# Moral Absolutes: Lying



## Claudiu

This has come up in a couple of my discussions with people lately. Not only philosophy people, but Christians as well.
Fellow Christians that I know believe in justified lying, and therefore lying is not an absolute. One can lie in order to save a life. This is brought up in philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant. 
One of the texts that come to mind is in Exodus 1 where the midwives lied, and then it says that God dealt well with the midwives. 


16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.


The scenerio that is sometimes brought up goes something like this: "Imagine you are in WWII Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your house. Now there come some Nazi's at your door and ask you if there are any Jews inside your house. There are 2 options now: tell the truth, causing the Jews to be caught...or...lie, causing the Jews to be safe." In this scenerio the question is, "would you lie in order to save a life?"

Another one is..."You are in a country where Christianity is illegal. You are sneaking Bible's into the country, but one day you are caught by the police. They ask you what church, or people you are going to deliver them to." Again the options are to tell the truth and possible have someone die, or lie and save a life.

One more point, looking at church history and all the martyrs that have stood up for their faith, it shows that people were willing to tell the truth, as opposed to just lying once, a "justified lie," in order to save their life or that of others. (However, this is different from the other scenarios mentioned).

I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say. Any ideas.


----------



## MMasztal

This is really a false dichotomy and isn't really a problem as some might think. 

Simply put, we are to obey God's commandments before man's laws especially if man's laws are counter to those of God.


----------



## Claudiu

Joshua said:


> I think violating the Ninth Commandment (and all its subsequent "least" commandments) is, of course, sinning. That noted, some people don't deserve the truth. So, for example, if you knew telling the truth would lead to the death of an "innocent" person, you should choose silence over the truth, but not _lying_. Yes, there may be consequences, but we leave those with God. Since when has God commanded us to break one commandment in order to keep another?



Yes, these scenarios only allow the possibility of 2 options....when there is another one...keeping silent.

Thats a good one. Thanks.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 07:26:04 EST-----



MMasztal said:


> This is really a false dichotomy and isn't really a problem as some might think.
> 
> Simply put, we are to obey God's commandments before man's laws especially if man's laws are counter to those of God.



Yes, God's law comes before man's.


----------



## LadyFlynt

As Josh pointed out, there is always a third option: silence.


----------



## Skyler

cecat90 said:


> This has come up in a couple of my discussions with people lately. Not only philosophy people, but Christians as well.
> My uncle (a Christian) believes in justified lying, and therefore lying is not an absolute. One can lie in order to save a life. This is brought up in philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant. However, I believe that lying is wrong no matter what, even in bad circumstances where lying would be an option to save someone.
> One of the texts that come to mind is in Exodus 1 where the midwives lied, and then it says that God dealt well with the midwives. Opponents of my view point, that lying is wrong no matter what, would say that it is ok, and that this is a circumstance when it was allowed. I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.



I've been having the same conversation with a couple of friends. It's interesting that while the Bible always(to my recollection) praises or otherwise shows God's favor toward good deeds, it doesn't always condemn wrongdoing in the case of God's elect. Jacob is a prominent example. This doesn't mean they didn't sin--everyone does. I'm not completely sure what this means, but it does seem to set precedent for the case of the midwives.



> The scenerio that is sometimes brought up goes something like this: "Imagine you are in WWII Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your house. Now there come some Nazi's at your door and ask you if there are any Jews inside your house. There are 2 options now: tell the truth, causing the Jews to be caught...or...lie, causing the Jews to be safe." In this scenerio the question is, "would you lie in order to save a life?"



I don't think we should. Despite the apparently good consequences of such an action, there are no non-anecdotal texts I am aware of to support lying even to save life. There are, on the other hand, a staggering number of references, particularly in Proverbs, condemning lying unconditionally. It seems to me that if God had intended to impose a condition on the general principle, he had plenty of opportunity to do so and chose not to.

If this is the case, then lying would of course be wrong in this situation.

Oh, and for an anecdotal example, if you've read "The Hiding Place", you may recall that Nollie did tell the Nazis "yes", and the Jew they were hiding at the time was freed after a short time.



> Another one is..."You are in a country where Christianity is illegal. You are sneaking Bible's into the country, but one day you are caught by the police. They ask you what church, or people you are going to deliver them to." Again the options are to tell the truth and possible have someone die, or lie and save a life.



In this case I think the question sets up a false dichotomy. Most if not all hypothetical scenarios fall victim to this fallacy; they present lying and telling the truth as the only options. There is a third--don't say anything. Give no information, either true or false. This, I think, is the best option in this case. If you tell the truth, someone may well die. If you lie, and are found out, your punishment will be all the worse. If you say nothing, you don't betray your fellow Christians, and neither do you have to engage in morally dubious activities.



> One more point, looking at church history and all the martyrs that have stood up for their faith, it shows that people were willing to tell the truth, as opposed to just lying once, a "justified lie," in order to save their life or that of others.



There are even more from countries where persecution continues, such as China or in the recent past the Soviet Union. Christians in these situations face the examples you present frequently.



> I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say. Any ideas.



I certainly have. 

edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Skyler said:


> edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.



Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay


----------



## Skyler

LadyFlynt said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay
Click to expand...


You _are_ telling the truth, right?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Skyler said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You _are_ telling the truth, right?
Click to expand...

One thing you will learn about me: I tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it. I'm somewhere between blunt and brutally honest.


----------



## Skyler

LadyFlynt said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You _are_ telling the truth, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing you will learn about me: I tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it. I'm somewhere between blunt and brutally honest.
Click to expand...


Good. I usually stray between telling the truth where it's not needed and not telling the truth where it is. 

On that note, I think we're getting a bit off topic...


----------



## asc

Joshua said:


> I think violating the Ninth Commandment (and all its subsequent "least" commandments) is, of course, sinning. That noted, some people don't deserve the truth. So, for example, if you knew telling the truth would lead to the death of an "innocent" person, you should choose silence over the truth, but not _lying_. Yes, there may be consequences, but we leave those with God. Since when has God commanded us to break one commandment in order to keep another?



I'm not sure where i stand on the issue, but to explore the argument further, silence might work in the second situation, but I wouldn't think the first. One could reasonably expect that if the SS came to your door and asked you if you were hiding any Jews and you didn't answer their question, they would start searching the house.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Sinning is _never_ acceptable or justified, because sin is an end in itself. So lying is always a wrong and is never justified, regardless of our intentions. This is the very point Paul makes in Romans 3.


----------



## reformed trucker

LadyFlynt said:


> I tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it. I'm somewhere between blunt and brutally honest.



That is what I like about you. I can respect that. You are like a female SolaScriptura (that's why I like him also).


----------



## satz

cecat90 said:


> I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.



I would respectfully say I don't think the passage can be explained this way. It might be helpful to compare the midwives example to that of Rahab, which is similar in that she also lied to save the Israelite spies.

However, in James 2, the bible specifically points picks out Rahab as an example of justification by works. The whole context of the passage is that faith - or fear of God - is not good enough alone. It must be backed up by actions. So the bible approves not just Rahab's faith, but her actions as well.

To say she feared God but did the wrong thing in response would not make sense in the context of James' argument.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 09:34:19 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> Sinning is _never_ acceptable or justified, because sin is an end in itself. So lying is always a wrong and is never justified, regardless of our intentions. This is the very point Paul makes in Romans 3.



True, but it is God who defines sin, and we need to look at the entire bible to see how he defines it. 

As a similar example, if you only read Exodus, you could not figure out that works of necessity or mercy are allowed on the Sabbath day, for the wording of the Sabbath command is absolute. But Jesus expected the Pharisees to have figured out that God does allow exceptions. And, he used narrative - the example of David and the showbread -to qualify, or show exceptions to, the absolute prescriptive Sabbath commandment from the Decalogue. 

The same principles applies to the OP, God allows lying in certain exception circumstances like the midwives, and Rahab. 

I would add also that this is not using man’s logic to rationalise away the word of God. This is using scripture to interpret scripture. 

I am open to correction, but currently, this does seem the correction position from the bible.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

satz said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would respectfully say I don't think the passage can be explained this way. It might be helpful to compare the midwives example to that of Rahab, which is similar in that she also lied to save the Israelite spies.
> 
> However, in James 2, the bible specifically points picks out Rahab as an example of justification by works. The whole context of the passage is that faith - or fear of God - is not good enough alone. It must be backed up by actions. So the bible approves not just Rahab's faith, but her actions as well.
> 
> To say she feared God but did the wrong thing in response would not make sense in the context of James' argument.
Click to expand...


Note James does not commend Rahab's lying - only her helping the spies. The end was good, the the means were sinful...



> In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when *she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?*


----------



## satz

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Note James does not commend Rahab's lying - only her helping the spies



I think James is commending Rahab's entire actions. If she did not lie, she would not have been able to help the spies, for the men of Jericho would have caught them. 



> The end was good, the the means were sinful...



I don't think this fits with James argument. James is trying to give his readers examples of good works - like Abraham offering up his son in faith. If he gives an example of sinful means, his argument breaks down, because in the end Rahab only has faith, and not works because she sinned. 

And faith without works, is in that context, dead.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

satz said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note James does not commend Rahab's lying - only her helping the spies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think James is commending Rahab's entire actions. If she did not lie, she would not have been able to help the spies, for the men of Jericho would have caught them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The end was good, the the means were sinful...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this fits with James argument. James is trying to give his readers examples of good works - like Abraham offering up his son in faith. If he gives an example of sinful means, his argument breaks down, because in the end Rahab only has faith, and not works because she sinned.
> 
> And faith without works, is in that context, dead.
Click to expand...


The Bible never condones or praises sin, including lying. There are no exceptions to the 9th Commandment. Rahab sinned, but her overarching desire to protect the spies came from her faith. Even so, James clearly does not indicate her lie was righteous or good. Simply because her actions were motivated by faith does not make them 100% sin free.


----------



## satz

As I said, James is exhorting his readers to add to their faith good works. Out of all the examples in the bible, why would he chose Rahab unless her actions were good works?

Getting the right result by the wrong method would still be sin. The fact that James chose Rehab for this particular example seems to me to indicate that her actions were not sin but praiseworthy.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Rahab is praised specifically because she sent the spies out another way, instead of turning them in to the authorities in Jericho. She did so because she had faith in God that He would send Israel back and rescue her and her family, while putting the rest of the city to the sword. She is not commended for her lying, but for her sending out the spies. Note the precision of James' words:

James 2.25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Not, "when she lied to the authorities".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## satz

Pastor Todd, 

That still does not answer the question of why James would chose her when he was trying to find an example of someone who demonstrated faith _through good works_. Rabab's lie was an integral part of what she did. If she did not lie, the authorities would have discovered the spies. 

The bible principle is, I think, that sinful actions to achieve a good end are still condemned, as with Moses striking the rock, or David moving the Ark of the Covenant on a ox-cart. If Rahab sinned by lying, her actions would be tainted just as Moses' and David's were. Even if God, in his great mercy chose to overlook that sin practically, it would still make her action a bad choice for James' example.


----------



## asc

ColdSilverMoon said:


> The Bible never condones or praises sin, including lying.



I don't think it's suggested by anyone that's ok to sin, the big question is whether all forms of lying or deception is a sin.

