Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel

By Matthew Newkirk and Daniel I. Block

Does the Bible allow us to deceive? Is it ever right to lie? These are perennial questions that have been discussed and debated by theologians for centuries with little consensus. Entering this conversation, Just Deceivers provides a fresh analysis of this important topic through a comprehensive examination of the motif of deception in the books of Samuel. While many studies have explored deception in other Old Testament texts--especially the patriarchal narratives of Genesis--and a few articles have initiated examination of this motif in Samuel, Just Deceivers builds upon this groundwork and offers an exhaustive treatment of this theme in this important portion of the Hebrew Bible. Newkirk takes the reader through the books of Samuel, investigating every occurrence of deception in the narrative, exploring how the author depicts these various acts of deception, and then synthesizing the results to offer an exegetically based theology of deception. In so doing, this study both challenges commonly held views concerning the Bible's stance on falsehood and illustrates the importance of attending to the sophisticated literary character of biblical narrative.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Apr 20, 2015
• ISBN: 9781498201186

Matthew Newkirk

Matthew Newkirk (PhD, Wheaton College) is President and Professor of Old Testament at Christ Bible Seminary in Nagoya, Japan. He and his wife, Caroline, have five children and blog at NewkirksinJapan.com.

Book preview

9781498201179.kindle.jpg

Just Deceivers

An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel

Matthew Newkirk

foreword by Daniel I. Block

Pickwicklogo.jpg

To Caroline, who has taught me more about

faith in YHWH than any other.

"Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;

but a woman who fears YHWH is to be praised."

שׁקר החן והבל היפי

אשׁה יראת־יהוה היא תתהלל

Prov 31:30

List of Tables

1 David’s Suggested Lie vs. Jonathan’s Actual Lie | 69

2 YHWH’s Command to Saul vs. David’s Attacks | 78

3 Structural Comparison of 2 Samuel 3:27 and 2 Samuel 4:6 | 100

4 Abigail and the Tekoite’s Audiences with David | 129

5 Tactic and Evaluation | 178

6 Motive and Evaluation | 180

7 Achievement of Goals and Evaluation | 183

8 Negative Consequences and Evaluation | 185

Just Deceivers

An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel

Copyright © 2015 Matthew Newkirk. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN 13: 978-1-4982-0117-9

EISBN 13: 978-1-4982-0118-6

Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Newkirk, Matthew

Just deceivers : an exploration of the motif of deception in the books of Samuel / Matthew Newkirk, with a foreword by Daniel I. Block

xviii + 244 p. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 13: 978-1-4982-0117-9

1. Bible. Samuel 1&2—Criticism and interpretation, etc. 2. First and Second Samuel. 3. Ethics in the Bible. I. Block, Daniel Isaac, 1943–. II. Title.

BS1325.53 N294 2015

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are taken from The King James Version.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked NETS are taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, © 2007 by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked TNIV are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, TODAY’S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. TNIV®. Copyright © 2001, 2005 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Foreword

In the late 1980s, when I was on the faculty of a small college in Canada, the students put on a children’s musical, Sir Oliver’s Song, an entertaining presentation of the Ten Commandments (more appropriately called the Ten Words).¹ I remember the musical well, because I witnessed it being performed every night for two weeks while on tour to churches on the prairies of Canada. The line interpreting the command against bearing false witness is particularly memorable: God don’t dig lyin’ (Exod 20:16; Deut 5:20). Cast into colloquial American English, at this stage the performance was quite humorous.

Although this rendering reflects a common interpretation of the command in the Decalogue, over the past forty years of study and teaching, my doubts whether or not the command speaks at all to the issue of lying in everyday speech have increased. On the one hand the vocabulary of the command in both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions suggests a legal context, like that reflected in Deuteronomy 19:15–21. On the other hand, I have noticed for a long time that the biblical narratives report many instances involving deception, with no hint of punishment or even accusation. On the contrary, in many instances the deceitful speeches or actions actually succeed and the deceivers achieve their goals. How can this be, if God don’t dig lyin’?

