# Did Rahab sin by deceiving the King?



## seajayrice (Nov 11, 2010)

Jos 2:4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: 
Jos 2:5 And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 11, 2010)

No. See Jochem Douma's "The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life."

There are times when we are allowed to deceive in peculiar circumstances e.g. when the Communists are coming to kill Christians; when the madman with an axe wants to know where your mother is; when the Nazis are coming for the Jews; when the Germans have invaded Britain and want to know how to get somewhere.

There are a considerable number of examples of this in Scripture and the Ninth Commandment should be interpreted in that light.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 11, 2010)

Gill calls it a "downright lie," says that her lies "are not to be justified; evil is not to be done that good may come," yet notes that "these sins, with others, the Lord forgave her."


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 11, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> There are times when we are allowed to deceive in peculiar circumstances



Are we not then depending upon ourselves - and our deceptive selves, at that - and not upon God to bring about what is right?


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 11, 2010)

Scripture doesn't say.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------




kainos01 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > There are times when we are allowed to deceive in peculiar circumstances
> ...


 
Tell that to Joshua in chapter 8 who deceived the enemies by their fleeing.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 11, 2010)

There has been this debate among the Reformed. e.g. Bahnsen took the position I'm defending, while John Murray took the one taken by Josh and Steve.

It's interesting that the Lord - along with giving us the Ninth Commandment - gives us a series of examples in which God's people deceived their enemies, without apparent disapproval by the Lord.

Would a feint in war, while escaping from the enemy or in espionage, or while hiding the persecuted, be off the menu for a Christian?


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 11, 2010)

If Rahab sinned by this wartime deception, it is very interesting how much she benefited by her sin. She did not perish with the disobedient _because_ she treated the spies in this way. Does the Lord choose to bless sin?

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------




Joshua said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > Tell that to Joshua in chapter 8 who deceived the enemies by their fleeing.
> ...


 
So was it in his heart to deceive them?


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 11, 2010)

Wannabee found all of Josh's answers helpful.

Lying is always a sin. Misleading an enemy in battle is strategic. Comparing the two as though they were the same is disingenuous. If one is in a fight and feints a left to the face so they can bring a right to the ribs have they lied? If a quarterback fakes a pass to the right then hands it off is he sinning? Rahab was saluted for her faith that God would deliver her, never for her lying (which revealed a lack of faith).

There are those who claim that it is permissible to lie at times. This would be situational ethics and has no place in the Christian's life. Such people may claim that we can lie if asked if "there are Jews in the house." This assumes that there are only two choices, which is false. We do have the choice of not answering. We have the choice of fighting. We have the choice of running away. We can even tell the truth. But to lie is to call God a liar, denying Him by resting in our own defective reasoning rather than His promises.

To be clear, this is much easier to discuss on a forum than it would be to live out with a gun to your face and loved ones in the basement.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 11, 2010)

Thanks, Josh. In general I track with what you are saying but there are nagging particulars in the situation that cause me to consider Bahnsen and others who speak of dutiful lies and wartime exceptions. I do appreciate your interaction though.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 11, 2010)

I believe it was the correct decision. If we believe that deceit is prohibited, then there is no difference between a lie and a feint. In both cases, the intent is to deceive. When I feint in boxing, I _want_ my opponent to misinterpret my action. I am intending to take advantage of him when he does so. That's the same thing as lying.

But a feint is not wrong, nor was Rahab's action. There are legitimate ethical conflicts in which one must choose the greater duty; the greater duty is to preserve life. In particular, when the life of others is in jeopardy, there are several instance of deception in the Bible, and the results of the deception are applauded.


----------



## Philip (Nov 11, 2010)

Josh, would you then consider military service to be a sin? Military service involves information gained by means of covert intelligence, which involves spying, which involves deception. Ergo, service with any modern military is a sin. Service with any modern state department is also a sin.



Joshua said:


> Joshua feigned a retreat, he did not tell his enemies a lie. They believed according to their eyes. They did not send people to Joshua and ask, "Are you gonna retreat?" and then him respond in the affirmative. He performed an action and the enemy misinterpreted it.



