Take, for example, Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives of Exodus 1:15-21. The Egyptian pharaoh tried to control Israelite population growth by demanding that the midwives in charge of Hebrew births kill the boys, allowing only the girls to live. But because the midwives were God-fearing women, they refused to obey the King and allowed the boys to live as well. When Pharaoh demanded to know why they did not obey him, they simply lied (1:19): ‘Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive’. In this case, the midwives were blessed for their actions. God rewarded them with families of their own because they feared him more than the Egyptian king and chose to risk lying rather than kill the newborn Hebrew boys. Likewise Rahab certainly told a lie to the king of Jericho to save the two Israelite spies (Josh. 2:4-6), and New Testament authors unanimously praise her actions as works of faith (Heb. 11:31; James 2:25).
When we compare these disparate episodes, a certain biblical ethic begins to emerge, which is supported by our text in 1 Samuel 19. Rather than a monlothic prohibition against all lying and deception, the Bible offers general principle, modified with several exceptions. The general principle is most notably stated in the ninth commandment, which contains a statement against lying in a court of law (Ex. 20:16). Elsewhere the Bible generally disdains all falsehood (Prov. 11:3) and portrays Satan as the ‘father of lies’ (John 8:44; Eph. 4:25).
But then we have exceptions such as the Hebrew midwives, who chose to embrace the guilt of deception in order to preserve the lives of the newborns. They unselfishly put themselves at risk before the Pharaoh rather than fulfil his gruesome orders.
Jonathan and Michal seem to be in the same category as the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. These biblical characters choose the higher good and are willing to accept the consequences of their choices, even if it puts them at personal risk in order to help innocent person.
Many Christian scholars through the centuries have agreed. Thomas Aquinas distinguished three classes of lies: Officious lies, or helpful lies of necessity; jocose lies, told in jest; and mischievous lies, or malicious lies told to harm another person or to save face personally. Only the third category constitutes sin in Aquinas’s view.
I would agree with Aquinas, but I would also warn that the lie of necessity is only morally justified (even morally required?) under certain circumstances, such as rare situations where it is clear that innocent lives are at stake. In this biblical ethic, lying and deception are wrong and to be avoided. However, the actions of Jonathan and Michal, the Hebrew midwives, and others suggest there are times when believers should choose to accept the guilt of lying in order to accomplish a higher good, as they believe it to be defined by God. Thus, we recognize deception as always bad but sometimes desirable in extenuating circumstances