Ethicists have often commented on the midwives’ half-truth—grounded in the fear of God—regarding the superior strength of pregnant Hebrew women vis-à-vis their Egyptian counterparts (Exod 1:15–21), or on Rahab’s deceitful concealing of the Israelite scouts in Jericho (Josh 2:1–7). These cases contrast starkly with the New Testament case involving Ananias and Sapphira, whose efforts to deceive the apostles were punished with death (Acts 5:1–11). Recent work has also been done on the role of deceit and deceitfulness in the stories of Israel’s ancestors in Genesis.

In this volume Matt Newkirk surveys these and other responses to biblical narratives of deceit, and then sets out to explore the role and consequences of deceit in the books of Samuel, to determine the narrator’s disposition toward the issue. After identifying twenty-eight episodes that involve deception, he classifies them on the basis of the narrator’s apparent assessment of the deception. He discovered that of the twenty-eight cases, in twelve the deception was evaluated positively, and in fifteen it was assessed negatively. One case is unclear (2 Sam 18:19–30). Although the assessment is rarely declared explicitly, the narrator’s disposition—negative or positive—is indicated by subtle features in the text, through descriptions of people’s response to the deception, or through events that transpire after the deception.

Having carefully analyzed each of these twenty-eight texts, the author observes that deception was evaluated negatively when the goal of the deceit was to cause unjust harm or death to someone else, or when deceivers were only looking out for their own interests. By contrast, when the intent of the deception was to prevent unjust harm or death, and when the deception was intended to benefit someone else, it was assessed positively.

This study is significant for several reasons. First, the author has examined twenty-eight episodes from the events leading up to the establishment of Israel’s monarchy and the early years under Saul and under David. With his particular interest in a specific feature of these narratives he has presented a nuanced interpretation of these texts that scholars writing commentaries on the books of Samuel will need to consider. Second, his work exposes the superficiality of previous evangelical ethicists’ treatment of the motif of deception in Scripture. It will not do any more simply to say that persons involved in deceitful events were functioning with a lower ethic, and that God overlooked the evil of deceit itself. Rather, we must always inquire regarding the intent of the deceit. Newkirk is not the first to discover this, but in this study of the books of Samuel he has provided the most thorough study of the issue available. But this is true not only of Samuel, but coheres with the picture painted by the rest of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.

As suggested by the title, a biblical ethic demands Christians have room for the category of just deceivers, that is deceivers who are just in their deception. If the deception serves unjust ends—either the death or harm of another person or merely the deceiver’s self-interest—it is to be condemned. However, a Christian who deceives to secure the well-being of another person or who does so self-sacrificially is to be honored. After reading this volume, we should no longer struggle over the decision of Corrie ten Boom and her family for helping many Jews escape the Nazi Holocaust, often through clever and deceitful means. The Jewish world has rightly recognized her with the epithet righteous gentile, and with a tree planted in her honor on the grounds of the Yad Vashem memorial to Holocaust victims.

It has been a delight to work with Matt Newkirk on this project, and it is an honor to commend his work to the world. May the name of the living God be praised as his people take up the mantle of righteousness, only righteousness (Deut 16:2).

Daniel I. Block Gunther H. Knoedler Professor of Old Testament Wheaton College, IL

1. For discussion of this issue, see Block, Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,

21

–

25

.

Acknowledgements

This study is a lightly revised version of my Wheaton College doctoral dissertation, defended and submitted in 2013. Although writing a dissertation involves much isolated time in the library and home study, ultimately such a project is not completed in isolation. As I look back over the time during which this work was written, I am struck with gratitude for the many people who have helped me along the way and enabled its completion. First and foremost I am thankful to God, who has saved me by his grace through the Lord Jesus Christ and has sustained my family and me throughout the course of my study. I am grateful also for my supervisor, mentor, and friend, Dr. Daniel Block. His wise guidance, careful scrutiny, and positive encouragement have been of inestimable value as I have sought to grow and mature as a scholar. My two examiners at my defense, Dr. Michael Graves and Dr. V. Philips Long, both offered generous encouragement as well as sound counsel for improvement. I would also like to express thanks to Mr. Don King and Dr. Elizabeth King for providing the doctoral fellowship that enabled me to devote myself to academic work full-time during my season at Wheaton, and to the staff at Wipf & Stock for accepting the manuscript for publication.