Josh, that's just parsing words. It was a maneuver intended to deceive. In fact, most wartime strategies involve this: masking your actions so that the enemy will misinterpret them.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 11, 2010)

I think this is where Murray falls apart: "When we speak or act we do so in terms of all the relevant facts and considerations which come within our purview, and if we are misunderstood or misrepresented we are not to be charged with falsehood. When mutual understanding is one of the relevant or requisite considerations, then we are under obligation to do our utmost to insure that we speak or act in terms of the understanding of others. But this is not the indispensable criterion of truthfulness."

Here Murray has to understate the situation considerably. It's certainly true that misunderstanding is not always the fault of the person representing, but in the case of a feint, the strategy is chosen specifically to incite an advantageous misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is not incidental, as Murray's "if we are misunderstood" implies. If that is acceptable, then almost any circumstance in which I act to ensure a person misunderstand a situation to my advantage is acceptable, provided that I do not accomplish the feat verbally. Murray is superficial here. 

On the other hand, the second sentence has promise, and militates against his position. He poses a qualification, "When mutual understanding..., then we are under obligation." In other words, there are situations in which we are not obligated to speak in terms of the understanding of others. I suggest that there are times when compulsion, enmity, or clear evil intent eliminates mutual understanding as a priority.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 11, 2010)

Let's examine this from a purely biblical perspective. Philosophy can lead us wherever we chose to go.

We are image bearers of God. We are to be holy as He is holy. We are commanded to perfection. We are to imitate He whose image we bear. God cannot lie.


----------



## jjraby (Nov 11, 2010)

Is being polite a lie? If my wife does indeed look fat in that dress, Am i under obligation to tell her that, yes, you are indeed fat, honey.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 11, 2010)

Sending the spies out another way following her lies to the Kings's men is not sin, is that correct? So the deception of facilitating the escape via the window is not a sin but the misrepresentation of the spies whereabouts is a sin? The deed for which James writes Rahab was justified was brought about by her sin? At the very least, Rahab was not subject to ruling authority yet was found to have faith by this very exercise. Very confusing and gymnastic posts! 

Jas 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? 

Jos 2:15 Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall. 
Jos 2:16 And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye go your way.


----------



## Andres (Nov 11, 2010)

jjraby said:


> Is being polite a lie? If my wife does indeed look fat in that dress, Am i under obligation to tell her that, yes, you are indeed fat, honey.


 
why not just be honest with your wife without being rude? When she asks how something looks on her, if you honestly think she would look better in another top, skirt, etc I don't see why you wouldn't say so. I would also presume that you adore your wife, so even when she may not feel her most attractive you can honestly tell her how beautiful she is, regardless of if she doesn't think she is having her best outfit day.


----------



## jjraby (Nov 11, 2010)

Its also impossible to defend military deception while condemning a lie of necessity.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 PM ----------




Andres said:


> jjraby said:
> 
> 
> > Is being polite a lie? If my wife does indeed look fat in that dress, Am i under obligation to tell her that, yes, you are indeed fat, honey.
> ...



Yes this is true, the example was faulty, but the question remains, is being polite in some circumstances a lie?


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 11, 2010)

I'll reiterate my last post and challenge any who attempt to justify a lie to come up with a command of God that counters. In light of God's character and the espousal of God's glory as central to man's existence, I find assertions that anything against His character as not being sinful to be quite confusing at the least. How could a man look God in the eye and credibly say, "Yes God, I lied for your glory"?


----------



## jjraby (Nov 11, 2010)

I think that Under Dire Circumstances, A lie of necessity is permissible. That is only when life is at stake. Examples frin Douma's _Ten commandments_

David violets the law when he ate the consecrated bread given to him by the priest Abimelech (Lev. 24:9; 1 sam. 21:3-6

And the priest who work on the sabbath in the temple desecrate the Sabbath without being guilty (matt. 12:5)

We must honor our parents (5th Commandment) but it might be necessary to deny them for Christ.

We must be subject to the government, But if the state conducts itself tyrannically, it is not impermissible for the right of revolution to be invoked. 

