Lying Was Forbidden Even of Old, Yet Many Rightly Used It

All freedom in the matter of wives and many concubines ought rightly to be cut off by the perfection of the gospel as no longer necessary, now that the end of time is approaching and the multiplying of the human race is complete. For until the coming of Christ it was right that the blessing of the original sentence should be in full force, by which it was said, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.” So it was entirely fitting that from the root of human fruitfulness, which flourished happily in the synagogue in keeping with the arrangement of those times, the buds of angelic virginity should spring up, and the fragrant flowers of continence be brought forth in the Church. [a]

But that lying was condemned even then the text of the whole Old Testament clearly shows. It says, “You will destroy all those who speak lies,” and again, “The bread of lying is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth is filled with gravel.” And the Giver of the law himself says, “You must avoid a lie.” But we said that lying was rightly used then as a last resort, when some need or plan of salvation was bound up with it, and for that reason it ought not to be condemned. Such is the case you mentioned of King David. In his flight from Saul’s unjust persecution he used lying words to Abimelech the priest, not to gain anything, nor from a desire to injure anybody, but simply to save himself from that most wicked persecution, since he would not stain his hands with the blood of the hostile king who was so often delivered into his hands by God. As he said, “The Lord be merciful to me, that I may do no such thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, as to lay my hand on him, because he is the Lord’s anointed.” So these plans which we hear that holy men under the old covenant adopted, either by the will of God, or to prefigure spiritual mysteries, or for the salvation of some people, we too cannot refuse altogether when necessity forces us, since we see that even apostles did not avoid them where the consideration of something profitable required them. We will put off the apostles’ cases for the time being, while we first discuss the instances we still mean to bring forward from the Old Testament. Afterward we will bring them in more suitably, so as to prove more readily that good and holy men, in both the Old and the New Testament, were entirely at one with each other in these devices.

For what shall we say of the devout deceit Hushai practiced on Absalom to save King David? Though it was spoken with every appearance of goodwill by the deceiver and cheat, and was against the good of the one who asked his advice, it is still commended by the authority of Holy Scripture, which says, “But by the will of the Lord the profitable counsel of Ahithophel was defeated, so that the Lord might bring evil on Absalom.” Nor could anything be blamed that was done for the right side, with a right purpose and devout intent, and was planned by a holy pretense for the safety and victory of one whose devotion pleased God. What, too, shall we say of the deed of that woman who took in the men Hushai had sent to King David, hid them in a well, spread a cloth over its mouth, pretended she was drying pearl barley, and said, “They went on after tasting a little water,” and by this invention saved them from the hands of their pursuers? So answer me, please, and tell me what you would have done if a similar situation had arisen for you, living now under the gospel. Would you prefer to hide them with a similar falsehood, saying in the same way, “They went on after tasting a little water,” and so fulfill the command, “Rescue those who are being led to death, and do not hold back from redeeming those who are being killed”? Or by telling the truth, would you have given up those in hiding to the men who would kill them?

And what then becomes of the apostle’s words, “Let no one seek his own, but the things of another,” and, “Love does not seek its own, but the things of others”? And of himself he says, “I do not seek my own good, but the good of many, that they may be saved.” For if we seek our own, and want stubbornly to keep what is good for ourselves, we must speak the truth even in urgent cases of this kind, and so become guilty of another’s death. But if we put what is for another’s advantage before our own good, and meet the apostle’s demands, we will certainly have to accept the necessity of lying. So we will not be able to keep a perfect heart of love, or to seek the things of others as apostolic perfection requires, unless we relax a little in what concerns the strictness and perfection of our own lives, and choose to stoop with ready affection to what is useful to others, and so with the apostle become weak to the weak, that we may be able to win the weak.