My parents, Mike and Marcia Newkirk, deserve special mention. They have nurtured my faith throughout my life and have always been supportive of my studies, both personally and financially. My late mother-in-law, Robin Candeto, was also a tireless encourager and assisted us financially during our time in Wheaton. The Dodd and Macrina families were also gracious and continued their support beyond my church ministry and into my seminary and doctoral work. The two churches I served during the writing of this dissertation—New Covenant Church in Naperville, IL and St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church in Orlando, FL—are also to be commended for their grace and patience with me as I sought to balance life as both a pastor and a scholar.

Lastly, I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to my family. My children—Lydia, Silas, and Ethan—were all born during my time working on this project. They have brought me much joy and many needed breaks throughout its writing. However, it is my wife, Caroline, who deserves the most recognition. She has walked with me through every step of this study and has endured the many trials that accompany being married to a doctoral student. She believed that this work would come to completion even when I didn’t, and she encouraged me to persevere in it when I was ready to give up. This project is as much hers as it is mine, and so it is to her that I gratefully dedicate it.

Abbreviations

AB        Anchor Bible

AKM        Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes

AnBib        Analecta biblica

Ant.        The Jewish Antiquities, Books 1–19. Flavius Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, et al. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930–65.

AOTC        Apollos Old Testament Commentary

BCOTWP        Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

BDB        Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.

BECNT        Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BETL        Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BHS        Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983.

Bib        Biblica

BibInt        Biblical Interpretation

BIS        Biblical Interpretation Series

BLS        Bible and Literature Series

BR        Biblical Research

BRev        Bible Review

BSac        Bibliotheca sacra

BSC        Bible Student’s Commentary

BTB        Biblical Theology Bulletin

BWANT        Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BZ        Biblische Zeitschrift

BZABR        Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte

BZAW        Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAT        Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament

CBC        Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBET        Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ        Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBOT        Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series

CTJ        Calvin Theological Journal

CV        Communio viatorum

DDD        Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn et al. Leiden, 1995.

ETL        Ephemerides theologicae lovansienses

EvQ        Evangelical Quarterly

ExAud        Ex Auditu

FCI        Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation

FOTL        Forms of the Old Testament Literature

HALOT        Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–99.

HAR        Hebrew Annual Review

HBM        Hebrew Bible Monographs

HS        Hebrew Studies

HTR        Harvard Theological Review

HUCA        Hebrew Union College Annual

IBC        Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

IBHS        An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

ICC        International Critical Commentary

IJAP        International Journal of Applied Philosophy

Int        Interpretation

ITC        International Theological Commentary

JANES        Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

JBL        Journal of Biblical Literature

JBQ        Jewish Bible Quarterly

JETS        Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JHebS        The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

JPhil        Journal of Philosophy

JPS        Jewish Publication Society

JR        Journal of Religion

JSem        Journal for Semitics

JSNTSup        Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JSOT        Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup        Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

JTS        Journal of Theological Studies

KAT        Kommentar zum Alten Testament

LAI        Library of Ancient Israel

LBI        Library of Biblical Interpretation

LCBI        Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation

LCL        Loeb Classical Library

LHBOTS        Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies

LXX        Septuagint

MSJ        The Master’s Seminary Journal

MT        Masoretic Text

NAC        New American Commentary

NCB        New Century Bible

NETS        New English Translation of the Septuagint

NIBC        New International Biblical Commentary

NICNT        New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT        New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE        New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

NIGTC        New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV        New International Version

NIVAC        New International Version Application Commentary

NovT        Novum Testamentum

OBO        Orbis biblicus et orientalis

OBT        Overtures to Biblical Theology

OTE        Old Testament Essays

OTL        Old Testament Library

OTM        Old Testament Message

PNTC        The Pillar New Testament Commentary

PRSt        Perspectives in Religious Studies

RB        Revue biblique

RelLit        Religion and Literature

ResQ        Restoration Quarterly

RevExp        Review and Expositor

SABJT        The South African Baptist Journal of Theology

SAIS        Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture

SBJT        The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology

SBLDS        Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS        Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLWAW        Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World

SBT        Studies in Biblical Theology

ScrHier        Scripta hierosolymitana

SHBC        Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

SJLA        Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJOT        Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SSN        Studia semitica neerlandica

ST        Studia theologica

StBL        Studies in Biblical Literature

TDOT        Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006.