Murder is forbiddin (6th commandment) but ithe Israelite is free of bloodguilt if he catches an intruder and fatally wounds him (ex.22:2)

We may not steal (eight Commandment), But Yahweh permitted the Israelite to rob the Egyptians just before the Exodus (Ex. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35-36).


----------



## Andres (Nov 11, 2010)

jjraby said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > jjraby said:
> ...



Being polite is not neccessarily a lie but it could be. It would depend on if your polite answer was a lie or not. So why not just be polite and honest? I don't see why the only options are polite and lie or honest and rude. What am I missing?


----------



## jjraby (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm not saying that its not a lie, but i am saying that. like the priest breaking the law, he is still without guilt. I think this can apply to other situations as well.


----------



## Montanablue (Nov 11, 2010)

Andres said:


> Being polite is not neccessarily a lie but it could be. It would depend on if your polite answer was a lie or not. So why not just be polite and honest? I don't see why the only options are polite and lie or honest and rude. What am I missing?



Maybe a better example is if you are someone's house, htey serve you terrible food, and then ask if you like it. I do think in that situation (and many others) you have to make a choice between being polite or honest. The dress example isn't the best, because we're not necessarily expected to be polite to our families. Loving, yes definitely. Always polite, no.


----------



## brianeschen (Nov 11, 2010)

Matthew Henry . . .


> Now, (1.) We are sure this was a good work: it is canonized by the apostle (Jam_2:25), where she is said to be justified by works, and this is specified, that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way, and she did it by faith, such a faith as set her above the fear of man, even of the wrath of the king. She believed, upon the report she had heard of the wonders wrought for Israel, that their God was the only true God, and that therefore their declared design upon Canaan would undoubtedly take effect and in this faith she sided with them, protected them, and courted their favour. Had she said, “I believe God is yours and Canaan yours, but I dare not show you any kindness,” her faith had been dead and inactive, and would not have justified her. But by this it appeared to be both alive and lively, that she exposed herself to the utmost peril, even of life, in obedience to her faith. Note, Those only are true believers that can find in their hearts to venture for God; and those that by faith take the Lord for their God take his people for their people, and cast in their lot among them. Those that have God for their refuge and hiding-place must testify their gratitude by their readiness to shelter his people when there is occasion. Let my outcasts dwell with thee, Isa_16:3, Isa_16:4. And we must be glad of an opportunity of testifying the sincerity and zeal of our love to God by hazardous services to his church and kingdom among men. But, (2.) There is that in it which it is not easy to justify, and yet it must be justified, or else it could not be so good a work as to justify her. [1.] It is plain that she betrayed her country by harbouring the enemies of it, and aiding those that were designing its destruction, which could not consist with her allegiance to her prince and her affection and duty to the community she was a member of. But that which justifies her in this is that she knew the Lord had given Israel this land (Jos_2:9), knew it by the incontestable miracles God had wrought for them, which confirmed that grant; and her obligations to God were higher than her obligations to any other. If she knew God had given them this land, it would have been a sin to join with those that hindered them from possessing it. But, since no such grant of any land to any people can now be proved, this will by no means justify any such treacherous practices against the public welfare. [2.] It is plain that she deceived the officers that examined her with an untruth - That she knew not whence the men were, that they had gone out, that she knew not whither they had gone. What shall we say to this? If she had either told the truth or been silent, she would have betrayed the spies, and this would certainly have been a great sin; and it does not appear that she had any other way of concealing them that by this ironical direction to the officers to pursue them another way, which if they would suffer themselves to be deceived by, let them be deceived. None are bound to accuse themselves, or their friends, of that which, though enquired after as a crime, they know to be a virtue. This case was altogether extraordinary, and therefore cannot be drawn into a precedent; and that my be justified here which would be by no means lawful in a common case. Rahab knew, by what was already done on the other side Jordan, that no mercy was to be shown to the Canaanites, and thence inferred that, if mercy was not owing them, truth was not; those that might be destroyed might be deceived. Yet divines generally conceive that it was a sin, which however admitted of this extenuation, that being a Canaanite she was not better taught the evil of lying; but God accepted her faith and pardoned her infirmity. However it was in this case, we are sure it is our duty to speak every man the truth to his neighbour, to dread and detest lying, and never to do evil, that evil, that good may come of it, Rom_3:8. But God accepts what is sincerely and honestly intended, though there be a mixture of frailty and folly in it, and is not extreme to mark what we do amiss. Some suggest that what she said might possibly be true of some other men.


