alive: looking at that barren mountain
side.”
7. John Wesley, “This is no proper imprecation; but a passionate representation of
the horror which he conceived at this public loss; which was such, as if he thought
every person or thing which contributed to it, were fit to bear the tokens of divine
displeasure, such as this is, when the earth wants the necessary influences of dew
and rain. Fields of offerings - That is, fruitful fields, which may produce fair and
goodly fruits fit to be offered to God. Vilely - Dishonorably: for it was a great
reproach to any soldier, to cast away or lose his shield. Cast away - By themselves,
that they might flee more swiftly as the Israelites did, and Saul with the rest. As
though, c. - As if he had been no more, than a common soldier: he was exposed to
the same kind of death and reproach as they were.”
22 From the blood of the slain,
from the flesh of the mighty,
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,
the sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied.
1. Kiel, “Such was the ignominy experienced upon Gilboa by those who had always
fought so bravely, that their bow and sword did not turn back until it was satisfied
with the blood and fat of the slain. The figure upon which the passage is founded is,
that arrows drink the blood of the enemy, and a sword devours their flesh (vid.,
Deu_32:42; Isa_34:5-6; Jer_46:10). The two principal weapons are divided between
Saul and Jonathan, so that the bow is assigned to the latter and the sword to the
former.”
2. The bottom line is that they took many enemies down in battle, and so they were
great warriors who brought honor and victory to Israel. When they came marching
home from battle, it was with weapons that had fulfilled their purpose, and they
were satisfied with their accomplishments on the battlefield.
3. Clarke, “especially respecting the bow of Jonathan, “which returned not back
from the blood of the slain,” as the song itself expresses. And David could not but
remember the bow of Jonathan, out of which “the arrow was shot beyond the lad,”
1Sa_20:36. It was the time when that covenant was made, and that affection
expressed between them “which was greater than the love of women.” It is almost
impossible to read the noble original without finding every word swollen with a sigh

29. or broken with a sob. A heart pregnant with distress, and striving to utter
expressions descriptive of its feelings, which are repeatedly interrupted by an excess
of grief, is most sensibly painted throughout the whole. On these accounts the song
was entitled Kasheth, or The song of the Bow, and David commanded the chief
musicians, Ethan, Heman, and Jeduthun, to teach the children of Judah to sing it.”
23 Saul and Jonathan-in
life they were loved and gracious,
and in death they were not parted.
They were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
1. Again it is poetry and not literal that they were swifter than eagles and stronger
than lions. Poetry exaggerates for the purpose of expressing deep emotions. The
literal truth does not say it strongly enough to convey the feelings that are being felt.
2. Keil, “In death as in life, the two heroes were not divided, for they were alike in
bravery and courage. Notwithstanding their difference of character, and the very
opposite attitude which they assumed towards David, the noble Jonathan did not
forsake his father, although his fierce hatred towards the friend whom Jonathan
loved as his own soul might have undermined his attachment to his father. The two
predicates, loved and amiable, and affectionate or kind, apply chiefly to Jonathan;
but they were also suitable to Saul in the earliest years of his reign, when he
manifested the virtues of an able ruler, which secured for him the lasting affection
and attachment of the people. In his mourning over the death of the fallen hero,
David forgets all the injury that Saul has inflicted upon him, so that he only brings
out and celebrates the more amiable aspects of his character. The light motion or
swiftness of an eagle (cf. Hab_1:8), and the strength of a lion (vid., 2Sa_17:10), were
the leading characteristics of the great heroes of antiquity. - Lastly, in 2Sa_1:24,
David commemorates the rich booty which Saul had brought to the nation, for the
purpose of celebrating his heroic greatness in this respect as well.”
3. Pritchard “Then David rehearses the death of Saul and Jonathan and says a good
word about each man. The key is what he says about Saul. Before we go on, just
remember that Saul chased him for ten years trying to kill him. He hunted David
like an animal and certainly would have killed him if he had had the opportunity.
