David uses this question to expose the theological and moral gravity of the Amalekite’s confession before pronouncing capital judgment. By framing the act as destroying the LORD’s anointed rather than merely killing a king, David establishes that this is sacrilege warranting death, not a mercy killing deserving reward.

The Amalekite had already responded by recounting how Saul requested death because agony had seized him, and claiming he complied because Saul could not survive his wounds. David made no further inquiry but immediately ordered the young man’s execution, declaring his blood was on his own head since his own mouth testified against him for killing the LORD’s anointed.

David’s question pierces to the heart of covenant faithfulness versus opportunistic pragmatism. The interrogative form highlights the incomprehensibility of the act rather than seeking information David already possesses through the Amalekite’s confession. The Hebrew construction emphasizes the absence of fear through the negative particle lo with yare, meaning the Amalekite acted without the reverent dread that should restrain anyone from touching God’s consecrated king. David chooses a question rather than immediate condemnation to expose the theological bankruptcy of the act, forcing the man to confront what his hands have done in terms of divine offense, not military strategy. The weight falls on LORD’s anointed, mashiach Yahweh, the very title that made Saul untouchable despite his hostility toward David. This question becomes David’s judicial pronouncement, establishing that reverence for God’s anointing transcends personal advantage or even apparent mercy, grounding kingship in sacred inviolability.