These are different views, each with its own "spin", of the same event in history:
1. The literal account of what happened.
2. What happened as seen from a military point of view, where Saul, in his tormented mental state, gave up the high ground during battle, giving the enemy a chance to win. When the enemy took it, Saul saw that all hope was lost and took his life...whereby the enemy Amalekites "slew him".
3. The term "Philistines" were used by Jews in this time period as a derogatory term for all of Israel's enemies, including the Amalekites. Gilboa is the nearby mountain range (the high ground) where from they launched the attack and slew Saul's army.
4. God judged Saul this way. Samuel told Saul that his kingdom would be taken away from him because of his earlier repeated disobedience to God's commands: first, when he took Samuel's place in making an offering to God before a battle, then when he refused to kill a pagan king and destroy all that was his.
A lot of this stuff is being shown in the NBC series "Kings", which I love...but I've learned that the network will soon cancel.
My interpretation is the same as TaterHead's, except possibly for the Amalekite.
I would assume he thought he would have a far better chance of getting a reward if he falsely claimed to have killed Saul. So that part of the book of Samuel is ultimately giving a factual account of an Amalekite's false story.
-- Edited by Cyrus on Friday 16th of July 2010 03:31:03 PM