I once had a conversation with a Christian who understood the 6th commandment to mean "you shall not ever kill another person under any circumstance". So to him, Christians should be opposed to all war, capital punishment, lethal force in self defense, etc. I sorta see a parallel. Just like issues of war and capital punishment are only exercised as a last resort or in the most dire circumstances. I could see similar situations where deception would be acceptable, but this would be in the rarest of circumstance.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

satz said:


> Pastor Todd,
> 
> That still does not answer the question of why James would chose her when he was trying to find an example of someone who demonstrated faith _through good works_. Rabab's lie was an integral part of what she did. If she did not lie, the authorities would have discovered the spies.
> 
> The bible principle is, I think, that sinful actions to achieve a good end are still condemned, as with Moses striking the rock, or David moving the Ark of the Covenant on a ox-cart. If Rahab sinned by lying, her actions would be tainted just as Moses' and David's were. Even if God, in his great mercy chose to overlook that sin practically, it would still make her action a bad choice for James' example.



Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it, as many commentators do not. Perhaps you fail to see the historical milieu of Rahab's actions--they truly were remarkable for her time and place. I believe that it's entirely possible that James is commending her sending out the spies and not mentioning the lying for the purpose of emphasizing the good of what she did, as that most certainly points to her faith. As I said above, to believe that a walled city such as Jericho would be conquered by a people who had recently (40 years or so) been released from slavery, and having no city of their own, but wanderers in the desert, with no arms but bows and spears, etc. is truly a faithful act.


----------



## satz

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it, as many commentators do not. Perhaps you fail to see the historical milieu of Rahab's actions--they truly were remarkable for her time and place. I believe that it's entirely possible that James is commending her sending out the spies and not mentioning the lying for the purpose of emphasizing the good of what she did, as that most certainly points to her faith. As I said above, to believe that a walled city such as Jericho would be conquered by a people who had recently (40 years or so) been released from slavery, and having no city of their own, but wanderers in the desert, with no arms but bows and spears, etc. is truly a faithful act.



Pastor Todd,

From what I can see, within the context of James teaching, it does not matter how great her faith was, she had to react appropriately - with good works. 

Saying James approved of her actions although she was sinning is like saying he would approve of a man who stole money to tithe. Again, he is explicitly commending her action, not just her faith.

If all lying is wrong under all circumstances, how can we justify Joshua sending out _spies_ into Jericho in the first place?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I understand your question, and do believe that in times such as war that deceptive tactics are allowed. Joshua used a "feint maneuver" at Ai, and drew out the bulk of the soldiers for slaughter, and I believe he was guiltless in doing so. There are other instances of a similar nature, and each case is to be carefully considered. 

However, in the case of Rahab, I believe we have a different situation altogether, where she was asked a specific question and gave an answer that was not true. While some in the history of the Church have excused her lying, I do not, and I do not believe James is. I have already told you how I believe James separated her actions, and emphasized the good she did, and minimized the wrong, to the point of leaving it unmentioned. This is my view. 

Your view is that James is considering the "complex" of what she did in the entire circumstance. While I understand what you're saying, I do not believe it is the proper interpretation, nor do I believe James condones that portion of her actions that are clearly forbidden in other portions of Scripture. I am aware of those who interpret the 9th Commandment narrowly to refer only to "legal testimony" and "property". However, that certainly is not the view of my Confession of Faith as summarized in the Larger Catechism, which is as follows:

Q. #145 What are the sins forbidden in the ninth Commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out–facing and over–bearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others;kspeaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale–bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vain–glorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;e denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumours, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavouring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practising, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

Good exchange. I'll leave the last word to you and the rest to decide on the merits of the arguments. However, I will caution that we live in a society that believes lying is necessary to get along in the world. This speaks of God's judgment *already* upon us. 

Isaiah 59.12-15; 12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; 13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. 14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. 15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

asc said:


> I'm not sure where i stand on the issue, but to explore the argument further, silence might work in the second situation, but I wouldn't think the first. One could reasonably expect that if the SS came to your door and asked you if you were hiding any Jews and you didn't answer their question, they would start searching the house.


Actually the issue with the Nazis scenario is "Do they have a right to the truth?". The answer is obvious if you think about it.


----------



## Claudiu

satz said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would respectfully say I don't think the passage can be explained this way. It might be helpful to compare the midwives example to that of Rahab, which is similar in that she also lied to save the Israelite spies.
Click to expand...



But it says that "God dealt well with the midwives."

God never deals well with sin, and in this case he would have dealt well with them because of their fear. In other words, God dealt well with them...why? Was it their actions (which was lying, and as we know that is sin, and God does not approve of), or was it because of the fear they showed. God does not deal well with sin, he deals well with fear or faith. 

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses

Notice it doesn't talk about what they did, but the fear part only...it doesn't say how they lied, or even how they saved the babies.


----------



## ChristianHedonist

Question: What does it actually mean to (or to not) bear false testimony against your neighbor? For example, if the Gestapo were seeking to unjustly arrest and perhaps put to death innocent people, would bearing false testimony be testifying of the location of said innocent people such that injustice could be done? To put it another way, would not bearing false testimony, and thus obeying the 9th commandment, be testifying about said innocent people in such a manner as to protect them from injustice. It seems that turning innocent people over to injustice could be bearing false testimony against them, since they have done nothing to deserve what is planned against them. Any thoughts?  

(note: I'm not 100% certain where I stand on this issue, I just thought this was a provocative question)


----------



## SolaScriptura

Maybe I'm a really bad bad man who's barely saved...

But I'd lie to murderous thugs to save innocent lives IN A HEARTBEAT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JoeRe4mer

I know a lot of Christians are not comfortable with anything even approaching situational ethics and for good reason, but the text clearly says that The Lord blessed the Hebrew midwives for telling _the opposite of the truth_ i.e. a lie, so there are obviously circumstances where it is not a sin to do so, rare though they may be.


----------



## satz

cecat90 said:


> But it says that "God dealt well with the midwives."
> 
> God never deals well with sin, and in this case he would have dealt well with them because of their fear. In other words, God dealt well with them...why? Was it their actions (which was lying, and as we know that is sin, and God does not approve of), or was it because of the fear they showed. God does not deal well with sin, he deals well with fear or faith.
> 
> 21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses
> 
> Notice it doesn't talk about what they did, but the fear part only...it doesn't say how they lied, or even how they saved the babies.



Fearing God isn't enough to earn God's favour. The devils fear God and tremble, but don't earn his favour. If we say the midwives sinned by lying but God dealt well with them because of their fear, we might as well say the midwives could have just killed the babies and God would ignore their sin of murder and deal well with their fear of him. But that would be rediculous. 

My point is, fear or faith has to result in God works. And that was what God was rewarding.


Also, why assume God condemns all lying? God forbids murder, but there are exceptions for self defense and war. God commanded rest on the sabbath, but there are exceptions for works of necessity and mercy. Why not exceptions to the command aganist lying for saving lives? And again, these exceptions are not thought up by pragmatic reasoning, but by revelation from the bible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LawrenceU

I think you have to do an awful lot of gymnastics to make the midwives and Rahab not blessed as a result of their lying. But, then their lying was not like the vast majority of lying.


----------



## SolaScriptura

LawrenceU said:


> I think you have to do an awful lot of gymnastics to make the midwives and Rahab not blessed as a result of their lying. But, then their lying was not like the vast majority of lying.



Exactly. The vast majority of lying - almost 100% of it - is to try to save face, get out of paying for the consequences of ones (sinful) actions, get ahead of others, put others down, etc. 

So I can say, despite what I said above in post #30, without any sense of dodginess, "LYING IS WRONG." Becuase that general statement addresses virtually every reason why people lie in real life... including myself.


----------



## Confessor

Several distinctions have to be made to understand this concept. We have to first note that several things can be considering lying (and thereby are prohibited by the ninth commandment) that involve silence or an unwillingness to tell the truth. For instance, if I were at a friend's house getting high, and I came back and my mom asked what I was doing, and I told her only that I was at my friend's house without mentioning marijuana, then I would be breaking the ninth commandment, because I would be withholding information from someone who deserves to know all the information. (I would also be breaking the fifth commandment, obviously, but this doesn't deny the fact that I would be breaking the ninth.)

If we do not maintain that telling the entire truth (to the best of our abilities) to those who deserve to hear all of it is the only way to avoid lying, then we run into severe moral problems, like the one mentioned above. Therefore it is crucial that _upholding the ninth commandment includes the positive telling of the truth_, and not merely keeping silence. Silence is not a legitimate third option; it is tantamount to deception. Half-truths are just as immoral as lies (when people deserve to hear the truth).

The Nazis-at-the-door example always is relevant. And the key concept here is that there is no third alternative of silence (morally, per above, or pragmatically), for if you don't answer the Nazis, then they will kill you and know you have Jews in the house. But at the same time, the Nazis are completely undeserving of the information, and it takes no genius to figure out what will occur if you say that you do have Jews in the house. This shows that it is morally permissible (even morally obligatory) to lie to the Nazis and to deceive them.

(By the way, to say that we should tell the Nazis the Jews are in the house and "let God take care of the rest" is to beg the question that deceiving the Nazis in this situation is wrong. Of course, if all forms of lying and truth-withholding are proscribed, then we should absolutely tell them the truth and let God take care of the rest.)

Deceiving the Nazis is not an example of the ends justifying the means, or of breaking the ninth commandment to honor the sixth. What is crucial here is understanding what exactly lying entails. Just as we must make many distinctions to understand what exactly is considered murder, so also we must do this to understand what exactly is considered lying. It's not denying the absolute wrongness of lying to be scrupulous in pinpointing exactly what lying is. Being concise and detailed in moral reasoning does not entail that we deny the absolute wrongness of lying. If anything, it strengthens our belief in moral absolutism, for it shows that we are basing our principles on absolute notions -- e.g. Does this person deserve to know any information?

And frankly, it makes no sense to say that we have to tell the whole truth to everyone, regardless of whether or not they deserve it. As a very brief _reductio ad absurdum_ of the notion that we can never deceive anyone or withhold the truth from anyone (besides the Nazi example), take a sports game: the athlete is not obliged to tell his opponent what play he is about to execute. Or a magician: he is not obliged to reveal his tricks to others. Saying that silence is a third option here does not change the situation morally, for I already demonstrated above that silence and deception both involve the withholding of information from a person and are therefore morally equivalent.

*Therefore, what is significant is whether or not the potential recipient of the information is deserving of hearing the information. And that is the main distinction. If they are not, silence and deception are allowed and sometimes obligatory. If they are, then telling the full truth is obligatory.*

And if anyone reading this message thinks I'm being too philosophical or impious, or that I'm trying to peer into the secret things of God or something, well, go ahead.


----------



## SRoper

How do we know the Hebrew midwives were lying?


----------



## Skyler

SRoper said:


> How do we know the Hebrew midwives were lying?



Even if they weren't lying(which I find unlikely) we still have Rahab's situation. This question, unfortunately, is an argument from silence--"The Bible doesn't _say_ they were lying..."

With that said, however, I'm concerned that we may be isolating a few select anecdotes to support a case which is almost universally condemned in the rest of Scripture. Bearing false witness, lying, etc., is condemned over and over without making exceptions for the saving of innocent life. Rather than discarding this fact in favor of two historical incidents, we should try to harmonize them both.