TLOT        Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

TLZ        Theologische Literaturzeitung

TOTC        Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TQ        Theologische Quartalschrift

TynBul        Tyndale Bulletin

TZ        Theologische Zeitschrift

VE        Vox evangelica

VT        Vetus Testamentum

VTSup        Vetus Testamentum Supplements

WBC        Word Biblical Commentary

WD        Wort und Dienst

WTJ        Westminster Theological Journal

ZAH        Zeitschrift für Althebräistik

ZAW        Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

1

Introduction

In most contexts deception is considered an immoral activity, and many view the Bible as supporting this conclusion. Passages such as the ninth command¹ of the Decalogue (Exod 20:16)² and the injunctions against false speech in the Book of the Covenant (Exod 23:1–8) are often said to prohibit all forms of lying and deception.³ However, others read the same texts and conclude very differently. For example, Richard A. Freund writes: a standard of absolute truthfulness does not seem to be a major issue in the Hebrew Bible.⁴ Furthermore, in many biblical narratives, some acts of deception seem to be depicted positively. In Gen 38:13–18 Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute and deceived Judah to get him to impregnate her. At the end of the episode Judah himself evaluated her actions positively: She is more righteous than I (Gen 38:26, NIV).⁵ In Exod 1:19 the midwives lied to Pharaoh to cover up their disobedience to his death sentence against the Hebrew boys. The narrator seemingly affirms their actions by commenting, So God was good to the midwives (Exod 1:20), and, He gave them families (Exod 1:21). After hiding the Hebrew spies, Rahab lied to her own king concerning the spies’ whereabouts (Josh 2:4–6) and was rewarded by being spared in the destruction of Jericho. Subsequently she was so thoroughly incorporated into Israel (Josh 6:25) that she became an ancestress of King David and Jesus (Matt 1:5). The writer of Hebrews even lists her among Israel’s models of obedient faith (Heb 11:31). These positive depictions⁶ show that the issue of deception is complex and requires close analysis of legal, prescriptive, and narrative texts.

However, this situation raises many other questions. How should readers view an act of deception in a biblical narrative, especially when it involves lying? What situational characteristics are present when deception is depicted positively? Do these positive depictions of deception in biblical narratives cohere with the Bible’s ethical prescriptions concerning lying and honesty? These and similar questions have been explored in several monographs on deception in the Pentateuch⁷ as well as in studies of deception in the OT broadly.⁸ However, even though the books of 1 and 2 Samuel contain the highest density of narrative episodes involving deception in the OT,⁹ no full-length examination of the motif of deception in this corpus exists. This study seeks to fill this gap.

Definition of Deception

Previous Definitions

Discussions of deception in biblical scholarship often lack a rigorous definition of the term. Many studies do not define the term at all,¹⁰ which has led to subsequent methodological confusion.¹¹ Others have provided definitions, but in most cases they do not incorporate scholarly insight from philosophical studies on the phenomenology of deception, which results in imprecision.¹² For example, Gregory H. Harris writes, Deception, at its core, is a lie in place of the truth.¹³ This definition simply equates deception with lying, yet historically philosophers have distinguished between lying and deception; the former occurs when one communicates a falsehood and the latter occurs when one causes someone to believe a falsehood.¹⁴ Although the goal of lying is to deceive and lying may result in deception, one may lie without deceiving (i.e., a lie may not be believed) and one may deceive without lying (i.e., through ambiguous language or physical motions rather than explicit communication). Thus deception is formally distinct from lying.

In her study of lying and deception in biblical narrative, Ora Horn Prouser offers this definition:

Deception entails communicating a message meant to mislead, making a receiver believe that which the deceiver does not. This can be done through gesture, disguise, actions, inaction or silence. Intention is a main ingredient of these definitions. False statements made by those who believe they are true are excluded.¹⁵

Prouser rightly emphasizes (1) that deception is necessarily intentional and (2) that it causes someone to believe something (in this case, that which the deceiver does not [believe]). However, according to this definition, a deception could theoretically result in the receiver believing something that is true. For example, if the soccer game begins at 4:00, but the deceiver (x) falsely believes the game begins at 3:00, and x tells the receiver (y) that the game begins at 4:00, intending to deceive y by making him believe something that x does not believe, and y shows up to the soccer game on time at 4:00, it cannot be said that x has deceived y. Certainly x has lied to y,¹⁶ but he has not deceived him, since deception must involve y believing something false.¹⁷

