1 Samuel 19:1–17

Original Meaning

Jonathan Attempts Reconciliation (19:1–7)

THE OPENING VERSE of the text states laconically that Saul now resolves to draw others into his conspiracy against David. But just as succinctly the narrator reminds us that Jonathan is “very fond of David” (19:1b; see NRSV “took great delight in David”). Because of his friendship and commitment to David (see 18:1–4), Jonathan arranges to serve as an intermediary in order to accomplish a reconciliation with his father. The fact that David is within earshot of the meeting and yet needs a summary of the conversation has led some to theorize that the narrative is a composite text of two earlier sources. But it is perhaps more likely that Jonathan’s advice is intended to give David a convenient view of the meeting so that he can assess Saul’s attitude for himself. Jonathan will elaborate any details.2

Jonathan has carefully planned what he will say. In persuasive fashion, he makes his case before Saul, with David waiting in the wings. He argues that David is in fact innocent of any wrongdoing. On the contrary, his actions have been of great benefit to the king. With disregard for his personal safety, David killed Goliath, at which time Yahweh achieved a great victory and made the king himself rejoice. Jonathan’s closing question poignantly emphasizes that killing an innocent man for no reason is itself a wrongdoing. His logic and eloquence win the day, and his father and friend are reconciled. But the peaceable relations are short-lived.

Saul’s Second Attempt on David’s Life (19:8–10)

Bridging Contexts

OUR STORY SEEMS to have degenerated into a soap opera. Jonathan has deceived and disobeyed his father for David’s sake. Michal shamelessly tricks her father and then lies to cover it up. David has endured the humiliating escape through a window and is now on the run, never to appear in Saul’s court again. Brueggemann’s comments on this passage are apropos:

There is nothing here of God or God’s will or God’s coming kingdom. We are treated to calculating human actions that do not conform to our expectations. Something is deeply awry when a future king must crawl through a window, when the wife of a coming king must lie to the father who is still king. The evil spirit of Saul has infected the whole scene.6

Thus this passage confirms, especially when read together with chapter 18, that Saul is no longer fit to serve as Israel’s anointed one. He has been placed aside, though the events have yet to bear it out.

Ethical considerations. In the midst of such sordid details, this text also raises certain ethical considerations. The Bible often relates stories of deception and intrigue, but not often as approvingly as our historian does here. Jonathan disobeys his father, and more strikingly, Michal lies to him. In both cases, the narrator assumes they are motivated by just causes, and they are not condemned for their actions. This raises the question often asked by Christian philosophers: Is there any room for justifiable falsehood? Is lying justified or even morally required under certain conditions?

Interestingly, deception can be portrayed in contrasting ways in the Bible. Rachel and Jacob deceive the elderly Isaac, but their ruse plays an important part in the narrative of Genesis to characterize them both as manipulative and conniving (Gen. 27:1–29). Jael pretended to offer protection for Sisera, commander of the Canaanite army from Hazor, who was running from the Israelite forces. But the narrative seems to rejoice in the way she lulled Sisera to sleep and then assassinated him, and the text characterizes Jael as a woman of courage and resourcefulness (Judg. 4:17–21; see 4:9). So in one context, deception is condemned. But in others such behavior is praised.

Take, for example, Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives of Exodus 1:15–21. The Egyptian pharaoh tried to control Israelite population growth by demanding that the midwives in charge of Hebrew births kill the boys, allowing only the girls to live. But because the midwives were God-fearing women, they refused to obey the king and allowed the boys to live as well. When the pharaoh demanded to know why they did not obey him, they simply lied (1:19): “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.” In this case, the midwives were blessed for their actions. God rewarded them with families of their own because they feared him more than the Egyptian king and chose to risk lying rather than kill the newborn Hebrew boys. Likewise Rahab certainly told a lie to the king of Jericho to save the two Israelite spies (Josh. 2:4–6), and New Testament authors unanimously praise her actions as works of faith (Heb. 11:31; James 2:25).

When we compare these disparate episodes, a certain biblical ethic begins to emerge, which is supported by our text in 1 Samuel 19. Rather than a monolithic prohibition against all lying and deception, the Bible offers a general principle, modified with several exceptions. The general principle is most notably stated in the ninth commandment, which contains a statement against lying in a court of law (Ex. 20:16). Elsewhere the Bible generally disdains all falsehood (Prov. 11:3) and portrays Satan as the “father of lies” (John 8:44; Eph. 4:25). But then we have exceptions such as the Hebrew midwives, who chose to embrace the guilt of deception in order to preserve the lives of the newborns. They unselfishly put themselves at risk before the pharaoh rather than fulfill his gruesome orders.7