John Calvin . . .


> As to the falsehood, we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God. Therefore, although our purpose, be to assist our brethren, to consult for their safety and relieve them, it never can be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth. And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path, they deviate into circuitous courses.
> Rebecca (Genesis 27) in procuring the blessing to her son Jacob, follows the prediction. In obedience of this description a pious and praiseworthy zeal is perceived. But it cannot be doubted that in substituting her son Jacob in the place of Esau, she deviated from the path of duty. The crafty proceeding, therefore, so far taints an act which was laudable in itself. And yet the particular fault does not wholly deprive the deed of the merit of holy zeal; for by the kindness of God the fault is suppressed and not taken into account. Rahab also does wrong when she falsely declares that the messengers were gone, and yet the principal action was agreeable to God, because the bad mixed up with the good was not imputed. On the whole, it was the will of God that the spies should be delivered, but he did not approve of saving their life by falsehood.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 12, 2010)

Both sides have good points but I come down in support of Rahab.

Scripture does commend Rahab's hospitality (Hebrews 11) and her helping the spies escape (James 2). The Bible makes no attempt to separate these actions from the lie that made the escape possible. Scripture commends the totality of her actions several times. For us to break down those actions piece by piece and insist that one part of them must be sinful (because Scripture says nothing specifically to commend that part) feels to me like disregarding the overall positive things Scripture _does_ say.

The principle here is an important one for how we interpret Scripture. The Bibles gives laws, rules, principles, etc. that sometimes seem to conflict with each other in the nitty-gritty of actual life. If our approach to the Bible is merely a rulebook one, we will find such moments inevitably ending in one "sin" or the other. But when we realize that some of these laws and principles may overrule others (see Matthew 12:1ff, the grainfield on the Sabbath), we get a far richer scriptural framework to apply to every area of life.

In Rahab's case, I would suggest that her display of faith in the true God, risking her own life to protect the spies and side with the Lord, is a commendable action that in this instance overrules "thou shalt not bear false witness."


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 12, 2010)

It seems Brian and Joshua were on the same page. Wannabee found both posts helpful and absent of gymnastics. 

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

Spurgeon, _Treasure of David_, Psalm 120

It will need divine power to save a man from these deadly instruments. Lips are soft: but when they are lying lips they suck away the life of character and are as murderous as razors. Lips should never be red with the blood of honest men's reputes, nor salved with malicious falsehoods. David says, "Deliver my soul": the soul, the life of the man, is endangered by lying lips; cobras are not more venomous, nor devils themselves more pitiless. Some seem to lie for lying sake, it is their sport and spirit: their lips deserve to be kissed with a hot iron; but it is not for the friends of Jesus to render to men according to their deserts. Oh for a dumb generation rather than a lying one! The faculty of speech becomes a curse when it is degraded into a mean weapon for smiting men behind their backs. We need to be delivered from slander by the Lord's restraint upon wicked tongues, or else to be delivered out of it by having our good name cleared from the liar's calumny. And from a deceitful tongue This is rather worse than downright falsehood. Those who fawn and flatter, and all the while have enmity in their hearts, are horrible beings; they are the seed of the devil, and he worketh in them after his own deceptive nature. Better to meet wild beasts and serpents than deceivers: these are a kind of monster whose birth is from beneath, and whose end lies far below. It should be a warning to liars and deceivers when they see that all good men pray against them, and that even bad men are afraid of them. Here is to the believer good cause for prayer. "Deliver us from evil", may be used with emphasis concerning this business. From gossips, talebearers, writers of anonymous letters, forgers of newspaper paragraphs, and all sorts of liars, good Lord deliver us!

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

[video=youtube;bVkIe4yb8uY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVkIe4yb8uY&feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2010)

I agree with Josh. I have spoken on this issue and we have discussed it a few times on the PB. I also believe Rahab was ignorant of the law of God. 