In his study of deception in Genesis, Michael James Williams defines deception as follows:

Deception takes place when an agent intentionally distorts, withholds, or otherwise manipulates information reaching some person(s) in order to stimulate in the person(s) a belief that the agent does not believe in order to serve the agent’s purpose.¹⁸

Like Prouser’s, Williams’s definition could theoretically result in y adopting a true belief, since this definition only specifies that x does not hold the belief in question, not that the belief is actually false. Furthermore, this definition focuses only on the intention of x without specifying that y must actually adopt the false belief. However, if x does not succeed in causing y to believe something false, it cannot be said that a deception has occurred. As James Edwin Mahon notes, deceiving necessarily has the result that another person either acquires a belief, or retains a belief, and that belief must be false.¹⁹ For this reason, Mahon classifies deception as a perlocutionary act,²⁰ much like the acts of persuading or curing.²¹ In addition to Williams’s definition, neither the definitions of Yael Shemesh²² nor John Anderson²³ include this aspect of deception.

Vanhoozer’s Definition

Whereas critical elements in the phenomenology of deception are missing in each definition mentioned above, the definition proposed by Kevin Vanhoozer fully integrates the insights of the relevant philosophical discussion and provides the most succinct summary of the phenomenon. According to Vanhoozer, "‘x deceives y’ means that x intentionally causes y to believe p, where p is false and x knows it to be so."²⁴ Thus for an action to be deceptive, the deceiver must (1) intend to cause another person to believe something false, (2) know that the belief in question is false, and (3) successfully cause the other person to adopt this false belief. This definition will govern the following study and direct which episodes in the Samuel narratives are selected for analysis.²⁵ As noted above, this understanding of deception is distinct from lying. Following the format provided by Vanhoozer, I summarize lying as follows: x lies to y means that x believes p to be false, but intentionally and explicitly communicates to y that p is true.²⁶ Therefore, of the three qualifications for deception summarized above, lying fulfills (1) but not necessarily (2) or (3). That is, like deception, lying must be intentional, but unlike the deceiver, the liar does not need to know but only believe that p is false (i.e., p may actually be true) and may or may not successfully cause y to believe p. Moreover, unlike deception, which can occur by ambiguous speech or physical actions that are neither true nor false, lying involves explicit communication of a falsehood, such as unequivocal speech or writing, or some other conventional means (e.g., nodding one’s head to affirm or shaking one’s head to deny).²⁷

History of Research

Before investigating the motif of deception in the books of Samuel, it is necessary to survey views on the propriety of lying and deception, studies on deception in the OT generally, and the history of research of deception in Samuel specifically.

Views on the Propriety of Lying and Deception

In the history of thought, the discussion of the propriety of deception has usually revolved around the question of the legitimacy of lying. For many, such as Augustine and Immanuel Kant, it is never right to lie.²⁸ Others, such as Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, distinguished between different types of lies and evaluated them accordingly. Aquinas recognized three types of lies: (1) the mischievous lie, whereby one intends to injure another, (2) the jocose lie, whereby one intends to entertain another, and (3) the officious lie, whereby one intends to help another.²⁹ According to Aquinas, all three are sinful, though the officious is better than the jocose, and the jocose better than the mischievous.³⁰ Luther also acknowledged this threefold division, but he argued that the officious lie should be told, the jocose lie may be told, and the mischievous lie neither should nor may be told.³¹ Thus for Luther not all deception is wrong. This latter position coheres with the later articulation of Jeremy Bentham, who said,

Falsehood, take it by itself, consider it as not being accompanied by any other material circumstances, nor therefore productive of any material effects, can never, upon the principle of utility, constitute any offense at all.³²

Therefore for Bentham, neither lying nor deception is right or wrong in itself, but depends upon the end for which it is employed. This utilitarian view represents the opposite end of the spectrum from the deontological position of Augustine and Kant. From this brief survey it is clear that the history of thought evidences a continuum of views concerning the propriety of lying and deception.