Jonathan and Michal seem to be in the same category as the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. These biblical characters choose the higher good and are willing to accept the consequences of their choices, even if it puts them at personal risk in order to help an innocent person. Many Christian scholars through the centuries have agreed. Thomas Aquinas distinguished three classes of lies: officious lies, or helpful lies of necessity; jocose lies, told in jest; and mischievous lies, or malicious lies told to harm another person or to save face personally. Only the third category constitutes a sin in Aquinas’s view.8

I would agree with Aquinas, but I would also warn that the lie of necessity is only morally justified (even morally required?) under certain circumstances, such as rare situations where it is clear that innocent lives are at stake. In this biblical ethic, lying and deception are wrong and to be avoided. However, the actions of Jonathan and Michal, the Hebrew midwives, and others suggest there are times when believers should choose to accept the guilt of lying in order to accomplish a higher good, as they believe it to be defined by God. Thus, we recognize deception as always bad but sometimes desirable in extenuating circumstances.

Contemporary Significance

THE DILEMMA OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD. Christian application of the concept of justifiable falsehood is more difficult today than at any time in modern history. The reason is because of the emerging postmodern culture in North America, in which truth claims are no longer simply evaluated as true or false but are subjected to reinterpretation. By definition, our postmodern culture assumes what is “true” for one person may not be “true” for another.9 Precision is impossible, and the definition of justifiable falsehood is therefore blurred.

Perhaps the most obvious and alarming example is President Bill Clinton’s deceptions in 1998, which led one social critic to call him the nation’s first “postmodern president,” who did not feel bound by objective standards of truth.10 Since truth is conditioned by circumstances, it is capable of being reshaped for the needs of the present situation. The president was able to tell the nation emphatically in a famous quote, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” because he redefined the word “sex.”11 In our postmodernist environment, it is impossible to lie because there is no truth.

In such an environment, it may be dangerous for Christians to explore times when falsehood is acceptable because we may find ourselves vulnerable to the postmodern myth concerning truth. Rejecting this aspect of postmodernism, Christians will assert that truth is undivided and that we are still under mandate to be honest and truthful. However, we also must ask if there are times when modern believers would be justified in deceiving intentionally, just as Jonathan and Michal and other biblical characters are praised for doing.

There are plenty of examples in which the answer appears to be yes. Not surprisingly, the best examples come from the experiences of World War II, because in this period believers were faced with the most striking conflict between good and evil and were forced to make the most difficult choices in life. So, for example, an Allied agent might be cooperating with the French resistance in preparations for the great invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. If he were captured by the Nazis and asked for information about the invasion, his answers could cost thousands of lives and tip the scales of the war in favor of the Nazis. But a simple lie could lead the Axis forces to make calculated mistakes in their preparations and help the Allied cause immensely. As it turned out, an elaborate system of lies did in fact deceive Hitler, who assumed the invasion would be at another time and place and refused to believe the news when the invasion finally occurred.

Perhaps a better example is that of Corrie Ten Boom, who was faced with similarly hard choices when hiding Jews in her home during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. Jews who were captured were often sent to Amsterdam and from there to Germany, where they were almost never heard from again. Corrie and her family were not in agreement on whether it was justifiable to lie to the Nazi officers in order to protect Jews hiding in their home. Corrie’s sister Nollie, for example, insisted on rigid adherence to the concept of truth-telling. She believed that if a Jew were captured because she had answered truthfully, God would nevertheless protect him or her simply because she had been faithful and honest. On at least one occasion, Nollie’s refusal to lie resulted in the arrest of a young Jewish woman in their charge.12

But Corrie felt the Nazi occupation created exceptional circumstances and that deception was justifiable. She referred to her sister’s position as “rigid honesty.”13 Most of the family agreed with Corrie, and they even practiced lying in different scenarios to prepare for occasions when the Gestapo might question their activities.14 Though they did not approve of deception, it was better to accept the guilt of lying and to ask forgiveness quickly than to turn Jews over to the Nazis. Such responses seem to be completely congruous with the biblical evidence.

It should be stated clearly that such extreme ethical dilemmas are rare for today’s American Christians. We should be careful here and not assume that in our context we have frequent situations in which it would be desirable to mislead or deceive another person. Such extreme steps are required only when we are confronted with life-threatening choices. Saul was obsessed with killing David, so that Jonathan and Michal were justified in their actions. Likewise Corrie Ten Boom was justified in her actions when confronted by the policies of another madman, that of Hitler during the Nazi occupation.

Original Meaning

Saul’s Second Attempt on David’s Life (19:8–10)

THE RETURN OF CONFLICT with the Philistines requires all the military skills that David displayed on previous occasions. The brief mention of war means that David is propelled once more into the forefront of national attention. But more military glory for David results again in more problems with Saul. As before, his victories ignite jealousy in Saul, which leads to yet another spontaneous and unexpected attempt on David’s life (cf. 18:6–11). “Flight and escape were to be the facts of David’s life while Saul lived, and the word ‘fled’ becomes a recurring motif in the subsequent narrative.”3

Michal Helps David Escape (19:11–17)