How Should we See the Lying on the Part of Several in 1 Samuel?
Find a Bible and turn to 1 Samuel. Read the opening scenes, chapters 18-21, where Saul and David begin the cat and mouse episodes. These stories are loaded with lying, deception, tricky antics and excuses.
Is telling a lie morally admissible?
1. The Bible is silent on all of these lies found in 1 Samuel, chapters 18-21. We're left holding the bag on the morality of each of these. So, where does that leave us? Puzzled, perplexed, frustrated and wanting to know answers.
2. The focus is on God, not these men. Keep that in mind as you read these stories. God's hand is at work providentially time and time again.
3. We ARE to have a sufficient focus on the men, to see their actions. But in what way? That God mysteriously uses every detailed aspect of these twists and turns to usher in more and more of His Kingly rule and to make Himself known to His people and the Philistine nations around. God is the Living God—He is active, providentially in charge; He is not the dead, false god of the Philistines, i.e. Dagon, etc.
4. The context of 1 Samuel 18-ff (virtually most of the chapters leading up to the end of the book) is a combination of warfare to enemies outside of Israel---the Philistines---and warfare against the enemies within Israel, within the covenant---primarily with Saul. Warfare is huge in these chapters. Even the reference of David gathering together with 400 men in 1 Sam 22:1-2 makes clear that men are drawing lines and choosing sides, sides about waring; there's an allegiance to David now growing: from the one man Jonathan to 400 men in 1 Sam 22:1-2.
5. Because of the warfare context, there's deception, trickery, feigning madness before Achish, Jonathan's bluffing, David's own excusing making in lying to Saul in 1 Sam 20, and on and on. Conclusion: We have to say that we see more lying in the Bible in seeking protection of life, generally, and in seeking protection of God's anointed, specifically, in times of warfare. The warfare context is key, I think. That has to give weight to admissibility to tell a lie, to deceive. But again, I stress, the Bible leaves us without commentary on this lying in 1 Samuel. We are told, interestingly----as a summary in Acts 13:22, David was a man after God's heart.
6. But there has to be more help on the morality issue. There has to be. The Ten Commandments, of course are abundantly clear, when the ninth commandment forbids lying. The question comes: does it forbid lying in ALL circumstances? James 2 and Heb 11 both mention Rahab. The James 2:25 text commends Rahab's faith for protecting the spies against the king of Jericho, in Joshua 2.
OPC Minister and Professor John Murray—I think I remember correctly—takes the position of seeing her life as praiseworthy, but condemns this one act of lying. Overall, her life is a life of faith (Heb. 11:31). But he says at that one point of lying, she became double-minded, something which James condemns in his letter in chapter 1. This position has been criticized, “how can we on one hand praise her, and yet on the other, withhold praise due to this act of lying in Joshua 2?” I do not take Murray's position. The very matter of the defense of her faith, the point of the James 2:25 text, is that she demonstrated faith at this precise place of protecting the spies by lying about them. She's praised for the faith that acted in godliness by sparing, preserving life. We note that it’s a warfare scene in Josh 2.
Look at RJ Rushdoony’s take: “Rahab clearly lied, but her life represented a moral choice as against sending two godly men to death, and for this she became an ancestress of Jesus Christ (see Matt. 1:5). For the moralist, it is important that he stand in his own righteousness, and Rahab's alternative is intolerable, because it makes some kind of sin inescapable at times. For the godly man, who stands, not in his own righteousness but the righteousness of Christ, his own purity is not the essence of the matter but that God's will be done. And God, in this situation, certainly willed that the lives of the spies be saved, not that the individual come forth able to say, I never tell a lie.”
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I like what Rushdoony says: she stood in Christ's righteousness, and thereby, she gave her allegiance to Christ's will to preserve life, NOT to her own purity. To say it again, we must keep in mind the protection of the two spies.
CONCLUSION: Deception, when circumstances dictate no other choice regarding the preservation and promotion of life, is admissible. Deception, most clear as we see in the Bible, in circumstances of preserving life in times of warfare, is admissible. We are talking about times of being at gunpoint, knifepoint>>>>>dangerous kidnapp, theft, etc. The Corrie ten Boom acts of her hiding the Jews during the Second World War comes to mind. Saul had thrown the spear at David, and at Jonathan, and many had seen this. Michal knew that David would die if Saul's men apprehended him, etc. He, David, is the Lord's anointed. Here is a foretaste of the Lord Jesus, the Lord's Anointed being protected.
Rahab's life is the model for this----Scripture is clear on her moral choice. The Samuel narratives are less clear in my view, and that is because we do not have commentary on the scenes of David, Jonathan, Michal, etc. like we do the James passage with Rahab.
Again, I do not think the 1 Samuel narratives are aiming predominantly to teach us lessons about admissibility of lying to authorities. The scenes of the lying are important scenes but they are back story to God's living hand of providence to make Saul the fool, ultimately, to make Israel the fool, and God the One to whom men must turn, etc, etc.
G. Mark Sumpter
No comments:
Post a Comment