Now he is dead. Many of us would say, Good riddance. Let me tell you what that
bum was really like. But David doesn't. In fact, he doesn't say a word about what
Saul had done to him. Not a word. It is as if the memory has been erased from his
mind. When David writes his eulogy, he dwells on three of Saul's admirable traits:

30. First, his courage in battle. The sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied (v. 22).
Second, his close relationship with Jonathan. Saul and Jonathan-in life they were
loved and gracious and in death they were not parted (v. 23). Third, his
advancement of the nation in prosperity. O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul, who
clothed you in scarlet and finery, who adorned your garments with ornaments of
gold (v. 24). The great thing is what this eulogy does not say. David does not
mention the things that brought Saul to a disgraceful end. He loved Saul too much
to bring it up now. He will only speak of the good that Saul did while he was alive.”
4. Brian Morgan, “Here, at the center of the poem, is the eulogy, the verses where
the dead are remembered at the height of their powers. David paints Saul and
Jonathan in all their splendor: two invincible warriors, unconquerable in war. They
never went out to battle in vain; their weapons always accomplished their purpose.
Overpowering all opponents, father and son ruled supreme. They were swifter than
eagles (which rule the skies), and stronger than lions (which rule the land). But these
once glorious images are now tainted by thoughts which the poet has left unstated,
yet are strongly alluded to. For these glorious images which once evoked praise and
awe--the archer's accurate bow, the penetrating sword of the king, the spilled blood
of the slain, the eagle's speed, the lion's strength--now become painful reminders to
David of Saul and Jonathan lying dead on Mt. Gilboa, and the savage power of
death.
Earlier in the story, David sought to convince Jonathan that Saul was bent on killing
him, saying there was hardly a step between me and death (1 Sam 20:3). But now
David turns a blind eye to Saul's demonic-like obsession. He describes both Saul and
Jonathan as beloved and pleasant in life, and in their death they were not parted.
Is this candy-coated adulation, or outright hypocrisy? I think neither. I sense that
David, having fully spent his grief in the presence of God, finds himself strangely
purged of the pain caused by Saul. Taking our pain directly to the Lord allows us to
disconnect emotionally from the hurts people have done to us. This is a much
needed lesson for our generation. There is not an ounce of bitterness left in David's
soul despite all the abuse that Saul had hurled at him. Through the power of the
poem, his soul is purged of bitterness, cleansed of spite, and protected from
retaliation.”
5. F B Meyer, “IT was very lovely and pleasant of David to say so. He had no
hesitation, of course, in saying this of his beloved Jonathan, every memory of whom
was very pleasant, like a sweet strain of music, or the scent of the spring breeze; but
he might have been excused for omitting Saul from the graceful and generous
epithets he heaped on the kindred soul of his friend. But death had obliterated the
sad, dark memories of recent days, and had transported the Psalmist across the
dream of years to Saul as he was when he was first introduced to him. All that could
be said in praise of the first Hebrew king was crowded into these glowing lines the
courage, martial prowess, swiftness to aid those who required help, his pleasantness
and courtesy in address.
This is the love of God, which He breathes into the hearts of his children. They
become perfect in love, as He is. God commendeth his love towards us, in that,

31. while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. It is God like for his children to love
their enemies, bless those who curse them, and pray for all who despite-fully use and
persecute them. Is such love ours? Do we forbear from thinking evil? Do we look on
the virtues more often than the failures of our friends? Do we cast the mantle of
forgiveness over the injuries done to us, and dwell tenderly on the excellencies of our
foes? Such is the love which never fails, but endures when faith has turned to
fruition, and hope has realized its dreams.”
24 O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul,
who clothed you in scarlet and finery,
who adorned your garments with ornaments of
gold.