Recall that wrongful acts on the part of God's elect are sometimes overlooked in Scripture. Recall also that in the Proverbs, lying lips are repeatedly condemned and categorized as an "abomination". I may simply be unfamiliar with the passages, but I'm not aware of any *non-anecdotal* instances where lying is permitted under certain circumstances.


----------



## louis_jp

I think of it as the lesser of evils. If the Nazis are at your door, you can, 1. tell them the truth, which will assist them in murdering people, 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people, or 3. lie, and thereby save lives.

In other words, you're sinning either way you go. Which is a situation that you can only be in in a fallen world. In Heaven, telling the truth will always result in goodness and light. On earth, the choices are different. So, ethically, I think it's entirely appropriate to lie in certain situations, and as someone else has said, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Now, the question is, could it be that God commends liers simply because they chose the least evil and did the best they could in that situation?


----------



## louis_jp

Joshua said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people ...
> 
> 
> 
> This is just not true. You have no idea what the future holds. God has a standard: Thou shalt not lie. You obey that standard. READ: This does not mean that you tell them _anything_, but you do not *know* that your silence is going to result in the murdering of innocents. You obey God's revealed will and let God take care of the consequences. There is no such thing as a lesser of two evils, for they are both evil. I'll stick with Jeremiah Burroughs (albeit ever so inconsistently) when he says, "It is better to choose affliction than sin."
Click to expand...


I disagree with this. You know what will happen if you remain silent, because God gave you a brain and common sense to understand these things.


----------



## louis_jp

Joshua said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just not true. You have no idea what the future holds. God has a standard: Thou shalt not lie. You obey that standard. READ: This does not mean that you tell them _anything_, but you do not *know* that your silence is going to result in the murdering of innocents. You obey God's revealed will and let God take care of the consequences. There is no such thing as a lesser of two evils, for they are both evil. I'll stick with Jeremiah Burroughs (albeit ever so inconsistently) when he says, "It is better to choose affliction than sin."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. You know what will happen if you remain silent, because God gave you a brain and common sense to understand these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He gave me a Law that is perpetual, perfect, and binding, and has told me to obey it. He's _never_ made an exception. My brain (and any other's except for the Lord Jesus Christ's) is tainted with the sin and the effects of the fall.
Click to expand...


Okay, but brother, how do you square that with Rahab, et. al.? Did she remain silent or lie? And did or did not God commend her? I understand you can split hairs about which part of her actions were commended and which weren't, but the bottom line is that she lied and was commended.

Also, if the Nazis were after you, and I told you that I could hide you in my house, but if the Nazis asked I would only remain silent, I wouldn't lie for you, seriously, would you accept my offer or go somewhere else?


----------



## Theoretical

louis_jp said:


> I think of it as the lesser of evils. If the Nazis are at your door, you can, 1. tell them the truth, which will assist them in murdering people, 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people, or 3. lie, and thereby save lives.
> 
> In other words, you're sinning either way you go. Which is a situation that you can only be in in a fallen world. In Heaven, telling the truth will always result in goodness and light. On earth, the choices are different. So, ethically, I think it's entirely appropriate to lie in certain situations, and as someone else has said, I would do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> Now, the question is, could it be that God commends liers simply because they chose the least evil and did the best they could in that situation?




You took the words out of my mouth. I disagree that silence doesn't inherently mean anything. It means yes, pretty much anywhere where you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence. Even in America, though the courts aren't supposed to evaluate it, don't we intrinsically believe someone is guilty if they don't affirmative defend their innocence?

The problem is that body language says it all when you are silent, it will say yes or no whether you say yes or no.

If you want a profound on-screen example of how a devout Christian dealt with this in modern life, watch Sophie Scholl: The Last Days and her refusal to implicate others involved in the anti-Nazi peaceful dissent movement. As much of the movie uses actual interrogation transcripts for the script, this provides a good case study. Is it necessarily a perfect comparison to the "Jews in the basement", since they were moral and political dissenters and not merely the "wrong" ethnicity.

Where both actions are sin (even if this situation isn't a perfect application), due to the circumstances of a fallen world, what should we do?

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 03:34:05 EST-----



Theoretical said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think of it as the lesser of evils. If the Nazis are at your door, you can, 1. tell them the truth, which will assist them in murdering people, 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people, or 3. lie, and thereby save lives.
> 
> In other words, you're sinning either way you go. Which is a situation that you can only be in in a fallen world. In Heaven, telling the truth will always result in goodness and light. On earth, the choices are different. So, ethically, I think it's entirely appropriate to lie in certain situations, and as someone else has said, I would do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> Now, the question is, could it be that God commends liers simply because they chose the least evil and did the best they could in that situation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took the words out of my mouth. I disagree that silence doesn't inherently mean anything. It means yes, pretty much anywhere where you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence. Even in America, though the courts aren't supposed to evaluate it, don't we intrinsically believe someone is guilty if they don't affirmative defend their innocence?
> 
> The problem is that body language says it all when you are silent, it will say yes or no whether you say yes or no.
> 
> If you want a profound on-screen example of how a devout Christian dealt with this in modern life, watch Sophie Scholl: The Last Days and her refusal to implicate others involved in the anti-Nazi peaceful dissent movement. As much of the movie uses actual interrogation transcripts for the script, this provides a good case study. Is it necessarily a perfect comparison to the "Jews in the basement", since they were moral and political dissenters and not merely the "wrong" ethnicity.
> 
> Where both actions are sin (even if this situation isn't a perfect application), due to the circumstances of a fallen world, what should we do?
Click to expand...

I remain unsure whether she was right to do what she did or not, though I believe the Gestapo did not deserve the truth. I merely bring it up as an example for which we have actual testimony.


----------



## steven-nemes

The options are not only "lie or tell the truth" (see Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists: To Lie, or Not To Lie: That is the Question).

And besides that, the idea that lying would prevent an "innocent" person from dying is false, because there are no innocent people. Everyone is deserving of death, including the Jews during the Holocaust.


----------



## louis_jp

steven-nemes said:


> The options are not only "lie or tell the truth" (see Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists: To Lie, or Not To Lie: That is the Question).
> 
> And besides that, the idea that lying would prevent an "innocent" person from dying is false, because there are no innocent people. Everyone is deserving of death, including the Jews during the Holocaust.



In reference to the article, I think if you deliberately mislead someone you are lying. I don't buy the Bill Clinton-esque semantic defense. The other options he mentioned wouldn't work in the Nazi example. There really are cases where lying is the lesser evil out of all your choices.


----------



## steven-nemes

louis_jp said:


> In reference to the article, I think if you deliberately mislead someone you are lying. I don't buy the Bill Clinton-esque semantic defense. The other options he mentioned wouldn't work in the Nazi example. There really are cases where lying is the lesser evil out of all your choices.



I think "I did see some but I don't know where they went" would work.


----------



## jwithnell

OK, I'm sure some Hebrew scholar could jump all over this; but in the English, the ninth commandment is given in a legal or judicial setting ... "false _witness_." Could it be that lying in a legal situation automatically invokes breaking of the other commandments; i.e. in a murder trial, being a false witness would lead to the defendant's death and so forth? And while we can extrapolate the general principle of "not lying" from the ninth commandment and other passages of scripture, could its limited nature in the 10 commandments show that it is subordinate to the other commandments ... preserving life, for example, would take precedence over the midwives dealing truthfully in a situation that would have killed newborns?


----------



## snap_dragon

> It is better to choose affliction than sin.



But in the case of who's affliction - mine for lying to Nazis or the potential death of those in hiding from me telling the Nazis the truth or strangely remaining silent? Let's use some common sense in a situation where Nazis are kicking doors in...I think that my remaining quiet would give them pause for checking the joint out. They may not, but it is a reasonable assumption to make and influence how I respond...in which I would resoundly say "NO. Nobody Is Here." But this has already been said in a better way by previous posters. I just wanted to have my 2 cents tossed in.


Good post question by the way...lots of interesting responses!


----------



## Confessor

Did anyone see my distinction above? I dispute that withholding information from someone, or deceiving him, is necessarily lying. Therefore it's not even a matter of lesser evils; it's just making the moral decision, _viz._ to lie to the Nazis.

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 05:27:41 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> And besides that, the idea that lying would prevent an "innocent" person from dying is false, because there are no innocent people. Everyone is deserving of death, including the Jews during the Holocaust.



It's not as if we're trying to protect them from God's judgment or anything. We are commanded to protect life from murder.


----------



## moral necessity

Does God lie? Then, lying is contrary to the proper standard of righteousness. "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Mt. 5:48

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfer, which is the second death." - Rev. 21:8.

We must carefully understand what James is saying. First of all, it's not a teaching passage on what is morally right or wrong to do. It is a descriptive passage of what Abraham and Rahab did. James' point is that FAITH will become VISIBLE, SEEABLE FAITH in certain behaviors. He is not talking about any ordinary good work, but a specific work that displays that faith of Rahab and Abraham. Abraham trusted God that "through Isaac shall your offspring be named", and so the sacrificing of Isaac showed his faith that God was able to still keep his promise by raising him from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). And Rahab's faith and trust in God was displayed by her receiving the spies and sending them out another way. 

Now, both works were contaminated with sin at some level, as all of our works are. All of our deeds have a mixture of sin with them, and yet, the works of believers have a mixture of grace or holiness in them also. And so, when a work of ours is commended, it is not commended for the sin that remains attached to the work, but for the part of that work that is prompted by the Spirit of God within us. So, Rahab is not commended for lying, in my opinion. The lying aspect of it has nothing at all to do with displaying her faith in God. She is commended for her faith, and James is pointing out the specific work that displayed that faith. It just so happens that her work that displayed her trust in God also displayed a disobedience to his standard of perfection. I see no problem in reconciling the matter in this way.


----------



## Theoretical

moral necessity said:


> Does God lie? Then, lying is contrary to the proper standard of righteousness. "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Mt. 5:48
> 
> "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfer, which is the second death." - Rev. 21:8.
> 
> We must carefully understand what James is saying. First of all, it's not a teaching passage on what is morally right or wrong to do. It is a descriptive passage of what Abraham and Rahab did. James' point is that FAITH will become VISIBLE, SEEABLE FAITH in certain behaviors. He is not talking about any ordinary good work, but a specific work that displays that faith of Rahab and Abraham. Abraham trusted God that "through Isaac shall your offspring be named", and so the sacrificing of Isaac showed his faith that God was able to still keep his promise by raising him from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). And Rahab's faith and trust in God was displayed by her receiving the spies and sending them out another way.
> 
> Now, both works were contaminated with sin at some level, as all of our works are. All of our deeds have a mixture of sin with them, and yet, the works of believers have a mixture of grace or holiness in them also. And so, when a work of ours is commended, it is not commended for the sin that remains attached to the work, but for the part of that work that is prompted by the Spirit of God within us. So, Rahab is not commended for lying, in my opinion. The lying aspect of it has nothing at all to do with displaying her faith in God. She is commended for her faith, and James is pointing out the specific work that displayed that faith. It just so happens that her work that displayed her trust in God also displayed a disobedience to his standard of perfection. I see no problem in reconciling the matter in this way.








> It just so happens that her work that displayed her trust in God also displayed a disobedience to his standard of perfection. I see no problem in reconciling the matter in this way.


I can see this as well. 

