1 Samuel 16

1 Samuel 16

Murray observed that Saul had forfeited his right to know all the truth, but that did not mean that Samuel, or anyone else for that matter, ever had, or has, the right to tell a lie. Everything that Samuel spoke had to be the truth. But Samuel was under no moral obligation in this situation to come forth with everything that he knew. Only when there are those who have a right to know and we deliberately withhold part or all of the information does it qualify as a lie or does the half-truth become the living or telling of a lie. We use this principle in life when a young child prematurely asks us for the facts of life or a sick or elderly person inquires of a medical doctor what is wrong with them and if they will get well. The answer in all these cases is to answer truthfully without elaborating on those details which the person is not ready for by reason of their age or the possible impact it might have on their desire to rally and get well. Some may complain that this seems to be saying that we cannot deceive anyone in our words, but that we have the right to deceive them through our actions. This is not what I am saying. It was God’s right to give Samuel a second mission, the offering of a sacrifice, which was not a deception, but a routine act he performed. Saul did not have the right to know all the other actions Samuel would perform while carrying out that mission—God does not “deceive” us when he does not choose to disclose all that he knows! The only exceptions to this rule against deception are to be found in war zones or in playing sports. For example, nations that engage in war count on the fact that some of the movements of the enemy will be carried out to deliberately mislead and throw their opposition off balance. Likewise, if I go into a football huddle and the team captain says, “Now, Kaiser, I want you to run a fake pattern around right end pretending you have the ball,” I do not object by saying, “Oh, no you don’t; give me the ball or nothing. I’m an evangelical and I have a reputation for honesty to protect.” It is part of the sport that there will be accepted types of dissimulation that take place. Truth is always required in every other situation. Only when someone forfeits that right to know everything may I withhold information; but under no circumstances may I speak an untruth. Thus when the Nazis of the Third Reich in Germany during World War II were asking if someone was hiding Jews, the correct procedure would have been to say as little as possible, all of which had to be true, while carefully hiding those Jews as best as one could. See also comment on EXODUS 1:15–21; 3:18; JOSHUA 2:4–6. Norman Geisler - page 147 in When Critics Ask - 1 SAMUEL 16:1ff—Did God encourage Samuel to lie? PROBLEM: Abraham was judged by God for telling the half-truth that Sarah was his sister (she was his half sister) when she was really his wife (see comments under Gen. 12:10–20). However, in this passage God actually encourages Samuel to tell only half of the truth, namely, that he had come to offer a sacrifice, when he had also come to anoint David king as well. Two problems emerge from this. First, did not God encourage deception here? Second, why did God condemn Abraham for the same thing that He commanded Samuel to do? SOLUTION: The first thing to note in response to this problem is that the two situations are not the same. In Abraham’s case his so-called “half-truth” was a whole lie, for the question he was asked was, “Is Sarah your wife?” And his answer in effect was really “No. She is my sister.” By this answer to this question Abraham intentionally misrepresented the facts of the situation, which is a lie. Samuel’s case was different. The question he was asked is “Why have you come to Bethlehem?” His answer was “I have come to sacrifice to the Lord” (1 Sam. 16:2). This was truthful in that it corresponded with the facts, namely, it is why he came and it is what he did. The fact that he also had another purpose for coming is not directly related to the question he was asked and the answer he gave, as it was in Abraham’s case. Of course, had Samuel been asked “Do you have any other purpose for coming?” then he would have had to come clean. To say “No” would have been a deception. Secondly, concealment and deception are not the same. Samuel certainly concealed one of the purposes of his mission so as to save his life (1 Sam. 16:2). It is not always necessary (even possible) to tell all the truth. The fact that God told Samuel to conceal one of the purposes of his visit to avoid possible death does not necessarily mean he was guilty of lying. Not telling part of the truth and telling a falsehood are not necessarily the same. Secrecy and concealment are not the same as duplicity and falsehood. Gleason Archer - go to page 170 in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - First Samuel contains several instances of lying and deceit on the part of God’s chosen servant David and of Samuel the prophet (1 Sam. 16; 20; 21; 27). Did the Lord really condone lying and deceit as means to a good end? In dealing with this difficult question, we must keep the following factors in view. 1. Even though Scripture records the dishonesty of men, this does not necessarily mean that it approves or condones such a sin. The same is true of other types of sin committed by religious leaders. 2. The duty to tell only what is true does not necessarily carry with it the obligation to tell the whole truth about the matter, especially if lives would be endangered or lost as a result of this information, or if divulging all the details would violate a trust of secrecy or amount to a betrayal of another’s confidence. 3. The mere recording of an episode involving subterfuge or deception does not imply that the person resorting to it was acting responsibly on the highest level of faith or furnishing a valid example of conduct that believers might justifiably follow today. With these factors in mind, we may profitably examine each of the episodes alluded to in the question. 