1. You are better off economically because of his leadership. He was a good ruler
and the people benefited from it. David is saying that Saul was a good ruler in spite
of his personal failure in relation to God and himself. He was not a failure as a
leader of the nation, and that makes sense, for God chose him for that role, and God
does not choose losers. Saul's failure was his pride and disobedience to the clear
Word of God. You can be a very good man, and gifted by God, and still blow it by
letting your pride lead you in the opposite direction that God wants you to go. The
people had no reason to not like Saul, for they were enjoying a better life because of
his leadership. Look at your richly adorned garments ladies, and you will see why
you have lost a great leader.
2. Gill, “who clothed you with scarlet, with other delights; not only with scarlet, but
with other fine and delightful apparel, such as were very pleasing to the female sex,
especially young people, who are delighted with gay apparel; this Saul was the
means of, through the spoil he took from his enemies, and by other methods taken
by him to the enriching of the nation, whereby husbands and parents were enabled
to provide rich clothes for their wives and children.”
3. Jamison, “The fondness for dress, which anciently distinguished Oriental women,
is their characteristic still. It appears in their love of bright, gay, and divers colors,
in profuse display of ornaments, and in various other forms. The inmost depths of
the poet's feeling are stirred, and his amiable disposition appears in the strong
desire to celebrate the good qualities of Saul, as well as Jonathan. But the praises of
the latter form the burden of the poem, which begins and ends with that excellent
prince.”

32. 4. Brian Morgan, “Through the poem David gives Saul the gift he always wanted in
life--the adulation and respect of the daughters of Israel. Ironically, this was the
very thing that provoked Saul's enmity and fueled his obsession to kill David in the
first place, when the women sang, Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten
thousands (1 Sam 18:7). Such is the power of the poem: it verbalizes our grief, airs
our pain, and cleanses us from bitterness so much so that we are able to extend love
to our enemies. What a price we are paying in our own day by neglecting man's
highest form of speech! Where does modern man go with his internal frustrations
and aches, his bewilderment and pain? Where does he give voice to his unspeakable
grief? Without the poem to articulate and give eternal significance to what lies
within, what outlets are left? We have traded the time-honored holy stage of
communal worship for the isolation of the therapist's office, or, worse yet, the public
strip-tease of the talk shows. Failing that, the only recourse left to vent our seething
frustrations is the non-language of violence. Perhaps we are such a violent
generation because we are, in part, the inarticulate generation.”
5. Sometimes Christians have felt that fancy clothes and jewelry studded dresses are
not fitting for godly women, but this is a very subjective thing based on the culture,
and the particular feelings of certain groups. The Bible is filled with women in fine
clothes and jewelry of all kinds. It is a matter of taste, but there is no reason for
godly people to be drab and clothed in shabby garments. God blessed his people
with riches enough to dress very well many times, and it is valid for God's people to
enjoy the finest things. Moderation is always good, for one can go overboard, but
they can also go under-board and dress so sloppy that no one would ever guess they
are experiencing the blessing of God. Take note of the word only in the advice of
Peters to Christian women: 1 Peter 3:3,4 “And let not your adornment be external
only, braiding the hair and wearing gold jewelry and putting on dresses. But let it be
the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet
spirit which is precious in the sight of God.”
6. Look how David has characterized Saul –
1:12 – They mourned and wept over Saul and Jonathan (not just Jonathan) – 1:12

33. 1:14 – David still considered Saul the Lord’s anointed
1:19 – Saul is called the “beauty of Israel”
1:19 – Saul is called the “mighty”
1:21 – David curses Gilboa because it was the place of Saul’s death
1:22 – David sees Saul as a mighty warrior
1:24 – David reminds Israel of how good Saul has been to them
25 How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.
1. Barnes, “How are the mighty fallen - The recurrenee of the same idea 2Sa_1:19,
2Sa_1:25, 2Sa_1:27is perfectly congenial to the nature of elegy, since grief is fond of
dwelling upon the particular objects of the passion, and frequently repeating them.
By unanimous consent this is considered one of the most beautiful odes in the Bible,
and the generosity of David in thus mourning for his enemy and persecutor, Saul,
enhances the effect upon the mind of the reader.”