To me, the sinful action taken in faith would be no different than sharing the Gospel and someone being brought to repentence while eating out on the Sabbath. The former is praised and the latter should not have been done, but is covered by the blood of Christ for Christians. 

My main issues are (1) that I dispute whether silence actually is a 3rd non-truth/non-lying option without being a passive, yet explicit affirmative and (2) whether people who don't deserve the truth (I think we all agree that Gestapo did not deserve the truth) can also be told lies.

The other elephant in the room is how secret activities on the government's part can ever be justified. Pentagon light bulbs do not cost $100 because of monumental governmental inefficiency, they cost whatever price and the bulk of it actually goes to secret projects that don't make budget lines. Is this morally any different?

What about the entirely fake army group General Patton was assigned to convince the Nazis that Overlord would strike at Cais-de-Palais when the real targe was Normandy? Massive deception including fake tanks, double-double agents, and fake communiques were all created? 

If we believe that nations should follow the Decalogue, how is this morally different from telling a Gestapo patrol that you haven't seen any Jews come by your neighborhood? Or from creating fake papers for Jews to escape the country so they can be smuggled across? 

In fact, when the law gives you an affirmative duty to report any people of X ideas, skin color, or national origin, your not doing so when you know about them is implicitly lying to the government is it not? Once you have an affirmative duty by a state where law is absolute and unquestioned, your not saying anything is making a statement that you do not know of any of those people. 

I've read some Nazi Legal Theory (Carl Schmitt specifically), and this idea of law specifically applies to their views. It's wrong, but in a police state, not saying anything when you have a duty to do so is as legally wrong as lying about it directly, and is prosecuted as such. It is directly interpreted as lying and punished as lying.

Not trying to be a pill here, but I'm seriously wondering how to deal with some of these issues.


----------



## Davidius

Just a question...

We often admit that the "spirit of the law" extends the applicability of a given command to more than what is stated immediately in the text. One example would be Jesus saying that hatred is a violation of the command not to murder. The Westminster Confession explicates the ten commandments by listing lots of offenses which could be categorized under each commandment. Is it possible that the "spirit of the law" works in the opposite direction, too? If some actions aren't explicitly covered by the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," yet are still considered sinful in the same sense that "lying" is sinful, perhaps it is also wrong to interpret the commandments in the fashion of Kant's moral imperative, where the plainest grammatical and lexical interpretation is applicable in every case. For lying such an interpretation would be, "any time you say something that is contrary to the factual reality of things, you are sinning."


----------



## Claudiu

snap_dragon said:


> It is better to choose affliction than sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in the case of who's affliction - mine for lying to Nazis or the potential death of those in hiding from me telling the Nazis the truth or strangely remaining silent? Let's use some common sense in a situation where Nazis are kicking doors in...I think that my remaining quiet would give them pause for checking the joint out. They may not, but it is a reasonable assumption to make and influence how I respond...in which I would resoundly say "NO. Nobody Is Here." But this has already been said in a better way by previous posters. I just wanted to have my 2 cents tossed in.
> 
> 
> Good post question by the way...lots of interesting responses!
Click to expand...



Its a question that's been bugging me for a while. I am still torn on the issue. But I am glad to see all the responses being given, and the arguments on both sides have strong points.

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 08:14:31 EST-----



cecat90 said:


> This has come up in a couple of my discussions with people lately. Not only philosophy people, but Christians as well.
> My uncle (a Christian) believes in justified lying, and therefore lying is not an absolute. One can lie in order to save a life. This is brought up in philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant. However, I believe that lying is wrong no matter what, even in bad circumstances where lying would be an option to save someone.
> One of the texts that come to mind is in Exodus 1 where the midwives lied, and then it says that God dealt well with the midwives. Opponents of my view point, that lying is wrong no matter what, would say that it is ok, and that this is a circumstance when it was allowed. I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.
> 
> 
> 16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
> 
> 17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
> 
> 18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
> 
> 19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
> 
> 20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
> 
> 21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
> 
> 
> The scenerio that is sometimes brought up goes something like this: "Imagine you are in WWII Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your house. Now there come some Nazi's at your door and ask you if there are any Jews inside your house. There are 2 options now: tell the truth, causing the Jews to be caught...or...lie, causing the Jews to be safe." In this scenerio the question is, "would you lie in order to save a life?"
> 
> Another one is..."You are in a country where Christianity is illegal. You are sneaking Bible's into the country, but one day you are caught by the police. They ask you what church, or people you are going to deliver them to." Again the options are to tell the truth and possible have someone die, or lie and save a life.
> 
> One more point, looking at church history and all the martyrs that have stood up for their faith, it shows that people were willing to tell the truth, as opposed to just lying once, a "justified lie," in order to save their life or that of others.
> 
> I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say. Any ideas.



On Immanuel Kant:

Moral philosophy


Immanuel Kant
Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785),[28] Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1797) .
In the Groundwork, Kant's method involves trying to convert our everyday, obvious, rational[29] knowledge of morality into philosophical knowledge. The latter two works followed a method of using "practical reason", which is based only upon things about which reason can tell us, and not deriving any principles from experience, to reach conclusions which are able to be applied to the world of experience (in the second part of The Metaphysic of Morals).
Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the "Categorical Imperative", and is derived from the concept of duty. *Kant defines the demands of the moral law as "categorical imperatives." Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested. Kant also stated that the moral means and ends can be applied to the categorical imperative, that rational beings can pursue certain "ends" using the appropriate "means." Ends that are based on physical needs or wants will always give for merely hypothetical imperatives. The categorical imperative, however, may be based only on something that is an "end in itself". That is, an end that is a means only to itself and not to some other need, desire, or purpose.[30] He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than "worthiness of being happy"[31]. Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and only rational agents.[32]*
*A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative)[33] In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) Kant enumerated three formulations of the categorical imperative which he believed to be roughly equivalent[34]*:
Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He did not necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the "counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom in economics:[35]
Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity. (p. 53, italics in original).
A phrase quoted by Kant, which is used to summarize the counter-utilitarian nature of his moral philosophy, is Fiat justitia, pereat mundus, ("Let justice be done, though the world perish"), which he translates loosely as "Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it". This appears in his 1795 Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.), Appendix 1.[36][37][38]


----------



## satz

People are coming at this question with the assumption that God would never, under any circumstances approve of lying. Why?

There are absolutely no exceptions to God's law when considered in its entirety, but God's law can only be understood in its entirety from reading the whole bible, not just the decalogue. 

As I said, there are exceptions for works of mercy/necessity on the sabbath, but you would never guess that just from reading the 10 commandments. You also need to read the whole bible to identify that counts as "murder" for that commandment.

Why is it so impossible to believe there would likewise be exceptions for lying?

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 09:16:42 EST-----



Skyler said:


> ... I'm not aware of any *non-anecdotal* instances where lying is permitted under certain circumstances.



That is true, but in dealing with the sabbath day Jesus endorsed the method of using narrative to interpret explicit commands. He told the pharisees they should have figured out from the example of David eating the shewbread that people could pick corn to eat on the sabbath.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

satz said:


> People are coming at this question with the assumption that God would never, under any circumstances approve of lying. Why?
> 
> There are absolutely no exceptions to God's law when considered in its entirety, but God's law can only be understood in its entirety from reading the whole bible, not just the decalogue.
> 
> As I said, there are exceptions for works of mercy/necessity on the sabbath, but you would never guess that just from reading the 10 commandments. You also need to read the whole bible to identify that counts as "murder" for that commandment.
> 
> Why is it so impossible to believe there would likewise be exceptions for lying?



-----Added 3/26/2009 at 09:16:42 EST-----

It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day. 

As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.

As for the Nazi's at the door, remember that extreme circumstances make poor policy. I remember reading "The Hiding Place" a number of years ago. It seems, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the TenBoom family had devised very interesting ways not to lie, and yet protect their "guests" in the secret place behind the wall. One of the children would lead the Nazi's on a search of the house repeating, "Are the Jews here?" looking under the bed, in the closet, etc. all the while leading them away from the "hiding place", and avoiding directly stating an untruth. I do believe that such is an acceptable deception, but is different from the Larger Catechism, which rightly condemns speaking untruth. I do not believe we may do that. 

But, in the final analysis, death is not the worst thing that can happen to us, or to others, and willfully sinning against the Almighty God is is a fearful thing. As one said above, the body language will give you away if you lie anyway. You may refuse to answer the question, you may do all sorts of things that put yourself at risk--but to tell a lie, that is, to speak an untruth, is never commended in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Confessor

So what does everyone think about the distinction between withholding information from or deceiving people who _deserve_ to hear the information and those who _don't_?

I would say that just as necessity and mercy are criteria for understanding the Sabbath -- and not exceptions to it -- so a person's deserving of information is a criterion for understanding the ninth commandment.


----------



## Theoretical

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are coming at this question with the assumption that God would never, under any circumstances approve of lying. Why?
> 
> There are absolutely no exceptions to God's law when considered in its entirety, but God's law can only be understood in its entirety from reading the whole bible, not just the decalogue.
> 
> As I said, there are exceptions for works of mercy/necessity on the sabbath, but you would never guess that just from reading the 10 commandments. You also need to read the whole bible to identify that counts as "murder" for that commandment.
> 
> Why is it so impossible to believe there would likewise be exceptions for lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Added 3/26/2009 at 09:16:42 EST-----
> 
> It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.
> 
> As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.
> 
> As for the Nazi's at the door, remember that extreme circumstances make poor policy. I remember reading "The Hiding Place" a number of years ago. It seems, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the TenBoom family had devised very interesting ways not to lie, and yet protect their "guests" in the secret place behind the wall. One of the children would lead the Nazi's on a search of the house repeating, "Are the Jews here?" looking under the bed, in the closet, etc. all the while leading them away from the "hiding place", and avoiding directly stating an untruth. I do believe that such is an acceptable deception, but is different from the Larger Catechism, which rightly condemns speaking untruth. I do not believe we may do that.
> 
> But, in the final analysis, death is not the worst thing that can happen to us, or to others, and willfully sinning against the Almighty God is is a fearful thing. As one said above, the body language will give you away if you lie anyway. You may refuse to answer the question, you may do all sorts of things that put yourself at risk--but to tell a lie, that is, to speak an untruth, is never commended in Scripture.
Click to expand...

So if I understand your position correctly, indirect deception (like what the Ten Booms did or even the Allies' fake invasion force) is acceptable but direct deception (lying) is not? Is it that misleading someone by showing a half-truth (no Jews in this part of the house) or encouraging them to believe something inaccurate is different than directly lying? 

What about an espionage agent having a cover and false papers? Or does the state have authority individuals do not?

Also, is there any significance to the commandment being to not give false witness _against _your neighbor? (emphasis added) 

And yes, Rev. Ruddell, I do agree with you that hard cases make bad policy.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Yes, Scott, I believe, as I have stated in this thread before, that a feint move undertaken by an army is an acceptable deception (we have Scripture for that, as in Joshua at Ai). I also believe certain forms of espionage are acceptable if undertaken by the state for the purpose of national security. However, I also caution that even in these cases it is all too easy for us to deceive ourselves into thinking our "lying" is justified. 

Much of what passes for acceptable espionage is done "because they're doing it" (speaking of the enemy). This makes for poor policy, and is a poor reason for imitating the opponent. 