1 Samuel 16:2 relates Samuel’s apprehension at carrying out the Lord’s assignment to anoint a new king down in Bethlehem. “But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? When Saul hears of it, he will kill me.’ And the LORD said, `Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD’ ” (NASB). Verse 5 relates that Samuel said to Jesse and his family, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD” (NASB). Of course this was in fact true, for he had followed God’s instructions in this matter. He had actually taken along a heifer to offer on the altar in Bethlehem, even though he really had a further purpose in mind. In this entire transaction he was carrying out the instructions of God Himself. It is quite clear that the Lord had approved a policy of withholding information from King Saul that would have moved him to violence or bloodshed had he known of it in advance. If Samuel had divulged his full intention (beyond the performing of a religious sacrifice in Bethlehem), Saul would have killed not only Samuel himself but also David and his entire family. In this case then, it would have been altogether wrong and extremely harmful for Samuel to have told the entire truth or revealed his entire purpose. There is a clear distinction between resorting to actual deceit and to withholding information that would result in great harm and even failure to obey carrying out the will of God—in this case the anointing of young David to be king over Israel. In other words, Samuel was entirely within the will of God when he told only part of the truth rather than the whole truth. 1 Samuel 20 relates how Jonathan handled the difficult matter of protecting the life of his dearest friend, David, in a situation where he knew (1) that God had chosen David to be the next king of Israel and (2) that his own father, Saul, was likely to attempt to prevent this purpose of God by having David killed, as a dangerous rival to the dynastic rights of the house of Saul. His loyalty to his father represented a definite conflict with his duty to the Lord Himself and to His chosen servant, David, whom he personally loved far more than himself or his insanely jealous and bloodthirsty father. Under these peculiar circumstances, Jonathan could pursue no other course than he did. That is to say, he agreed with David on a test of Saul’s true intentions (which were difficult to determine, in view of his unbalanced mentality and his occasional change of mind; cf. 1 Sam. 19:6). The only way he could find out the king’s real purpose was to present him with a situation to react to, namely David’s failure to show up at the new moon feast at Saul’s palace (which David had previously attended without fail, as a son-in-law belonging to the royal family). There had to be some plausible excuse arranged for his absence; so this was furnished by David’s alleged summons to Bethlehem in order to join with the rest of his family in celebrating the new moon festival in the household of Jesse. Unlike the previous example (1 Sam. 16:2), there seems to have been no such summons from David’s oldest brother, Eliab, even though such an invitation would have been quite reasonable and justified on the part of the family in Bethlehem. Yet as the story unfolds, it is quite clear that David never went to Bethlehem after he found out that Saul was bent on having him killed. It is highly doubtful whether David would have gone home even if he had learned from Jonathan that Saul had relented in his hostility; David probably would have made his way back to the palace, instead. We can only conclude that this appointment to join the family in Bethlehem was a sheer concoction on David’s part. And even though Jonathan accurately repeated what David had said to him by way of a request to be excused from attending the king’s table, Jonathan, of course, knew that it was a mere subterfuge. And yet we can hardly fault Jonathan in this, for had he told his father all that he knew about the matter and the full content of his conversation with David, he would have been guilty of the basest betrayal of his trusting friend, who was also the chosen king of Israel according to Yahweh’s own decision. David’s blood would have been on Jonathan’s head. As it was, he nearly lost his own life as he tried to defend David’s rights before his father’s fury; and Jonathan had to beat a hasty retreat when Saul attempted to pin him against the wall with his spear (1 Sam. 20:33). 1 Samuel 21 records the sorry choice David made in fleeing to the town of Nob, where the high priest, Ahimelech, served at the tabernacle of the Lord. David should never had brought that community into such terrible danger from the wrath of the king, and his brief visit there brought on him the guilt of their subsequent massacre at the hands of Saul’s agents, under the leadership of the despicable Doeg (22:18–19). In fairness to David, it may well be that he did not foresee the extreme to which Saul would go in slaughtering all those innocent priests. But after the atrocity was accomplished and Abiathar brought him the sorrowful tidings, David had to acknowledge how inexcusably guilty he was when he lied to Ahimelech about his mission at Nob and gave the priest no opportunity to choose whether he was willing to court death for David’s sake. In this entire episode David involved himself in the greatest guilt—as he himself recognized afterward. “Then David said to Abiathar, ‘I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I have brought about the death of every person in your father’s household’ ” (1 Sam. 22:22, NASB). But as for the Lord’s involvement in this entire tragedy, there is really no indication whatever that He condoned David’s deception toward Ahimelech. The only mitigation of David’s guilt was that he really had not thought ahead about what harm he was going to cause to others when he sought refuge at Nob. But, in retrospect, David should have turned in some other direction when he fled from Saul. If David had really looked to the Lord for guidance, he might have found safety at Engedi or some other remote wilderness to which he later resorted. He certainly was out of the will of God when he lied his way into