A "Confession" Gone Awry

Reflections on 2 Sam. 1:1-16

The young man who brought the news of Israel’s defeat on Mt. Gilboa to David was an opportunist. He habitually sought to take advantage of situations to gain wealth or advancement, and he did so without considering whether his actions were right or wrong. Evidences of his opportunistic character are found throughout this episode.

FIRST, the young man said, “By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa” (v. 6). By neglecting to give his reason for being on Mt. Gilboa, he probably raised David’s suspicions about his character. He was not there at the command of an officer. He was not participating in the heat of battle out of loyalty to the king or to Israel. He just happened to be there. He implies he was behind the line of battle because the wounded king saw him when he “looked behind him.” He was probably a human vulture at the battle site merely to profit from any opportunity that might present itself.

SECOND, the young man was an opportunistic liar. Although David had no way of knowing that the messenger was lying, we know from 1 Sam. 31:3 ff. that he was lying. Saul could not have been “leaning on his spear” (2 Sam. 1:6) after he and his armor-bearer had fallen on their swords. What the Amalekite saw was a dead king. No armor-bearer was there to defend the king’s life or honor. Accordingly, when he saw the dead king, he thought it would be to his advantage to confess to David, “I killed him.” He thought he could obtain honor and advancement because he had lived in Israel long enough to know that Saul was the only obstacle to David becoming king.

THIRD, the messenger brought Saul’s crown and arm-band to David (2 Sam. 1:10). If he had killed Saul out of a sense of mercy as he implied, he would have tried to restore the crown to the royal family, or at least to one of Saul’s army officers, without claiming to have killed him. Instead of doing that, he made a much longer journey to take the crown to David. So the crown and arm-band were not only evidence that Saul was dead, but they were also conclusive evidence of the Amalekite’s opportunism.

FOURTH, the young man told David he was the son of an alien or sojourner (2 Sam. 1:13). His father was an Amalekite, a member of the nomadic, warlike tribe that David had been destroying in obedience to God’s command. Perhaps many in his family were opportunists who chose to sojourn in Israel merely to save their lives. (If you can’t beat them, join them.) However, aliens who obeyed Israel’s laws received rights and protections from those laws, so David could not execute the Amalekite merely because he brought bad news.

FIFTH, the Amalekite showed no respect for “the Lord’s anointed.” The messenger’s claim to have killed the king showed that he had no loyalty to Israel’s law or Israel’s rulers. As such, the young man could not claim the protection of that law. In fact, he would fall under the condemnation of that law. His “confession” did not bring him the advancement and honor he anticipated. Instead, it convicted him and brought him swift destruction.