What would a faithful government do in such circumstances? If all the governors and intelligence officers were committed to Biblical morality rather than the status quo, what creative solutions to these moral difficulties would they envision? I believe we settle for the status quo all too easily rather than press ourselves into what the perfections of holiness would require, and to strive for that. 

I must admit that I am discouraged at the readiness of many in Christian circles today to call lying acceptable, and then to go to an extreme case to prove the point, especially when we live in a society that patently given to lying, and that arrogantly so. I believe we have been negatively affected by our culture, rather than what we're called to do, which is to claim ground for Christ.


----------



## KMK

As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!


---------------

But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?



> Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
> Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
> Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
> Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
> Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
> Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
> Prince Charming: Stop it!
> Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.


----------



## satz

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.



Perhaps my use of the word "exception" was inappropriate.. however, I do not think that really affects the argument. Whether works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the sabbath command or simply part of keeping the true spirit of the command seem to be matters of phrasing. 

I could also say (and I don't think I would be wrong) that the true spirit of the ninth commandment allows lying to save life. The commandment is phrased:"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Ex 20:16)

How is lying to save an innocent life bearing false witness _against_ my neighbour?




> As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.



Ex 20:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, *but saved the men children alive. *

The passage explicitly says the _midwives_ saved the children. So it cannot be that the hebrew women were naturally too fast for them. Even if the midwives were deliberately late, why did they bring up the issue of the hebrew women being lively? Anyway we look at it there is a deception.

Also, by saying the midwives obeyed God rather than men, you are essentially saying they broke the strict reading of the fifth commandment. So why is it so impossible to envisage that God would allow people in extreme circumstances to "break" the ninth commandment?



> As for the Nazi's at the door, remember that extreme circumstances make poor policy. I remember reading "The Hiding Place" a number of years ago. It seems, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the TenBoom family had devised very interesting ways not to lie, and yet protect their "guests" in the secret place behind the wall. One of the children would lead the Nazi's on a search of the house repeating, "Are the Jews here?" looking under the bed, in the closet, etc. all the while leading them away from the "hiding place", and avoiding directly stating an untruth. I do believe that such is an acceptable deception, but is different from the Larger Catechism, which rightly condemns speaking untruth. I do not believe we may do that.



I don't think this is a distinction we can make from the bible. You have said that you consider Joshua's deception at Ai and use of spies acceptable. If there was absolutely no circumstance under which lying was acceptable, the "indirect" deception of Joshua would be caught by the ninth commandment under the same expansive principle set out in the sermon on the mount whereby anger without a cause is classifed as a form of murder. 



> I must admit that I am discouraged at the readiness of many in Christian circles today to call lying acceptable, and then to go to an extreme case to prove the point, especially when we live in a society that patently given to lying, and that arrogantly so. I believe we have been negatively affected by our culture, rather than what we're called to do, which is to claim ground for Christ.



As I've said, the reason extreme cases are cited is not because I want to use hard cases to define the general law. It is because the bible uses the hard cases.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----



SolaScriptura said:


> Exactly. The vast majority of lying - almost 100% of it - is to try to save face, get out of paying for the consequences of ones (sinful) actions, get ahead of others, put others down, etc.
> 
> So I can say, despite what I said above in post #30, without any sense of dodginess, "LYING IS WRONG." Becuase that general statement addresses virtually every reason why people lie in real life... including myself.



Just to avoid giving the wrong impression (unless I already have) I wanted to say again I agree completely with what Ben has said here.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

satz said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps my use of the word "exception" was inappropriate.. however, I do not think that really affects the argument. Whether works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the sabbath command or simply part of keeping the true spirit of the command seem to be matters of phrasing.
> 
> I could also say (and I don't think I would be wrong) that the true spirit of the ninth commandment allows lying to save life. The commandment is phrased:"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Ex 20:16)
> 
> How is lying to save an innocent life bearing false witness _against_ my neighbour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ex 20:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, *but saved the men children alive. *
> 
> The passage explicitly says the _midwives_ saved the children. So it cannot be that the hebrew women were naturally too fast for them. Even if the midwives were deliberately late, why did they bring up the issue of the hebrew women being lively? Anyway we look at it there is a deception.
> 
> Also, by saying the midwives obeyed God rather than men, you are essentially saying they broke the strict reading of the fifth commandment. So why is it so impossible to envisage that God would allow people in extreme circumstances to "break" the ninth commandment?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is a distinction we can make from the bible. You have said that you consider Joshua's deception at Ai and use of spies acceptable. If there was absolutely no circumstance under which lying was acceptable, the "indirect" deception of Joshua would be caught by the ninth commandment under the same expansive principle set out in the sermon on the mount whereby anger without a cause is classifed as a form of murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that I am discouraged at the readiness of many in Christian circles today to call lying acceptable, and then to go to an extreme case to prove the point, especially when we live in a society that patently given to lying, and that arrogantly so. I believe we have been negatively affected by our culture, rather than what we're called to do, which is to claim ground for Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said, the reason extreme cases are cited is not because I want to use hard cases to define the general law. It is because the bible uses the hard cases.
> 
> -----Added 3/27/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The vast majority of lying - almost 100% of it - is to try to save face, get out of paying for the consequences of ones (sinful) actions, get ahead of others, put others down, etc.
> 
> So I can say, despite what I said above in post #30, without any sense of dodginess, "LYING IS WRONG." Becuase that general statement addresses virtually every reason why people lie in real life... including myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to avoid giving the wrong impression (unless I already have) I wanted to say again I agree completely with what Ben has said here.
Click to expand...


Dear Mark, 

Thank you again for the exchange. I have made a distinction, as I believe the Scripture does against "speaking an untruth" as the Larger Catechism defines it, and a feint maneuver, which is quite different from this. 

Further, when you offer your interpretation of the action of the Hebrew midwives, remember that to "save the men children alive" requires nothing more than a passive allowing them to live, as I have said before. Theirs is not a lie. And, how do you know that they lied? Why would you assume that they're lying rather than telling the truth. If they feared God, they would be more likely to be "truth tellers" rather than "liars". As for the 5th Commandment, we must obey God rather than men, and not obey unlawful commands even of superiors, for no one has the authority to command us to sin. As protecting Jews from the Nazi's at the door, no one has the authority to command us to give them up to die, but also no one has the authority to excuse us from telling a lie. 

As for your assertion that it is alright to lie in order to save life, I would simply say that the Apostle forbids such a procedure. (Romans 3.8) We are forbidden from doing evil that good may come. You will undoubtedly say, how do you know it is evil? Because God forbids it. Show us one example from Scripture where lying is commended. We have seen the Hebrew midwives, and Rahab, and it has been shown on both accounts that their commendation has nothing to do with lying. If this is a Scriptural and Godly principle, why then is the Scripture silent on such behavior? 

I do believe that we are not required to tell the whole truth in every instance, that there is a certain amount of deception that may be acceptable in State-craft and warfare. But I believe that each case must be undertaken carefully. Again, what would a Godly government do? How would they order their activities if they truly cared about the 9th commandment? 

Finally, I believe your comparison of the Sermon on the Mount to Joshua's actions at Ai to be a non-sequiter. I don't believe Joshua's actions were exceptions to the ninth Commandment, but lawful strategies for making war.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 02:47:26 EST-----



KMK said:


> As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!
> 
> 
> ---------------
> 
> But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
> Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
> Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
> Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
> Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
> Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
> Prince Charming: Stop it!
> Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.
Click to expand...


Dear Ken, 

I did not see Shrek the Third, but what a funny exchange! I believe the most direct answer would be to tell "Charming" "I'm not going to say". No need for all the "hemming and hawing". 

Thanks for your kind words about challenging you--I find the same in your posts dear friend. I don't often jump in to these kinds of threads, because I don't have the time. But this is very important. We live in a nation of liars, and serve a Lord who said to us that the Truth will make us free. I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to give up the Jews in the hiding place. But I do think it forbids us from saying "There are no Jews here". I know, for myself, I would falter on those words if they were a lie, and in my faltering, would give them up. Do we really want to be able to tell a lie without "batting an eye"? There are a few TV shows based on people lying. There's a new show, "Lie to Me". I have not seen it--the title turns me off. I'm not saying one should not watch it--it just doesn't interest me. But the premise is that everyone lies, and that very often. The Jim Carey movie a while back called "Liar Liar" sparked a national debate on how it was necessary to lie in order to get by in the world. I disagree, and believe our culture would be well served by a healthy dose of the truth at every level. I'm not talking about "speaking the truth unseasonably" which the LC sees as one of the things forbidden in the ninth Commandment, but what if we were all committed to telling the truth! I believe we would be the better for it, and to see reformed Christians justifying lying--the speaking of untruths--is very disconcerting to me. I believe we are impoverished as a people because we cannot tell the truth, and have difficulty discerning the truth from lying as a result.

We have had, in recent memory, a president that lied under oath to protect himself, and office of the presidency. Is that acceptable? It is not. The best thing for Mr. Clinton would have been to tell the truth, confess his sin, and turn from it to Christ. Now, what an example would it have been, even if it cost him the presidency, publicly to confess his sin, ask God for mercy, and proclaim that Christ died to save sinners! The truth does indeed "release the captives"! How much more would God have been glorified in such an action rather than protecting the office of the presidency, which will someday pass away!


----------



## snap_dragon

*...then*

I am very thankful that I wasn't the Jew hidden by those remaining silent.