2. Brian Morgan, “Here is grief in its most personal, lonely state. Jonathan's title
changes from son to my brother. I am distressed for you, my brother
Jonathan, says David. His sorrow is deep, personal, all-consuming. And his distress
over Jonathan's death is magnified by the intensity of the love between them, a love
he describes as wonderful, a love that transcends all romantic love. The word
wonderful (Hebrew, pala') was used of divine wonders, events like the Exodus,
things that evoked awe, wonder and praise. When the word is used of man, it speaks
of something outside his capabilities, something too wonderful for me (Deut
30:11). This gift of friendship is beyond the realm of human ability. It is love
divine.” “How wonderfully free is the poet to express the tensions he feels in his soul.
David gives voice to everything we have ever felt but did not sense we had
permission to express. And he says it with painful honesty, in full view of the public,
in the very presence of God. David confesses that Jonathan's death affects him in a
comprehensive way: It cast dark clouds over the future, it colors the past, and it
continually invades the present, where tears remain just beneath the surface.”

34. 26 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.
1. This song memorializes one of history’s great friendships. It would be suspect
today to have a friend more wonderful than the love of women. But David felt it for
the daughter of Saul became his wife (Michael) and she forsook him, but this son of
Saul never did forsake him even when his father tried to kill David. He was a
faithful friend.
2. David had his share of grieving in life, for he lost his wife by abandonment; lost
his newborn baby; lost his most loved son, and here lost his best friend.
3. Roe expresses an interesting opinion as to why David loved Jonathan more
than women. He wrote, “There was a tremendous bond between David and
Jonathan. Incidentally when I read the above I was struck by the tragedy. This
is the destruction involved in multiple marriages and multiple wives. David had
no concept of a one flesh relationship. He had at least five wives at this time. He
had another five wives and concubines later on. He had no idea of one flesh
relationship with one woman for life. So he had a deeper affection, a closer
relationship with a man [This was not homosexuality. This was a brother] than
he did with a wife. It is a beautiful picture of Jonathan but a tragic statement on
multiple wives.”
3B. Constable, “David considered Jonathan's love better than that of women (v.
26). David was not alluding to some perverted type of love that he shared with
Jonathan but to covenant and political loyalty. He probably meant that they
enjoyed a oneness that most married couples do not because of their deep and
strong commitment to Yahweh as well as to one another.”
4. Gill, “The Targum is,more than the love of two women,''than his two wives,
Ahinoam and Abigail; so Kimchi; meaning that he was more strongly and
affectionately loved by Jonathan than by them, who yet might love him very
well too.” David had the love of women, but he is saying that there has never
been a women in his life that loved him more than Jonathan did. He was ready
to die for David, and he made it clear that he would. This is not the type of
commitment that most women make to their husbands.
5. An unknown author wrote, “Military history is replete with such laments. They
are not always in the form of such beautiful poetry, but they give expression to the
powerful bonds that can be forged between men who share great or terrible

35. experiences and the emotions that such experiences produce. I've been reading of
late Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers, his account of the young men of a single
airborne company from their days of training through their experiences in combat
during World War II. And there is a great deal of lament in that book, men
expressing their love for fallen comrades, their devastation at their loss, the indelible
impression of the dead in the memories of the living.
6. Dawn Turner has some interesting history dealing with the power of friendship
love. “Alexander the Great is a meteor that flashed through the darkened skies of
history. Young, handsome, driven and idealistic, he virtually conquered the world,
yet like David with Jonathon, he was utterly dependent on the companionship of a
friend. Unlike David, Alexander never recovered from the loss of that friend.
Alexander and Hephaestion had grown up together; each knew all the secrets of the
other. The two men were the same age. They shared one tent, drank from one cup,
and fought in battle side by side. They were inseparable. Hephaestion was taller,
thus was sometimes mistaken for Alexander. On one occasion, when Darius’ queen
entered the tent, she bowed before Hephaestion, thinking him Alexander. She was
alarmed to discover her error, but the young king simply smiled and said,
“Hephaestion is also Alexander,” as if to indicate that the two men were one.
