Are there lies in the Bible? Our knee-jerk reaction is to vehemently deny the Bible contains any lies, and then to stand fast in our righteous indignation. However, the Bible does contain lies, and one of the biggest is recorded right here in chapter one. Now, before you slam this book shut, in the self-same righteousness indignation, read a bit further.
Years ago, I had some teens in my Bible class say that their teacher at school insisted there were contradictions in the Bible. Having studied the Bible for years and being unable to find even one contradiction, I marveled that their public high school teacher, who was not a Bible reader, could have made such a claim. So I asked them about their teacher’s claim and they pointed out this chapter in II Samuel as the proof their teacher gave them of this apparent error in the Bible. Being a firm believer in the inerrant of the Word of God, and not being familiar with the alleged contradiction at the time, I saw this as an opportunity to teach these teens how to discover truth. Was I worried I might not be able to prove to these teens there was no contradiction? Not at all; I trust God when he says he will preserve his word (Matthew 24:35). So all I had to do was let them discover which was right – the teacher who claimed there was a contradiction in the Bible, or the inerrant Word of God.
Chapter One begins with David having returned to Ziklag after having pursued the Amalekites and rescuing all the families they had stolen during the attack on David’s village, as revealed in I Samuel Chapter 30. They had only been back two days when a man stumbled into Ziklag, the current home of David, which had been given to him by Achish, a Philistine.
The man appeared to be in mourning, with his clothes rent and ashes on his head. When David asked the man where he was from, he said he had managed to escape the camp of Israel.
I’m sure David’s heart must have raced since he would have been eager to hear news of the battle in which the Philistines would not allow him to fight (I Samuel 29:9-11). When David asked how the battle went, the man informed him that Israel had been routed and that Saul was dead.
This was not the news David had hoped for, so David asked him how he knew Saul was dead, and in verse 10 the Amelkite said he had killed him at Saul’s own request.
This was the verse that the ignorant teacher told the teens was a contradiction in the Bible. Was this something the teacher had searched out himself and discovered? No, he had read it elsewhere and instead of searching the matter to see if it was true, he put his faith in the writing of a man instead of the writing of God. His predisposition was to believe the lie because he wanted to believe it. The alternative would have been to face God, which would cause him to face himself. His pride wouldn’t allow him to admit he needed a savior, so he chose to believe the lie, and sadly, spread it to teens.
So, what is the alleged contradiction? According to this unbelieving teacher, in I Samuel 31:4 and I Chronicles 10:4, he claimed that Saul’s armor bearer killed Saul. Of course, if you actually read those two verses, it does not say that at all. The teacher was the one wrong here, in more than one way, when he said the Bible contradicted itself. It wasn’t the armor bearer that killed Saul; in those same verses we find that Saul fell on his own sword.
However, there still appears to be a contradiction. In the two aforementioned verses Saul fell on his sword, but in II Samuel 1:10 the Amalekite claimed he did the deed. So if Saul fell on his own sword, why then did the man here in II Samuel claim he killed Saul at the request of Saul? The man lied; thus, the Bible contains a lie because it records the lie. Incidentally, the first lie the Bible contains is when Satan deceives Eve and tells her if she eats of the fruit, she will not die. So yes, the Bible does contain lies, the lies of others as recorded in the infallible Word of God!
How did David know the man was lying? The man’s story simply didn’t add up. In verse 6 he claims he just happened to be at Gilboa, where Saul died. Why would a man be on a battlefield unless he was participating in the battle? The man knew this, and so he tried to make it sound like he was on Israel’s side in the battle. However, this was another lie because in I Samuel 30:14, David was given intelligence by the Egyptian, who had been left to die by the Amalekites, that those very same Amalekites had invaded Judah and were fighting against Saul, not with him. The man also admitted he was an Amalekite, the very people that David had just finished slaughtering after they had attacked and burned Ziklag.
Also, the man said that Saul was being pursued and called behind him to ask the man to kill him. If Saul was being pursued and called to the man behind him, then that man must have been one of his pursuers. The man even admitted to taking Saul’s crown and the bracelet off his arm. He said he did so because he wanted to find David and give it to him.
David knew better than to believe this man because his own words betrayed him. He was an Amalekite, who was at war with Israel. He was behind Saul as Saul fled, meaning he was pursuing Saul. When he came upon the body, he then stole the crown and bracelet and was on his way back to his people, and to get there, he had to pass through Ziklag, which he apparently thought was going to be empty because he may have thought it had been destroyed.
Note that the Amalekites were a nomadic people that lived in the area of the Negev Desert, including the area east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ziklag was between Israel and the region where the Amalekites dwelt. So when the man told David he was bringing the crown to him, it was easy to see through the lie. He wasn’t going to Ziklag, he was going home. (See Appendix)
What was David’s reaction upon hearing the news of Saul’s death? Keep in mind that Saul had been pursuing David and his men in an effort to kill him. Many people would have taken the occasion to celebrate, but not David. In verses 11 and 12, we see how they mourned and fasted for Saul. Not just for Saul, though. They were also in mourning for the defeat of Israel, and David, in particular, mourned for his close friend, Jonathan.
After the mourning, David returned his attention to the man who had brought the news and asked him again who he was. The man confirmed he was an Amalekite, and then David asked him a more direct (and I’m sure unnerving) question: “How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” After all, David would not do it when had the chance, nor would Saul’s armor bearer even after Saul asked him to; yet, this Amalekite claimed to have killed Saul. Why would he make the claim when he didn’t actually do it, since Saul fell on his own sword?
How else could he explain how he had come into possession of the crown and bracelet of Saul? David knew the man had been lying about nearly everything he said, so in verse 15, David ordered one of his young men to execute the Amalekite for his actions against not only Saul, but against the nation of Israel. In verse 16, David lets it be known that the man’s own words condemned him.
(The above is an excerpt from the first chapter of my new, soon to be published book, Inside the House of David, a commentary on II Samuel. The book will be available online in early December.)