Washington has been roiled this week by allegations that the Trump administration carried out a follow-up strike against a disabled drug boat in the Caribbean to eliminate any potential survivors. While the allegations are far from proven, they are also serious, and Christians should consider the controversy in light of the Bible’s teaching that every person is made in the image of God. Even better, Christians can consider the controversy in light of a close biblical parallel, when even soon-to-be King David carried out military operations that left no survivors.

The Trump administration has waged an intensifying campaign of military action against South American cartels smuggling drugs to the United States, with more than a dozen military strikes against suspected drug boats off the coast of Venezuela this year. A strike against a drug boat on October 16 killed two people aboard the boat but left two survivors — the first and only so far. However, instead of charging the survivors with drug-related crimes, the military repatriated them to Colombia and Ecuador, their countries of origin.

In late November, The Washington Post reported allegations of a second attack during a drug boat strike on September 2. Their report directly implicated Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom they said issued an order “to kill everybody.” The Trump administration has contended that Hegseth did not oversee the second strike, and that the admiral who did order the second strike did so to destroy the remnants of the boat, not to eliminate survivors. Other media reports, including a piece by The New York Times, have contradicted the Post’s reporting. Nevertheless, the allegations have been serious enough to prompt congressional investigations.

For further details, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote an excellent overview on Tuesday of what information was known at the time.

Instead of delving into the midst of a nuanced, ever-changing set of facts, this article proposes instead to establish what is the stakes of the case, according to the Bible, with a particular focus on a biblical case study.

During David’s sojourn among the Philistines, he led his band of Israelite misfits against various “inhabitants of the land from of old,” in raids in which “David would strike the land and would leave neither man nor woman alive” (1 Samuel 27:8-9). When he brought back spoil to his Philistine liege-lord, David would falsely claim that he raided the territory of Judah and its allies, misleading the Philistine king to believe that “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel” (1 Samuel 27:10, 12). Scripture records that this was David’s custom specifically so that no one could bring the news to Gath and report on what David had actually done (1 Samuel 27:11).

One important principle of interpreting biblical narrative is that it is often descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the Bible honestly presents historical people as they really were, flaws and all. Just because it is in Scripture doesn’t necessarily make it something for us to emulate.

In light of this principle, the important question to ask is, what are we supposed to make of David’s actions? The best biblical defense for his actions is that he was God’s anointed king (1 Samuel 16:13), carrying out God’s war of annihilation against the Amalekites and other Canaanite remnants, a mission that Saul had failed to complete (1 Samuel 15:9). In this best-case scenario, David’s actions occupy a unique place in biblical history that cannot be taken as a model for today.

But there are negative elements in the story, which present David’s actions in a less positive light. David’s very presence in Philistine territory flows from his faithless self-counsel in 1 Samuel 27:1, “Now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul,” which overlooks God’s promise that he would be king. Philistine territory was where the ark of the covenant went into exile after one of Israel’s worst defeats (1 Samuel 5:1), and it was the site of the temptation and ultimate ruin of Israel’s previous military hero, Samson (Judges 16:1).

Looking forward in the story, David’s deception leads to his promotion in an army about to go to war with God’s people (1 Samuel 28:1-2), if not for the intervention of other commanders (1 Samuel 29:9). It also leads to disaster, when enemies burned and plundered his town in his absence (1 Samuel 30:1-2), and his distressed men talked of stoning him (1 Samuel 30:6).

Based on the context, then, David’s practice of leaving no survivors on military raids so that no one could accurately report on his actions seems more negative than positive. It reflected a lack of trust in God’s ability to protect him, and it yielded bitter consequences.

This biblical parallel case lays out the stakes of the case in the current kerfuffle over American strikes on Venezuelan drug boats. The Washington Post has effectively accused the Trump administration of adopting David’s policy: killing every survivor so that no one can report on their activities. These allegations are not yet proven, and this author is certainly in no position to render judgment. The aim here is merely to spell out why the issue is worthy of attention.

One aspect with even greater significance in the American context is the sanctity of human life. Evey human life has value because every human person is made in the image of God. Even drug traffickers bear the image of God. While this imprint of God’s image does not absolutely rule out the taking of human life (in fact, the opposite is true, see Genesis 9:6), it does mean that life may not be thrown away on a whim. If, for example, it is easy and simple to capture the survivors of a destroyed drug boat, instead of shooting them dead, it would be unjust to take the latter course.

Again, it is not yet clear that this is what the Trump administration did, but this is why the issue is serious enough for Congress to take a closer look. If it turns out that the Post’s reporting was inaccurate, this story will provide just one more data point in why so few Americans trust the mainstream media. If it turns out they are right, there should be accountability. For now, it’s too early to tell.