When Hephaestion died, Alexander was broken in spirit. According to historian
Will Durant, “he broke down in uncontrolled grief. He lay for hours upon the
corpse weeping; he cut off his hair in mourning, and for days refused to take food.
He sentenced death to the physician who had left the sick youth’s side to attend the
public games. He ordered a gigantic funeral pile to be erected in Hephaestion’s
memory, at a cost, we are told of ten thousand talents or in our monetary numbers
$60 million dollars, and sent to inquire of the oracle of Ammon whether it was
permitted to worship Hephaestion as a god. In his next campaign a whole tribe was
slain, at Alexander’s orders, as a sacrifice to Hephaestion’s ghost…Back in Babylon,
he abandoned himself more and more to drink. One night, reveling with his officers,
he proposed a drinking contest…shortly afterward, at another banquet, Alexander
drank heavily again; and cold weather suddenly set in, he suddenly caught a fever
and took to his bed. The fever raged for ten days, during which Alexander
continued to give orders to his army and to his fleet. On the eleventh day he died,
being in the thirty-third year of his age.” Alexander’s grieving stopped his living. He
became demented with the memory of Hephaestion. David grieved but with his
sorrow, he continued on. Yes he was hurting. Yes he felt the loss. But he also knew
that he was a servant of the Lord and he had to continue.”
7 Spurgeon quotes other texts that make clear the strong love of David for
Jonathan. “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his
own soul. 1 Samuel 18:3 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he
loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul. 1 Samuel 20:17. Spurgeon
then comments, “Why so many sermons on Jonah, and so few on Jonathan? Are the
cross-grained more worthy of study than the gentle and generous? This noble prince
counted it his joy to further the interests of the man who was to be preferred before

36. him. There was something very beautiful in Jonathan, and this came out in his
unselfish, magnanimous love of David.” Spurgeon gives this example of the strong
friendship love of a man for a man. “Lord Brooke was so delighted with the
friendship of Sir Philip Sydney that he ordered to be engraved upon his tomb
nothing but this, Here lies the friend of Sir Philip Sydney.
8. An unknown author struggles with David's positive comments about Saul. It is
not surprise that David loved Jonathan, but what is this positive voice for Saul who
has tried to kill him for the last decade? This author wrote, “I guarantee you, had
David said something like, Well, Saul is dead. It is sad to consider his end. So much
opportunity, so many gifts, and all squandered so terribly. Israel, take heed what
unbelief does to a man, not a reader of the Bible would have been surprised or
disturbed. It would have been the obvious thing to say. And, without a doubt, that
was the truth of the matter. Yet David speaks as if Saul had been a fine king and a
great warrior, when, to be honest, cowardice and weakness had been Saul's
undoing. He says of Saul and Jonathan that in life they were loved and gracious and
in death they were not parted, even though on two occasions, as we have seen, Saul
came close to killing Jonathan. How can he say such things when the Lord obviously
passed a very negative judgment on Saul's life and his reign and when his death was
explicitly an act of God's judgment against Saul?” Many answer this by saying that
David had the love of God in his heart, and such love covers a multitude of sins.
David is a perfect example of one who loved God with all his heart, and thus was
able to love his enemies just as Jesus taught was to be the way of those who love
God.
9. Adam Blons, “According to some Biblical scholars, there is general agreement
that this poem can be attributed to David himself. It is, therefore, one of the earliest
pieces of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back almost 3000 years. It is truly the
lamentation of a war veteran praising bravery and morning the loss of life and land
to the enemy. Defeat was never expressed so beautifully. And what are we left to
think of his relationship with Jonathan? Dear and Delightful you were to me: your
love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. What is this love that passes
the love of a life partner? Surely it is God's love. One author remarked that in
ancient Israel the word hesed (meaning loyal love) was used to describe the bond
between Jonathan and David. He says, This word denoted that unique quality of
the bond between Yahweh and his people and its extension into human relations.