> (Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
> 
> (Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
> 
> (Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.



God is sovereign. 

I just hope he won't test me now.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 12, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with Josh. I have spoken on this issue and we have discussed it a few times on the PB. I also believe Rahab was ignorant of the law of God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Um, is there nothing written on the heart of man?

CT


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 12, 2010)

God does not lie? But he does deceive.

From 2 Kings 3 This is a light thing in the sight of the LORD. He will also give the Moabites into your hand.... And when they rose early in the morning and the sun shone on the water, the Moabites saw the water opposite them as red as blood. 23 And they said, "This is blood; the kings have surely fought together and struck one another down. Now then, Moab, to the spoil!" 24 But when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose and struck the Moabites, till they fled before them. And they went forward, striking the Moabites as they went.

So God personally deceived the eyes of the Moabites to cause an Israeli victory. But they do not deserve the truth, since they have arrayed themselves against God and his people.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore *God* sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Even though the lawless one is mentioned, God specifically insists that he is the one deluding them. But these were people who already did not love the truth. 

Jeremiah has some interesting words: 

Jeremiah 4:10 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD, surely you have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, 'It shall be well with you,' whereas the sword has reached their very life." 
Jeremiah 20:7 7 O LORD, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocks me.

It's possible, though, that Jeremiah is just misreading the situation and the Bible is describing his confusion.


In any case, I do recognize that there are passages that state that God does not lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). The same Scripture, though, tells of God purposefully deceiving (not just bringing good out of deception), and a harmonization must be made. I have suggested that people can be in such a hostile orientation to you or others that they do not have a right to the truth. God seems to follow this distinction as well. Further, there are other examples in Scripture in which a hierarchy of values seems to justify "violating" one commandment in the interest of a greater.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 12, 2010)

When fleeing Nazi persecution, perhaps the Jews would have been well advised to inquire into their protector’s views on the Ten Commandments. Have mercy! 
Could it be, within the ranks of the reformed that we have our own brand of pharisaism? Why do we focus on the lie and not Rahab’s refusal to bring forth the men? As Jack mentioned, maybe we are missing the forest for the trees. Is the story of Jericho and Rahab one of keeping laws or one of covenant, redemption and faith? Rahab was a sinner when she woke that day, as she was the next as are we all. 

Jos 2:2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country. 
Jos 2:3 And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 12, 2010)

*Deceiving the King*



Joshua said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be, within the ranks of the reformed that we have our own brand of pharisaism? Why do we focus on the lie and not Rahab’s refusal to bring forth the men?
> ...


 
The question was regarding deception. Your reply assumed focus on the 9th as though deception is only by word, not deed. Was sending the spies out the back in order that they would not be seen a continuation of her deception?


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 12, 2010)

Was it sin for Rahab to disobey the orders of the King of Jericho. By facilitating the escape of the spies, did she not violate some other commandment?


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 12, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Alas! I said last night would be my last post!
> 
> [video=youtube;UPw-3e_pzqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU[/video]


 
like a Lay's potato chip, never say this will be the last one!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 12, 2010)

a related discussion: Edward Feser: The murderer at the door


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 12, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> No. See Jochem Douma's "The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life."
> 
> There are times when we are allowed to deceive in peculiar circumstances e.g. when the Communists are coming to kill Christians; when the madman with an axe wants to know where your mother is; when the Nazis are coming for the Jews; when the Germans have invaded Britain and want to know how to get somewhere.
> 
> There are a considerable number of examples of this in Scripture and the Ninth Commandment should be interpreted in that light.


 
You could remain silent in those situations or say something like, "I'm not telling you." 

If you were to say to the Nazis, "I'm not hiding any Jews in my house", they could say, "You are probably lying. We are going to search your house anyway."


----------



## KMK (Nov 12, 2010)

God seems to be silent as to Rahab's specific action (unlike with Adam and Eve, for example). But, that doesn't mean we can point to the case of Rahab as a means of justifying ourselves. 

Instead of focusing on the exact line between 'lie' and 'feint', I find it easier concentrate on WLC Q. 144.



> Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
> A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.