----------



## KMK

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps my use of the word "exception" was inappropriate.. however, I do not think that really affects the argument. Whether works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the sabbath command or simply part of keeping the true spirit of the command seem to be matters of phrasing.
> 
> I could also say (and I don't think I would be wrong) that the true spirit of the ninth commandment allows lying to save life. The commandment is phrased:"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Ex 20:16)
> 
> How is lying to save an innocent life bearing false witness _against_ my neighbour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex 20:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, *but saved the men children alive. *
> 
> The passage explicitly says the _midwives_ saved the children. So it cannot be that the hebrew women were naturally too fast for them. Even if the midwives were deliberately late, why did they bring up the issue of the hebrew women being lively? Anyway we look at it there is a deception.
> 
> Also, by saying the midwives obeyed God rather than men, you are essentially saying they broke the strict reading of the fifth commandment. So why is it so impossible to envisage that God would allow people in extreme circumstances to "break" the ninth commandment?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is a distinction we can make from the bible. You have said that you consider Joshua's deception at Ai and use of spies acceptable. If there was absolutely no circumstance under which lying was acceptable, the "indirect" deception of Joshua would be caught by the ninth commandment under the same expansive principle set out in the sermon on the mount whereby anger without a cause is classifed as a form of murder.
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said, the reason extreme cases are cited is not because I want to use hard cases to define the general law. It is because the bible uses the hard cases.
> 
> -----Added 3/27/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Just to avoid giving the wrong impression (unless I already have) I wanted to say again I agree completely with what Ben has said here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Mark,
> 
> Thank you again for the exchange. I have made a distinction, as I believe the Scripture does against "speaking an untruth" as the Larger Catechism defines it, and a feint maneuver, which is quite different from this.
> 
> Further, when you offer your interpretation of the action of the Hebrew midwives, remember that to "save the men children alive" requires nothing more than a passive allowing them to live, as I have said before. Theirs is not a lie. And, how do you know that they lied? Why would you assume that they're lying rather than telling the truth. If they feared God, they would be more likely to be "truth tellers" rather than "liars". As for the 5th Commandment, we must obey God rather than men, and not obey unlawful commands even of superiors, for no one has the authority to command us to sin. As protecting Jews from the Nazi's at the door, no one has the authority to command us to give them up to die, but also no one has the authority to excuse us from telling a lie.
> 
> As for your assertion that it is alright to lie in order to save life, I would simply say that the Apostle forbids such a procedure. (Romans 3.8) We are forbidden from doing evil that good may come. You will undoubtedly say, how do you know it is evil? Because God forbids it. Show us one example from Scripture where lying is commended. We have seen the Hebrew midwives, and Rahab, and it has been shown on both accounts that their commendation has nothing to do with lying. If this is a Scriptural and Godly principle, why then is the Scripture silent on such behavior?
> 
> I do believe that we are not required to tell the whole truth in every instance, that there is a certain amount of deception that may be acceptable in State-craft and warfare. But I believe that each case must be undertaken carefully. Again, what would a Godly government do? How would they order their activities if they truly cared about the 9th commandment?
> 
> Finally, I believe your comparison of the Sermon on the Mount to Joshua's actions at Ai to be a non-sequiter. I don't believe Joshua's actions were exceptions to the ninth Commandment, but lawful strategies for making war.
> 
> -----Added 3/27/2009 at 02:47:26 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!
> 
> 
> ---------------
> 
> But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
> Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
> Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
> Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
> Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
> Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
> Prince Charming: Stop it!
> Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Ken,
> 
> I did not see Shrek the Third, but what a funny exchange! I believe the most direct answer would be to tell "Charming" "I'm not going to say". No need for all the "hemming and hawing".
> 
> Thanks for your kind words about challenging you--I find the same in your posts dear friend. I don't often jump in to these kinds of threads, because I don't have the time. But this is very important. We live in a nation of liars, and serve a Lord who said to us that the Truth will make us free. I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to give up the Jews in the hiding place. But I do think it forbids us from saying "There are no Jews here". I know, for myself, I would falter on those words if they were a lie, and in my faltering, would give them up. Do we really want to be able to tell a lie without "batting an eye"? There are a few TV shows based on people lying. There's a new show, "Lie to Me". I have not seen it--the title turns me off. I'm not saying one should not watch it--it just doesn't interest me. But the premise is that everyone lies, and that very often. The Jim Carey movie a while back called "Liar Liar" sparked a national debate on how it was necessary to lie in order to get by in the world. I disagree, and believe our culture would be well served by a healthy dose of the truth at every level. I'm not talking about "speaking the truth unseasonably" which the LC sees as one of the things forbidden in the ninth Commandment, but what if we were all committed to telling the truth! I believe we would be the better for it, and to see reformed Christians justifying lying--the speaking of untruths--is very disconcerting to me. I believe we are impoverished as a people because we cannot tell the truth, and have difficulty discerning the truth from lying as a result.
> 
> We have had, in recent memory, a president that lied under oath to protect himself, and office of the presidency. Is that acceptable? It is not. The best thing for Mr. Clinton would have been to tell the truth, confess his sin, and turn from it to Christ. Now, what an example would it have been, even if it cost him the presidency, publicly to confess his sin, ask God for mercy, and proclaim that Christ died to save sinners! The truth does indeed "release the captives"! How much more would God have been glorified in such an action rather than protecting the office of the presidency, which will someday pass away!
Click to expand...


I must confess that, because I dislike confrontation, lying is one of my 'besetting' sins. I have found two things helpful in pounding my flesh into submission in this area:

1) Consider all of my actions as to whether, if discovered, I would feel the need to lie about.

2) Striving to be 'swift to hear, and slow to speak'. (Obviously, the less talking you do, the less you are likely to lie)

I have a long way to go but hope that the Lord will work in me the same conviction He has in you, brother.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Ken, 

Your candor is very winsome. Would that we all had that desire! This brings up another point about how we hear. We ought to have the kinds of relationships with one another that encourage truth telling, which would include being patient, kind, and desiring to believe the best of one another. Knowing that we are committed to one another no matter what, (of course always under Christ and His commands) "promotes the truth between man and man". As a pastor, and I'm sure you've experienced this as well, we often are the last to hear the truth, because folks desire the Pastor to have a complimentary view of themselves, and it is often believed that to hide their misdeeds will support this view. For that reason, I apply my best efforts encourage my congregation to speaking freely with me when they are having trouble. In counseling a couple this last week I told them, "whatever bad things you see in me, I know many more about myself. Don't hesitate to call me if I can help". This kind of honest humility, especially from the Minister, promotes truth-telling.


----------



## snap_dragon

Originally Posted by snap_dragon View Post


> I am very thankful that I wasn't the Jew hidden by those remaining silent.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're very thankful you're not a Jew, period.
Click to expand...


...or a Christian from the Romans if that scenario works better for you.


----------



## Confessor

Joshua said:


> snap_dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by snap_dragon View Post
> 
> 
> 
> And we're very thankful you're not a Jew, period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...or a Christian from the Romans if that scenario works better for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point, friend, is that you're not responding with anything of substance. Instead of responding with biblical and confessional points to those of us who have asserted that lying is a violation of God's Law every time, you have appealed to sentimentality and emotions to try to make your point. But that won't work.
> 
> You cannot prove that lying will actually save Christians from the Romans, Jews from the Nazis, or people from the Secret Service.
> 
> As Christians, the Lord demands that we obey His Law, and leave the consequences to Him. This doesn't mean we will always do so. In fact, I'm convinced that we all daily break God's Law.
> 
> Nonetheless, the Lord has never said it's okay to break His Law. EVER.
> 
> I am grieved at the idea that some of you think that the Thrice Holy God of Scripture is okay with sin, or that He has ever called evil good. Nothing in the text of Scripture says, implies, or compels us to think such a thing. Instead, the Lord is perfect, and has commanded us also to strive for said perfection.
Click to expand...


I'm going to repeat my point again:

Lying, by definition, is withholding information from or deceiving people who deserve to have the information you are withholding/distorting.

Therefore I am not saying that God approves of sin. Rather, what I'm saying is that silence or half-truths are not third options (see my marijuana example above), and it would be absurd to say that deception at all times is wrong. As one obvious example, is it wrong in wartime to have decoys in an attempt to confuse the enemy? If not, then it is permissible in some situations to deceive people, and I'm telling you right now that the criterion is whether or not people deserve to receive the information.

This is not using extreme examples forming policies; it is accounting for all the evidence and constructing an appropriate framework given that evidence.


----------



## snap_dragon

*I appreciate your clarification, Confessor*

I think Greg Koukl puts it rather clearly here.

( and extremely off topic...I request prayers for a young couple we are having over tonight. The husband left the wife 3 months after marriage and talks about divorce...leaving her alone and coming to church by herself. They are both coming over and I am praying that God grants me the right words and actions. I really feel quite badly for her...apologies for this tangent.)

Everyone, have a great weekend...


----------



## Claudiu

snap_dragon said:


> I think Greg Koukl puts it rather clearly here.
> 
> ( and extremely off topic...I request prayers for a young couple we are having over tonight. The husband left the wife 3 months after marriage and talks about divorce...leaving her alone and coming to church by herself. They are both coming over and I am praying that God grants me the right words and actions. I really feel quite badly for her...apologies for this tangent.)
> 
> Everyone, have a great weekend...




Thank you for the link


----------



## Skyler

Confessor said:


> I'm going to repeat my point again:
> 
> Lying, by definition, is withholding information from or deceiving people who deserve to have the information you are withholding/distorting.



I'm not sure where that definition comes from. The definition I'm familiar with is "presenting false or misleading information with the intent to deceive." Where did you get this definition? And how do you determine whether or not one deserves the information?


----------



## KMK

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear Ken,
> 
> Your candor is very winsome. Would that we all had that desire! This brings up another point about how we hear. We ought to have the kinds of relationships with one another that encourage truth telling, which would include being patient, kind, and desiring to believe the best of one another. Knowing that we are committed to one another no matter what, (of course always under Christ and His commands) "promotes the truth between man and man". As a pastor, and I'm sure you've experienced this as well, we often are the last to hear the truth, because folks desire the Pastor to have a complimentary view of themselves, and it is often believed that to hide their misdeeds will support this view. For that reason, I apply my best efforts encourage my congregation to speaking freely with me when they are having trouble. In counseling a couple this last week I told them, "whatever bad things you see in me, I know many more about myself. Don't hesitate to call me if I can help". This kind of honest humility, especially from the Minister, promotes truth-telling.



Very good advice. Thank you.

Sorry, Joshua, I didn't notice that you closed the thread.


----------



## py3ak

Does he address the extended narrative of Hushai vs. Ahithophel?


----------



## py3ak

In some ways, I think that is the killer passage, though. Rahab and the Hebrew midwives are lightweights compared to that one. So if that one isn't addressed thoroughly, I'm not really convinced.


----------



## py3ak

Yeah, but I don't have John Murray already, and I'm not going to spend money on him.

I understand there is a difference between narrative and prescription, between situation and principle. But narrative does factor in to the total Biblical picture on a topic. As one simple example, "Swear not at all" - and yet there is a chapter in the Confession addressing "lawful oaths and vows": part of the reason why the seemingly absolute statement "Swear not at all" is _not_, in fact, taken absolutely, are the oaths and vows that appear in narrative portions of Scripture.

Here's a quick rundown:
1. David hears that Ahithophel has gone over to Absalom and prays that God will confound his counsel.
2. Hushai approaches David offering his services.
3. David sends Hushai to Absalom with instructions to pretend to be loyal to him, in order to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel.
4. Hushai gives very plausible but nonetheless bad counsel in opposition to Ahithophel.
5. In spite of Ahithophel's reputation for counsel of high quality, people listen to Hushai's bad and deceptive counsel, because the Lord had appointed him to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel.
6. Hushai fulfills his role as fifth columnist by giving David a heads-up about what happened by sending two messengers.
7. Hushai's messengers are spotted and pursued, but they are hidden through a sprinkling of straw and some convincing lies.


----------



## LawrenceU

Thanks, Josh. I've always been intrigued by that narrative. It smacks of a great military manoeuvre.


----------



## py3ak

It doesn't have to give an impression that God approved of the lying. All it has to do is set out that David himself didn't think that in this case lying was wrong: that is sufficient to establish that _godly men may differ_.


----------



## Claudiu

Joshua said:


> Reopened for further discussion on Ahiphothel and Hushai.



Yay!


----------



## Hippo

"And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you"
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. 

I have always found these to be difficuly verses, and of course it is not God lying but the lying spirit is not condemed.


----------



## Confessor

Hippo said:


> "And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you"
> The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.
> 
> I have always found these to be difficuly verses, and of course it is not God lying but the lying spirit is not condemed.



I think that is just a case of God's decreeing a lie to occur. It doesn't speak of its permissibility (i.e., as a precept) at all.


----------



## satz

Joshua said:


> I understand, but I'm still trying to see where God commanded/commended lying. For us to be able to justify the telling of an untruth, In my humble opinion, we need something more than a narrative that *might*, according to our finite understanding of things, give an impression of such.



Josh,

I am not sure if you intended the re-opened discussion to be strictly restricted to Ahiphothel and Hushai... I apologise if this is the case (although, since discussion on the Ahab passage is tolerated, I assume there is some leeway).