(Landay, Jerry, David, (Seastone, Berkeley, 1998) p. 36) It is a love forged from
vulnerability and intimacy, sustained through loyalty and honesty, and lasting well
beyond the tragedies of life. This is the love we are looking for. This is the love to
listen for and practice in our relationships. This is the love that God has for us–
those to whom God says, Dear and delightful you are to me! Amen!h
10. Great Texts, “When the youthful David appeared before Saul after his duel with
Goliath, he attracted the notice and won the heart of the king s eldest son. As he told
his story with the winning modesty of a boy who has done a really brave thing as a

37. matter of course and dislikes talking about it, we read that the soul of Jonathan
was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. It was a
sudden friendship. David was one of those divinely favored natures that irresistibly
attract every one they touch, and whose charm no one is able to withstand. The
chivalrous nature of Jonathan fell at once under the spell of the heroic youth,
introduced to him under circumstances so remarkable and so romantic. The sudden
friendship was mutual and lasting. Jonathan and David made a covenant, because
he loved him as his own soul.
There are not a great many friendships which have left an abiding record in human
memories ; but there is in legend the friendship of Theseus and Peirithous, ofOrestes
arid Pylades, of Roland and Oliver on the borderland of legend and history ; and in
Jewish story this of David and Jonathan. The world s later ages do not furnish so
readily as the earlier ages examples of a friendship between men heroic enough in
force and beauty to make a mark on the human mind. If Pythias was condemned to
death by Diouysius the tyrant. He begged leave to go home to wish his friends good-bye
and to arrange his affairs. He had a friend named Damon, who said, Let him
go, and I will remain in prison and die for him if he does not return. Dionysius
consented, and Pythias went off home, and came back just in time to meet his fate,
and save the friend who had risked death for his sake. The tyrant was so struck by
the nobility of heart in the two men that he pardoned Pythias, and said : Let me be
a third person in so sacred a friendship.
11. Great Texts goes on to record the poem of Tennyson about his friend Henry
Hallam called In Memoriam. David could have written something just like it about
Jonathan.
More than my brothers are to me,
Let this not vex thee, noble heart!
I know thee of what force thou art
To hold the costliest love in fee.
But thou and I are one in kind,
As molded like in Nature s mint;
And hill and wood and field did print
The same sweet forms in either mind.
For us the same cold streamlet curled
Through all his eddying coves; the same
All winds that roam the twilight came
In whispers of the beauteous world.
At one dear knee we proffered vows,
One lesson from one book we learned
Ere childhood s flaxen ringlet turned
To black and brown on kindred brows.

38. And so my wealth resembles thine,
But he was rich where I was poor,
And he supplied my want the more
As his unlikeness fitted mine.
12. An unknown author wrote-
What is the best a friend can be
To any soul, to you or me ?
Not only shelter, comfort, rest
In most refreshment unexpressed;
Not only a beloved guide
To thread life s labyrinth at our side,
Or, with love s torch lead on before;
Though these be much, there yet is more.
The best friend is an atmosphere,
Warm with all inspirations dear,
Wherein we breathe the large free breath
Of life that has no taint of death.
Our friend is an unconscious part
Of every true beat of our heart ;
A strength, a growth, whence we derive
God s health that keeps the world alive.
13. “What was the secret which kept alive the friendship of David and Jonathan, in
defiance of all that difficulty and danger, and family affection and duty, and most
urgent self-interest could do to destroy it ? The mere mutual liking of two gallant
and generous young men, who had the same manly tastes and chivalrous sentiments,
is not enough to explain it. The unsolderable spell which cemented this union of
hearts was of no such stuff as that. The same passage which reminds us of what
there was to imperil their friendship reveals also the secret of its safe keeping.
