The Book of Samuel 31 records King Saul’s dying breath. Against all odds, he had battled the Philistines. His would be the last stand of a soldier’s soldier. Looming large is a question of morality, a burning ethical quandary: Saul’s suicide. Abravanel unpacks this ageless problem.
”Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua, the sons of Saul.”
What is the background? “Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines…” The rabbis of old teach that fleeing soldiers precipitates utter defeat, hastening it. King Saul at the frontline watched his men’s discipline disintegrate, deserting en masse. Miserably outnumbered, Saul stood his ground – flanked by his three sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua.
In succession, Saul witnessed his three sons fall. And still Saul stood firm, fully cognizant that the battle had been long decided. Deserting troops in droves signaled as much, nay, presaged the ancient truism. “And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was in great anguish by reason of the archers.” Precious little time remained. “Then said Saul to his armor-bearer: Draw your sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make a mock of me.” Saul’s attendant shuddered at the prospect of harming the king. “But his armor-bearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took his sword, and fell upon it.“ Faithfully, the aide followed suit. “And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell upon his sword, and died with him.”
Now we turn to Abravanel’s comments concerning the central subject: Saul’s suicide. Judaism holds that suicide rates as murder, so egregious is it. Does Saul’s fear that the Philistines will “thrust me through, and make a mock of me” mitigate matters? From the perspective of death, did it alter things if Saul’s death came by way of the Philistines or self-inflicted? Dead, to be blunt, is dead. Next, Abravanel poses, if Saul feared for the fate of his lifeless body, suicide doesn’t change that eventuality. Upon discovery of Saul’s corpse, they could do with it as they pleased. Finally, Abravanel’s circles back to his question: King Saul’s suicide.
Abravanel entertains that Saul died immediately when he fell upon his sword. This is important to consider, especially in the context of the very next chapter. An Amalekite who had been at the Hebrew/Philistine battle tracked down David, informing him of the Hebrews’ defeat. The lad conveyed more. He had encountered Saul, wallowing in blood, yet still alive. Saul, so said the messenger, bid him to deliver the coup de grace to save him from Philistine hands. “So I stood beside him, and slew him.” Abravanel learns that the youth lied in order to ingratiate himself with David.
Abravanel considers another ending. Namely, when Saul fell on his sword, he lie dying, but had not succumbed to his wounds. When the young Amalekite discovered Saul, and when Saul bid the boy to kill him, the Amalekite complied. He delivered the death blow. Abravanel favors that latter approach.
Be that as it may, we now answer the question: Was Saul’s self-inflicted, mortal wound justified, permissible? To answer, Abravanel says that no sin should be imputed to King Saul. Why? He knew of Heaven’s death decree. Samuel apprised him of as much (1 Samuel 28). Saul witnessed the unfolding of the decree. His sons had fallen to the Philistines. Philistine archers surrounded him, closing in from all sides. Death stalked. With seconds remaining until Philistines grabbed him, Saul selected his course. Either by his own sword or through the agency of someone doing his bidding, Saul sought solace in death. Foremost on his mind was the precedent of Samson. Hadn’t the Philistines abused him? Poked out his eyes? Made sport with him? (Judges 16) Certainly, history is replete with sadistic endings, endless tales of torture and torment.
Saul was determined to cheat Philistines of their dastardly design. He would rather die than be paraded to the chants of jeering throngs. Abravanel offers psychological insight into Saul’s character. He says that Saul was, by nature, of noble demeanor. Dignity defined him. Noblesse oblige, too, marked the man. He deemed death preferable to ignominy. In closing, Abravanel argues that even though suicide is tantamount to murder, Saul’s case must be viewed through a different lens. Jewish sages corroborate this conclusion.