With regard to your comment on narrative, no one has dealt with the fact that in dealing with the sabbath, Jesus explicitly used narrative to explain the perscriptive sabbath law. 

As I have also said, people are approaching this subject from the assumption that God could never justify lying. The bible says God is truth and God cannot lie, but there are plenty of examples of God deceiving his enemies.

Hippo has mentioned the passage on Ahab's prophets. The spirit told God he was going to lie, and God did not rebuke him. In fact, God said, go ahead with your plan. There is no passive assent. 

In 1 Sam 16 God tells Samuel to offer a sacrifice for the express purpose of deceiving Saul as to his real intention. And more examples could be raised. 

How about Jehu who lied to win the confidence of the baal worshippers (1 Kings 10:18). And God explicitly says "thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes" (v30)

There is no warrant to start with the assumption that God would never, ever approve of lying. 

Also, as I have said in the thread it is also inconsistent to say indirect "deception" in military actions is acceptable, but direct lying is always condemned. As an example, how is that any different from the pharisees saying that indirect adultery through fantasy is acceptable but only direct physical adultery is condemned?


----------



## py3ak

Well, the expressed fact is that God did ordain Hushai to be the means of defeating Ahithophel; he comes in answer to David's prayer and David instructs him to lie to Absalom. This wasn't because David wasn't aware of God's requirements - "Lo, thou desirest truth in the inward parts." But the concatenation of prayer-answer to prayer-instruction-lying made efficacious by God makes it difficult to believe that either David or Hushai thought they were doing anything wrong.
So at the very lowest level, it is certainly possible for two men of God to think that in some situations lying is permissible.


----------



## KMK

Joshua said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you"
> The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.
> 
> I have always found these to be difficuly verses, and of course it is not God lying but the lying spirit is not condemed.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jim Ellis (Gomarus), my pastor (Rev. Todd Ruddell), and I discussed this very passage while eating tonight. If Pastor Ruddell is able to look at the thread, maybe he'll elucidate it once again, but he may be too pressed for time.
Click to expand...


You get to hang out with Mr. Ellis and Rev Ruddell? I live in the wrong state!

Seriously, this has been a great thread and I am praying for renewed conviction in the 9th in my family, my church, and my country.


----------



## bob

The Scriptures clearly teach that "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" and that we should not bear witness. Christ tells us in the gospel of John that Satan is a liar and the father of it. I think that everyone that is writing here, even those that are open to some forms of deception, would readily agree. I think those that are more wooden in their application against deception and lying should be cautious to not judge those who wrestle with this concept more harshly than necessary. The Scriptures are filled with examples of deception and lying. As a Christian, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Does the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness" forbid all forms of deception?

As the believer considers this ethically, we find that deception bears in many aspects of our lives. Can we engage in telling tall tales? Exagerate? Hyperbole? Is deception fair in playing games and sports? Should a quarterback pumpfake? Fake the handoff to the running back? Can you bluff when playing poker? Is all fair in war? During many wars, false intelligence is given to the opposition, whether through phony radio broadcasts, mustering a display of troops opposite a landing site, feints etc.

This thread has published a few illustrations (or at least seeming so), but in fact, the Bible is filled with these accounts. Of course, these accounts do not necessarily grant that the actions were proper, but we must at least consider what the text says about those actions. PErhaps we will find that although we are commanded Not to kill, we find that, for example, if a thief comes into the house at night and you kill him , you are not guilty of bloodshed. Perhaps there are some qualifications that help define what is meant by lying or not bearing false witness.

Here are few other examples:

Abram twice tries to hide the fact that he is married to Sarai. Isaac does the same. They are chastised by the pagans, although curiously, God never appears to address their conduct. In Abram's case, God strikes the pagans with plagues and barreness and in all three instances, the patriarchs leave with God blessing them.

Rahab has been mentioned. Her works are praised in the book of James and her faith in Hebrews. True, her lying is not specifically mentioned, but consider her acts as a whole - wouldn't we hang folks like her? It's not very patriotic to harbor spies, betray your country men, commit treason, and lie and mislead the authorities. She does all this in faith and she is commended for it. As I once heard D. A. Carson remark: "Put that in your theological peace pipe and smoke it!" 

The midwives has been mentioned. I find it curious indeed to insist that they did not lie, or at least did not tell all the truth. While perhaps at times they did not arrive in time, certainly they did at other times, for the SCriptures state that they didn't do what the king commanded them and they kept the sons alive.

A few instances of deception occur in the life of David:

Michal make a pretend David in his bed and tells the guards he is sick and buys a few more minutes to allow him to escape.

Jonathan and David hatch out a scheme when David hides and Jonathan tells his dad he went home for awhile.

There are numerous accounts in battle such as when Jael invites Sisera into her tent and gives him milk and a bed, only to drive a stake through his head when he falls asleep.

Of course, we know that God uses deception as a means to accomplish his purposes. Job remarks that both the deceived and the deceiver are His. There is that curious passage in which God puts a lying spirit in the prophets. I really am not sure that I quite understand everything that is transpiring there. Angel? Demon? Jeremiah remarks that God deceived him and the people. God tells Jeremiah that He will deceive the prophets and the people, as He does in Ezekiel.

There are hosts of other incidents that could be mentioned. Some are clearly wrong. Joab kills a couple men by feigning friendship. Judas betrays Christ with a kiss. Others are mentioned without commentary. Others are mentioned in which the context seem to indicate that they are praised overall in their actions.

The Scriptures repeatedly remark that God cannot lie and that we are to be holy as He is Holy. We know that lying lips are an abomination. I think it is good to pray as did Agur in the book of Proverbs: "Remove falsehood and lies far from me" and to pray as did Christ "Keep me from temptation." 

That said, is every form of deception forbidden by the Scriptures? There are a lot of incidents to consider.


----------



## Rangerus

Here is a little different view point which came to mind while reading through this thread. Starting with Matthew 22:39 KJV


> And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


 Using this as a primary guide, and knowing God judges the heart, it seems it is interpreted best by understanding we should never lie *to* our neighbour, *nor against* our neighbour. I think the intended meaning of "thou shalt not lie" as meaning to bring malicious harm or misguidance to our neighbour (whom we should love) by willingly deceiving or misleading.

That being said, I would never say anything to satan, his demons, or his representatives that would enable satan to harm or endanger my neighbour.

I'm sure this is fraught with unsound doctrine, but it is just a thought.


----------



## bob

As I think a little more about this subject, considering God's character and the fact that we are to imitate Him, perhaps something to ponder is whether or not it is consistent with God's character to deceive people. If we were to ascertain that God can deceive without violating His holiness and His nature, we are forced to conclude that deception need not be equated with lying.

I've not really considered this question, so perhaps some could share their thoughts. We know that God can use anything as a means through which He accomplished His purposes. Perhaps some of the questions fall into the difficult doctrine of causation.

A few passages to consider:

1Kings 22 - "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2The 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

Isa 29:10-14 "For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered."

Eze 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Isa 66:4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them


----------



## Claudiu

The issue that I can sometimes see with this lying and deception issue is there are two ways of looking at it:

1] black/white...and no gray-zone situations, so that there is no room for lying
or
2] black/white...and there are gray-zone situations, so there is room for lying because in certain situations, although lying is not good, the issue at hand may be seen as a bigger problem, like saving someone's life.


----------



## KMK

py3ak said:


> Well, the expressed fact is that God did ordain Hushai to be the means of defeating Ahithophel; he comes in answer to David's prayer and David instructs him to lie to Absalom. This wasn't because David wasn't aware of God's requirements - "Lo, thou desirest truth in the inward parts." But the concatenation of prayer-answer to prayer-instruction-lying made efficacious by God makes it difficult to believe that either David or Hushai thought they were doing anything wrong.
> So at the very lowest level, it is certainly possible for two men of God to think that in some situations lying is permissible.



This seems logical, but, couldn't the same argument be used to show that it is possible for men of God to think, in some situations, polygamy is permissible?


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

I have enjoyed reading this thread very much and hope that the discussion will continue. It has certainly caused me to think.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

I am inclined to believe, like Kant, that if the act of lying is immoral, it is immoral always and in every case. Important to note here is that the immorality of lying (or any act) is not merely _consequential_, but also 'spiritual' -- by lying, even if it has no negative effect on other people or external events (even if it has positive effects in this regard), I am nonetheless causing harm to my soul. 

A standard scenario _contra_ moral absolutism goes something like, "Say a crazed gunman comes up to you out-of-the-blue and tells you to kill this one baby or else he will kill these thirty babies. Clearly, what any person _should_ do here is save the thirty babies by killing the one baby." This kind of thinking shows how truly depraved utilitarian/consequentialist ethics is.

First of all, what assurance have I that the gunman _would_ actually carry out his twisted threat? He may be playing a game. Second, what I should do before anything else is attempt to talk him out of it, which may prove successful. Barring that, I may try to disarm him, which also may prove successful. But, more importantly, if the gunman does commit this atrocity any immorality that takes place is on _him_ and not me. I am not the author of this scenario, and he cannot force me to take any 'ethical' part in an immoral situation _he_ created. As a person committed to morality all that need concern me is acting morally, and by no stretch can murdering a baby, in and of itself, be considered a good thing. And even if the consequential 'good' of my evil act would 'outweigh' the evil of the alternate (which is on him, not me), I would still be acting immorally insofar as I would be doing damage to my soul by committing an evil. Which, _qua_ moral person, I cannot allow for myself.

Whoever denies this is not really serious about acting morally, but rather, by his acts, having 'pleasure' outweigh 'pain'. The latter stance is one of moral anti-realism: 'morality' is just something people have constructed and it is very useful, but we can discard it when the going gets rough because it isn't _really_ real. Moral realism, by contrast, takes morality seriously and recognizes its superiority over hedonism.


----------



## he beholds

I would lie to save someone's life. 
I don't know if that makes me a premeditated sinner, but I am 100% certain that if I were brave enough in the moment to do so, I would lie.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

he beholds said:


> I would lie to save someone's life.
> I don't know if that makes me a premeditated sinner, but I am 100% certain that if I were brave enough in the moment to do so, I would lie.



If you would lie to save someone's life, at what sin would you _stop_ before having to say, "Sorry, but I can't do _that_ to save your life"? Perhaps, I suspect, something like rape or murder... but there's a whole lotta sin between lying and rape/murder.

I'm not sure that God is in the business of giving His blessing to our committing a wide range of sins just so that some guy can add a few more years to his temporal life.


----------



## a mere housewife

The thread is terribly long -- has anyone yet mentioned that the command is actually 'not to bear false witness against a neighbor' as the other command is not, never to kill (or there could be no just death sentence and no just war), but to 'do no murder'?

Isn't 'hiding' at all a lie? An attempt to deceive with appearances? Are we to relegate the sin against the command merely to words? If the spies hiding themselves is legitimate, then surely Rahab saying that they aren't there is just another facet of the whole attempt to deceive with appearances. Yet no one seems to be upset at the spies for manipulating appearances into a deception of their true whereabouts.

I too, if I were brave enough (and I pray I would be), would hide Jews (or spies from Canaan) and say they weren't there if came to that. I would not believe that I was bearing false witness against a neighbor in doing so.