Jonathan arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in
God. What is strengthening his hand in God ? The expression is obscure, but its
most natural meaning is that Jonathan heartened David in his danger and exile by
reminding him of God's promise, and by declaring his own faith in it. That touches
the true bond of this friendship. What bound these two together was not natural and
congenial temper, but the sympathy of a common faith. Each saw in the other one
priceless virtue devotion to a holy ideal ; each knew that the other lived faithful to a
sacred purpose, an ambition which was pure. If Jonathan loved David, it was
because David was true to a divinely appointed destiny and followed it unshaken
through peril and pain and discouragements. If, in turn, David loved Jonathan, it
was because he, too, saw in his friend a lofty and pathetic obedience to a fate which
was a fate of deprivation and endurance and humiliation, but yet was the fate which
God had chosen for him. They loved each other so well, and with such steadfastness,

39. because they loved God yet more: their loves in higher love endured. The glory
that gathered upon their earthly affection was the glory which breathed upon it
from a spiritual faith.” Author unknown
14. One more poem by I. W. Watson
What might be done if men were wise
What glorious deeds, my suffering brother,
Would they unite In love and right,
And cease their scorn of one another.
Oppression's heart might be imbued
With kindling drops of loving-kindness,
And knowledge pour From shore to shore
Light on the eyes of mental blindness.
All slavery, warfare, lies, and wrongs,
All vice and crime might die together,
And wine and corn To each man born
Be free as warmth in summer weather.
The meanest wretch that ever trod,
The deepest sunk in sin and sorrow,
Might stand erect In self-respect
And share the teeming world to-morrow.
What might be done? This might be done,
And more than this my suffering brother
More than the tongue Eer said or sung,
If men were wise, and loved each other.
15. Joe Guglielmo, “Many liberals, and those in the gay community, try to use this
verse to support their view that Johnathan and David had homosexual relations.
That is ridiculous. This love is that of friends and it ran deep. Also, God continually
condemns homosexuality in the Scriptures, and He therefore is not going to condone
this type of relationship. But this only exists in the minds of those who want to
justify their behavior and is not supported by the Scriptures.”
16. Alexander Whyte, “Passing the love of woman! That is a hard saying. What
love can pass that? Yet David doubtless spoke truth. He was a man who must have
had reason enough to know what woman’s love was like; and when he said that the
love of Jonathan for him passed even that, he bestowed on his friend praise which
will be immortal. The name of Jonathan will remain for ever as the perfect pattern
of friendship.”

40. 27 How the mighty have fallen!
The weapons of war have perished!
1. Gill, “Not only the valiant soldiers were killed, but their arms were lost; and
particularly he may mean Saul and Jonathan, who as they were the shields of the
people, so they were the true weapons and instruments of war, and with them all
military glory perished; which must be understood as a poetical figure, exaggerating
their military characters; otherwise David, and many mighty men with him,
remained, and who revived and increased the military glory of Israel, as the
following history shows.”
2. Chris Appleby, “But before we leave this lament for Saul, I want us to notice the
significance of this form of public mourning. First notice what a beautiful thing it is.
There’s something about the human mind, the human spirit, that needs beauty even
in the depths of sadness. The beauty of the poetic form that we find here, takes the
sadness we’re feeling and transforms it from something ugly to something that we
can begin to deal with. It’s an essentially personal form of expression, a way of
entering into our experiences, not just watching them happen to us. If you’ve ever
read the prayers of Eddie Askew, many of them are in the form of a lament. And
they’re truly beautiful and personal expressions of faith in God in the midst of pain.
But Lament isn’t just a personal expression. It’s at the same time a communal,
public expression. There’s no doubt that this expresses David’s personal pain, but
it’s also intended as a public expression of the loss of the community. That’s why he
instructs that this Song of the Bow be taught to the people of Judah. He wants the
whole nation to be able to express their sadness. He wants the people to
acknowledge what’s been lost in this battle. It isn’t just a strategic loss of territory.
It’s more personal, more spiritual, than that. They’ve lost the one that God anointed
as their King.”