Nob and made off with the sword of Goliath. It is interesting to notice that Jesus later used David’s example at Nob, where he and his followers partook of the week-old showbread when they were starving, even though that bread was intended for the priests alone (Matt. 12:3–4). Our Lord seems to imply that under those unusual circumstances, David was justified in doing that, since the preservation of human life was even more important than strict observance of the ritual law. But even so, David certainly suffered the deepest humiliation when he allowed panic to lead him to King Achish at Gath, instead of waiting on the Lord for His guidance. David only succeeded in putting his life into even greater danger when he sought refuge with the ungodly Philistines. He only escaped from that peril by pretending to be hopelessly demented while he was in the palace of Achish, with the result that they utterly despised him and drove him from their borders like some wild animal (1 Sam. 21:13–15). In 1 Samuel 27:8–12 we read of a long-continued deception David practiced toward King Achish. After he had been allowed to set up his headquarters in Ziklag (as a vassal or ally of Achish of Gath), David supported himself and his six hundred followers by raiding the tribesmen of the Negeb (the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites) and slaughtering the entire population of every community that he invaded. The purpose of this bloody practice was to keep any survivors from informing the Philistines at Gath that David was not really attacking the Jerahmeelites and Judeans, as he claimed he was doing, but was actually raiding non-Israelite communities that were on good terms with the Philistines (vv. 11–12). He managed to keep Achish from ever finding out the truth about his activities and made him believe that he had become an enemy of his own countrymen by preying on their villages and carrying off their livestock. After this review of those sorry episodes in the early career of David, we must recognize that God did not favor and protect the son of Jesse on account of his occasional deceptions or his occasional hardness toward pagan enemies (like the Ammonites in 2 Sam. 12:31). On the contrary, God put David through an arduous educative process of suffering, uncertainty, and danger, because He found in him an instrument well suited to deliver his nation from their heathen foes and to establish a strong and stable government in fulfillment of His ancient promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:18–21). It was not because of his virtue and his good deeds that God chose David for his role of leadership but because of his great faith. Despite the episodes where he failed to trust the Lord completely or to seek His guidance as carefully as he should have, David gave his heart to the Lord sincerely and made it his chief purpose and desire to do the will of God and glorify His name. 1 Samuel 16:3 "You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for Me the one whom I designate to you." BGT 1 Samuel 16:3 καὶ καλέσεις τὸν Ιεσσαι εἰς τὴν θυσίαν καὶ γνωριῶ σοι ἃ ποιήσεις καὶ χρίσεις ὃν ἐὰν εἴπω πρὸς σέ LXE 1 Samuel 16:3 And thou shalt call Jessae to the sacrifice, and I will make known to thee what thou shalt do; and thou shalt anoint him whom I shall mention to thee. KJV 1 Samuel 16:3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee. NET 1 Samuel 16:3 Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you should do. You will anoint for me the one I point out to you." CSB 1 Samuel 16:3 Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will let you know what you are to do. You are to anoint for Me the one I indicate to you." ESV 1 Samuel 16:3 And invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do. And you shall anoint for me him whom I declare to you." NIV 1 Samuel 16:3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate." NLT 1 Samuel 16:3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you which of his sons to anoint for me." NRS 1 Samuel 16:3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for me the one whom I name to you." NJB 1 Samuel 16:3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I shall reveal to you what you must do; and you will anoint for me the one I indicate to you.' NAB 1 Samuel 16:3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I myself will tell you what to do; you are to anoint for me the one I point out to you." YLT 1 Samuel 16:3 and thou hast called for Jesse in the sacrifice, and I cause thee to know that which thou dost do, and thou hast anointed to Me him of whom I speak unto thee.' RSV 1 Samuel 16:3 And invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for me him whom I name to you." Jesse: 1Sa 9:12,13 2Sa 15:11 Mt 22:1-4 and I will show: Ex 4:15 Ac 9:6 anoint: 1Sa 16:12,13 9:16 De 17:14 1 Samuel 16 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Genealogy of Jesse and David YAHWEH WILL SHOW SAMUEL WHO TO ANOINT You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do - Yahweh does not tell him Jesse has 7 sons (actually 8 as one had most likely died died). And you shall anoint (masah/maschah; Lxx - chrio) for Me the one whom I designate to you - Anoint is a keyword in chapter 16 and is repeated in 1Sa 16:12, 13 where Samuel fulfills this prophetic command. Note the phrase for Me, indicative of Samuel serving as Yahweh's bondservant. THOUGHT - We do well to remember that all of our spiritual work, whether preaching, teaching, singing, ushering, etc is for our LORD. As Jesus commanded "Let your light shine (aorist imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify (doxazo - GIVE A PROPER OPINION OF) your Father Who is in heaven." (Mt 5:16+). Or as Paul said in 1Cor 6:19-20+ "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify (doxazo - aorist imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) God in your body." Or as the Westminster Catechism puts it "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." This short excursus begs the question - Why do I do what I do? Do I do it for my Lord and His glory? Or do I do it to receive adulation from men?