----------



## Confessor

I want to let it be known that I and (I assume) the others who advocate speaking an untruth to save lives--e.g. the Nazis-at-your-door scenario--are _not_ advocating an ends-justify-the-means situation. That is _not_ what is occurring. What is important is to understand that lying is not some blanket statement of "deceive no one anytime."

Adding qualifiers to commandments to better understand them is not utilitarian, situationalist, or consequentialist. For instance, if my parents commanded me to murder someone, I would be upholding both the fifth and sixth commandments by _not_ following the command. Obeying parents does not mean that we should do what they say no matter what, and when we break their commands to uphold God's law, the fifth commandment is being upheld. Notice here that the obedience required in the fifth commandment goes against a _prima facie_ concept of obedience; it involves a qualification and not an unqualified "do whatever your parents say" command. On the surface the fifth commandment appears to say that we should do whatever our parents say, but that is not the case.

Take also for example the sixth commandment. It doesn't mean that we should not take life at any instance. And, in fact, there are very peculiar lines that need to be drawn (e.g. When exactly am I acting in self-defense?; When is mortal harm the minimum defense necessary?; etc.). The sixth commandment is not a blanket statement of not killing people; tons of qualifications have to be made.

So also, with the ninth commandment, there is an important qualification to be made. And that is _whether or not the potential recipient of the information *deserves* the information_. Otherwise a pump fake in basketball would be immoral, and we would be obliged to tell the Nazis of all the innocent Jews in our house so that they may be murdered. On the surface this may appear not to be a definition of lying, but it accounts for all the information better than a broader definition of never speaking untruths ever. And, in fact, I would advocate that this definition is the "usual" or experiential definition of lying when everything is properly understood (just as the concept of obedience in the fifth commandment is); neither go against experience by any means.


----------



## jlynn

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!
> 
> 
> ---------------
> 
> But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
> Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
> Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
> Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
> Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
> Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
> Prince Charming: Stop it!
> Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Ken,
> 
> I did not see Shrek the Third, but what a funny exchange! I believe the most direct answer would be to tell "Charming" "I'm not going to say". No need for all the "hemming and hawing".
> 
> Thanks for your kind words about challenging you--I find the same in your posts dear friend. I don't often jump in to these kinds of threads, because I don't have the time. But this is very important. We live in a nation of liars, and serve a Lord who said to us that the Truth will make us free. I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to give up the Jews in the hiding place. But I do think it forbids us from saying "There are no Jews here". I know, for myself, I would falter on those words if they were a lie, and in my faltering, would give them up. Do we really want to be able to tell a lie without "batting an eye"? There are a few TV shows based on people lying. There's a new show, "Lie to Me". I have not seen it--the title turns me off. I'm not saying one should not watch it--it just doesn't interest me. But the premise is that everyone lies, and that very often. The Jim Carey movie a while back called "Liar Liar" sparked a national debate on how it was necessary to lie in order to get by in the world. I disagree, and believe our culture would be well served by a healthy dose of the truth at every level. I'm not talking about "speaking the truth unseasonably" which the LC sees as one of the things forbidden in the ninth Commandment, but what if we were all committed to telling the truth! I believe we would be the better for it, and to see reformed Christians justifying lying--the speaking of untruths--is very disconcerting to me. I believe we are impoverished as a people because we cannot tell the truth, and have difficulty discerning the truth from lying as a result.
> 
> We have had, in recent memory, a president that lied under oath to protect himself, and office of the presidency. Is that acceptable? It is not. The best thing for Mr. Clinton would have been to tell the truth, confess his sin, and turn from it to Christ. Now, what an example would it have been, even if it cost him the presidency, publicly to confess his sin, ask God for mercy, and proclaim that Christ died to save sinners! The truth does indeed "release the captives"! How much more would God have been glorified in such an action rather than protecting the office of the presidency, which will someday pass away!
Click to expand...

 I completely agree!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

py3ak said:


> Well, the expressed fact is that God did ordain Hushai to be the means of defeating Ahithophel; he comes in answer to David's prayer and David instructs him to lie to Absalom. This wasn't because David wasn't aware of God's requirements - "Lo, thou desirest truth in the inward parts." But the concatenation of prayer-answer to prayer-instruction-lying made efficacious by God makes it difficult to believe that either David or Hushai thought they were doing anything wrong.
> *So at the very lowest level, it is certainly possible for two men of God to think that in some situations lying is permissible*.



I'm not sure this episode proves that, Ruben. I think most of us rationalize certain sins when we get caught up in the "heat of the moment" so to speak. Just because David lied in this case and it worked out for him according to God's plan doesn't necessarily mean God condones the lying or that David truly believed lying is sometimes acceptable. David may have viewed this as a mistake upon later reflection. All we are given is the narrative without editorial by God, so it is impossible to draw conclusions about whether lying in this case was "justified" or not, or whether or not David ultimately believed lying in this case was the right thing to do.


----------



## jlynn

Joshua said:


> Folks, as Christians, we're not pragmatists. Just because you folks have the belief that telling a lie _will_, in fact, save the proverbial Jews from the Nazis at the door, doesn't mean it will. Then, what have you done? You have added sin to sin.
> 
> God has never commended lying in Scripture, it has _only_ been condemned. Thus, unless you have presuppositions underlying the text about the Hebrew midwives, you _should not _assert that they were lying. The text neither says that they did so, implies that they did so, or demands that they did so. One part of the 9th Commandment is upholding the good reputation of your neighbor. So, then, it follows that since the text doesn't demand, imply, or even say that the midwives lied, we have the responsibility (as believers in the 9th Command) and the duty to assume that the midwives _did not_ lie.
> 
> As for the passage that commends Rahab's faith, I believe Rev. Ruddell has adequately dealt with any notion that the Lord commends her for lying.
> 
> I'll say this again, and it really should be the final answer:
> 
> 1. We are Christians. We are neither pragmatists nor atheists (i.e. do what we think will "work" apart from what God's Law says we should/shouldn't do).
> 
> 2. As Christians, then, we obey God's Law (i.e. we don't lie).
> 
> 3. The withholding of truth by means of silence from those who would use said truth to break God's Law does not = lie. Also, telling a lie to the Nazis doesn't guarantee that Jews will be saved, but it does guarantee that you will have presumptuously sinned against Grace by ignoring God's Law. Who are we to honor more with our actions, God or men?
> 
> 4. God is not OK with us breaking one of His Laws to uphold another of His Laws.
> 
> 5. We are to obey God's Law and leave the consequences to Him. He's God. He knows what He's doing. He's able to save the Jews or the deliver the Jews as He sees fit. We are to obey God's revealed will, not presume that we know what His secret will is.


 This is true and thought provoking! The entire thread has been interesting to read and think about.

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 05:21:22 EST-----



Reformed Thomist said:


> I am inclined to believe, like Kant, that if the act of lying is immoral, it is immoral always and in every case. Important to note here is that the immorality of lying (or any act) is not merely _consequential_, but also 'spiritual' -- by lying, even if it has no negative effect on other people or external events (even if it has positive effects in this regard), I am nonetheless causing harm to my soul.
> 
> A standard scenario _contra_ moral absolutism goes something like, "Say a crazed gunman comes up to you out-of-the-blue and tells you to kill this one baby or else he will kill these thirty babies. Clearly, what any person _should_ do here is save the thirty babies by killing the one baby." This kind of thinking shows how truly depraved utilitarian/consequentialist ethics is.
> 
> First of all, what assurance have I that the gunman _would_ actually carry out his twisted threat? He may be playing a game. Second, what I should do before anything else is attempt to talk him out of it, which may prove successful. Barring that, I may try to disarm him, which also may prove successful. But, more importantly, if the gunman does commit this atrocity any immorality that takes place is on _him_ and not me. I am not the author of this scenario, and he cannot force me to take any 'ethical' part in an immoral situation _he_ created. As a person committed to morality all that need concern me is acting morally, and by no stretch can murdering a baby, in and of itself, be considered a good thing. And even if the consequential 'good' of my evil act would 'outweigh' the evil of the alternate (which is on him, not me), I would still be acting immorally insofar as I would be doing damage to my soul by committing an evil. Which, _qua_ moral person, I cannot allow for myself.
> 
> Whoever denies this is not really serious about acting morally, but rather, by his acts, having 'pleasure' outweigh 'pain'. The latter stance is one of moral anti-realism: 'morality' is just something people have constructed and it is very useful, but we can discard it when the going gets rough because it isn't _really_ real. Moral realism, by contrast, takes morality seriously and recognizes its superiority over hedonism.


----------



## DonP

I would add here that God does use the acts of sinful people to accomplish His ends. Not that He would need to but He chooses to. And He does this in a way that He is free of sin. 

Whereas this does not give us warrant to sin that good may come. 

ie Rahab's lying may have been used by God to protect the spies, but it was not needed, it was just what was. 

It is no basis for us to lie. We should pray for the inspectors to be blinded to the spies or go blind, or get sick or any other thing we have seen God use as a means. 

So if Rahab had told the spies she would lie to protect them, should they have accepted or found another means? 

What about us, if we have prior knowledge can we condone a sinner to do this? 

Rahab was profession to be a Jew proselyte too.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

What about D Bonhoeffer? Also check J.I. Packer on Situation Ethics. And there is more here on the subject of ethics.
A question to y'all. Can it ever be right for Christians to choose the 'lesser evil'? Jesus never did - aren't we supposed to be like Him?! I don't agree with I A Torrance but he sounds interesting.


----------



## DonP

John 7:23-24
23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." 
NKJV

Mark 2:25-28
"Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?" 
27 And He said to them, "*The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. * NKJV


We must use care that we do not mix things that are not the same 

One who pushes a blind man off a cliff so he may take his goods, 
And One who pushes a blind man so he does not walk off a cliff 
are not equally just people who push blind men.


----------



## SolaScriptura

PeaceMaker said:


> One who pushes a blind man off a cliff so he may take his goods,
> And One who pushes a blind man so he does not walk off a cliff
> are not equally just people who push blind men.



There is much wisdom in this example. Much. 

But wait, wait, that requires too much abstract thought... No... it's wrong to push people! They're both pushers! They're both wrong!


----------



## DonP

SolaScriptura said:


> But wait, wait, that requires too much abstract thought... No... it's wrong to push people! They're both pushers! They're both wrong!



You peace love dovey 

I should have used an example that would have locked you in full jacket. 

One who shoots a man to steal his wallet, and 
One shoots a man who is about to throw a had grenade at his team 
Are not equally both 
men who shoot and kill people. 

Does that concrete it a bit more for you 

yea we are in agreement now for sure


----------



## Claudiu

Another important thing that we have to look at as well, is what is the truth? What does the Bible say that Truth is? When talking about a lie, to get a better understanding of what constitutes a lie is to see what they see as the truth.

The basic dictionary definition of the "truth" is: conformity to reality or actuality; a fact that has been verified

Here is what the wiki article says on truth: "The word truth has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history." (Truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

However, we need to look at the situation from a Biblical perspective. (Not just a philosophical)

Any input?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Is something true because God says so, or does God say so because it is something true?


----------



## reformed trucker

If anyone has Dr. Bahnsen's 48 lecture Systematic Theology series, he discusses this on lecture #46 at the 3:30 mark. He covers the Nazi example, Rahab, Samuel, and God sending a lying spirit to decieve Israel's enemies.


----------

