Standing trial before God, the king of Gerar presents a detailed defense, driven by a profound fear that gripped him after witnessing the destruction of Sodom [ביאור יש"ר]. He claims absolute innocence, arguing that he was the victim of a complete deception and harbored no malicious intent. Rather than acting hastily, the king conducted a thorough investigation. He did not rely on mere rumors but questioned Abraham directly [רד"ק]. To ensure Abraham was not lying out of fear, he interrogated Sarah separately, and she confirmed the story [בכור שור], repeating her claim both in Abraham's presence and in private [חזקוני]. The king even questioned their entire entourage, including the servants and camel drivers, all of whom provided the exact same account [רש"י]. Because Sarah participated in this charade despite the inherent danger, the king was entirely convinced of their story [ביאור יש"ר]. Commentators agree that because of this careful investigation, God merely rebuked him, in sharp contrast to Pharaoh, who had previously taken Sarah without any inquiry and was immediately struck with plagues [פענח רזא, חזקוני].
From a legal standpoint, once they declared themselves siblings, Sarah was presumed to be an unmarried woman, leading the king to argue that he bears no responsibility for an entirely unintentional error [מלבי"ם]. The primary approach among commentators is that his defense is divided into two distinct levels: his thoughts and his actions [רש"י, ביאור יש"ר, מלבי"ם]. In terms of his thoughts, he claims complete purity of mind, meaning he had no desire to sin. He genuinely believed Sarah was unmarried, meaning her capture would not violate the severe prohibition against taking a married woman, which carries a death penalty [אור החיים]. His motives were not driven by physical lust, but rather by a sincere and honorable desire to marry Abraham's sister [רד"ק, העמק דבר].
Regarding his actions, the king insists on his practical and legal innocence, maintaining that he is free from any suspicion of kidnapping or theft. He argues that he took Sarah with full consent and honor rather than through violence [אור החיים, רש"ר הירש]. A primary approach among commentators is that this physical restraint proves he is free from sin because he did not actually touch her [רש"י, צאינה וראינה, מלבי"ם]. However, others point out that he cannot truly boast about keeping his distance, as it was not a personal moral choice; rather, God forcefully intervened and prevented him from touching her [בכור שור].
Despite the king's strong sense of personal justice, a sharp moral critique emerges. He believes that pure intentions and good faith justify his actions, especially based on the local custom that allowed a king to take any unmarried foreign woman. Yet, the required standard is that human actions must objectively align with His will. Moral ignorance is a sin in itself. As a leader, the king should have established a high moral standard instead of relying on a corrupt custom that permitted the exploitation of vulnerable foreign women entering his territory [רש"ר הירש].