Deception in the Old Testament

Similarly, the history of research on deception in the OT is varied both in its scope and conclusions. Some studies have focused on the so-called trickster genre, comparing various biblical episodes with trickster stories from other cultures.³³ Others have focused on the thorny issue of divine deception in the OT and how to reconcile it with the traditional understanding of the trustworthy character of God.³⁴ However, the studies most relevant for our purposes are those that have attempted to extrapolate from the OT broad conclusions concerning the ethics of deception. Three works in particular are most germane to the discussion. First, Martin Klopfenstein’s Die Lüge nach dem Alten Testament offers an extensive analysis of the primary vocabulary used to describe lying in the OT. Klopfenstein concludes that the OT never prohibits lying outright,³⁵ but still argues that all lying is wrong because it supposedly destroys one’s relationship with God and is inimical to society.³⁶ Although Klopfenstein’s study does not focus on the issue of deception by means other than lying, for him, to deceive by lying is clearly wrong.

Second, Prouser’s dissertation examines a variety of narratives in which biblical characters tell lies. After summarizing the relevant vocabulary, she analyzes what she deems clear and ambiguous lies, the special relationship between women and deception, and narratives depicting divine deceit. Concerning the acceptability of deception, she concludes: Biblical society condoned lying and any form of deception that allows an underdog to accomplish a positive goal he or she would not have been able to achieve by direct means.³⁷ Basically, as long as one deceives upward along the power scale and not for negative purposes, deception is acceptable biblically. She also argues that those who lie in negative circumstances are unsuccessful,³⁸ that is, they fail to deceive. Prouser believes that this pattern even accounts for depictions of divine deception, claiming that because YHWH allegedly failed to deceive Ahab in 1 Kings 22, God’s use of stratagems when in a position of strength is narratologically condemned as a misuse of power.³⁹

Third, in a comparative treatment of deception in Genesis, Williams catalogues and analyzes fifteen deception episodes, compares them to various deceptions elsewhere in the Bible (including some in Samuel), explores how later Jewish tradition viewed these deceptions in Genesis, and then examines parallels from both ancient Near Eastern literature and folklore material. Williams finds that the depiction of deception in Genesis is unique among the biblical materials, concluding, "In Genesis, deception is justified when it is used by one previously wronged against the one who has done the wrong in order to restore shalom."⁴⁰ However, outside of Genesis, a different set of criteria is operative. According to Williams, in the rest of the OT, positively evaluated deception is that which either benefits a third (Israelite) party by removing a threat to that party’s physical or spiritual well-being or directly safeguards the physical well-being of the Israelite perpetrator(s).⁴¹ He suggests that the difference between these criteria may be attributed to the social identity evident in national Israel as a covenantal community, which did not yet obtain during the time of the patriarchs.⁴² This representative survey sets the stage for a fresh analysis of deception in the books of Samuel.

Deception in the Books of Samuel

The motif of deception in the books of Samuel has been explored in only four articles. Harry Hagan focuses his study on deception in the Succession Narrative and detects eighteen instances in this section alone.⁴³ However, since he does not define deception, he includes episodes that are questionable in light of the philosophical distinctions of deception discussed above.⁴⁴ Although Hagan sees deception as a theme in its own right, he also argues that it functions within the larger theme of fidelity and infidelity, especially in the relationship between a king and his subjects.⁴⁵ He analyzes the deceptions in these chapters under five headings, identified according to the characters involved: (1) David, Uriah, and Nathan, (2) Amnon and Absalom, (3) Absalom’s rebellion, (4) Sheba, Amasa, Joab, and the Woman of Abel, and (5) Adonijah and Solomon. Hagan concludes that in each case deception was committed either to obtain a woman or the kingdom, and counter-deception was committed to restore the order.⁴⁶

In his study of deception in the life of David, David Marcus observes two major trends: (1) when David was young and on the rise, he succeeded both in his own attempts at deception and in his responses to attempts at deception against him, but after his rise to power and the Bathsheba affair his fortunes in this area changed;⁴⁷ (2) the various instances of deception exhibit a pattern of measure for measure. That is, the one who deceived often later became the victim of deception.⁴⁸ However, since, like Hagan, Marcus does not define deception, he includes episodes that do not belong in this category.⁴⁹

Raymond-Jean Frontain also finds evidence throughout the David narrative for the first trend identified by Marcus: early in his career David was the trickster figure who successfully deceived, but