It seems to me, a man who masters this would not have to worry about where the line is.


----------



## Tripel (Nov 12, 2010)

I'm firmly in the camp of "No, Rahab did not sin". Jack provided a really good explanation. All of the references in Scripture to Rahab's actions are positive. We shouldn't require Scripture to explicitly say "Rahab's act of verbalizing a lie was without sin".


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2010)

This is an interesting topic because of the background issues it raises, which I suspect are not often taught about. It might also be interesting because we want excuses for lying, but in that case our interest should be discouraged.
1. What is the relationship between direct statements of positions and narratives? Can narratives impact our understanding of commands and prohibitions? Sometimes it is asserted that the answer is no; but that doesn't seem to fit with the way the NT sometimes uses narratives. Depending on how this is answered, the discussion can be over before it begins.
2. What is an approved example? Can we imitate God and Christ in everything narrated of them?
3. Are we ever in a situation where there is no non-sinful choice to make? Can divine laws ever conflict? If there is a hierarchy, is that sufficient to remove the idea of conflict? How do you decide what outranks what?
4. If we are to consider Biblical narratives in interpreting Biblical imperatives, and if these have an occasionally softening impact, why are the commands given in such an absolute form?
5. Is there a difference between deceiving and causing or permitting an untruth to be believed?
6. That there is a line drawn between God's character and our conduct is clear in Scripture. But how is that connection made? Can we argue that because God is infinitely blessed we should never feel sad?

Wthitout suggesting any answers yet myself, I would suggest that a more fruitful passage from which to start the discussion of permissible deceitfulness is the relation of the use David made of Hushai in defeating Ahithophel's counsel. If no more can be gleaned, I think it's legitimate to deduce David's view on the matter from his proceeding there.

A previous thread on the topic.


----------



## Dwimble (Nov 12, 2010)

Here's another one for you:



> Exodus 1:15-20:
> 15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”
> 
> 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.”
> ...



No commentary about it right now; I just find it VERY similar to the Rahab narrative.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 12, 2010)

Josh, remind me to not hide in your basement when the bad guys come knocking at the door.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 12, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > (see Matthew 12:1ff, the grainfield on the Sabbath)
> ...


 
Josh:

With you having bowed out of this thread (gracefully, and having made good points, I might add), I don't know if it's more respectful for me to drop it myself or to answer your questions. I guess I'll answer...

First, Matthew 12. I don't believe the disciples sinned in the grainfields. It's interesting that Jesus _could_ have defended their actions using the argument you proposed—that the Pharisees were misinterpreting the Sabbath laws. He could have said the Pharisees were wrong about what was unlawful. But Jesus didn't do that! Instead he chose to speak to a more central issue. He had the gall to tell the Pharisees they had no business quoting the law to HIM. In effect, he said that recognizing the coming and presence of the Son of Man is more important than Sabbath laws. Imagine. Sabbath laws! The Bible is so clear about their importance. But Jesus instructs us to consider them too in light of the big picture, and in case we missed the point he gives three whole examples of one biblical principle trumping another: David ate the consecrated bread. Priests work on the Sabbath. And God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

Second, this teaching of Jesus _does_ tend to trouble us who desire to keep God's laws. Won't this sort of thinking lead to excuses to commit all sorts of sin? Doesn't our culture already tell lies with way too much ease? Won't this make it look like God's commands are in conflict with each other, so that we arrogantly start to treat those laws as if they have pesky problems we need to fix, and pick whichever ones we prefer for the top spots? Well, these are indeed big and legitimate concerns. You are very right to bring them up, and we must vigorously avoid such errors.

But we must still deal with Jesus' teaching. He is not suggesting we replace clear scriptural instruction with our own priorities. Rather, this teaching will force us to look _more_ deeply into the Scriptures to more fully understand God's priorities and his workings in the world. It's a simple matter to say, "the Bible says not to lie, so that settles it." And such a stance (usually appropriate) has the appearance of being staunchly biblical. But it is actually even more biblical to consider that command within the entire framework of biblical revelation, to search all the Scriptures carefully for the whole counsel of God, and then consider how that command applies, in context, to particular tricky situations. We must not "miss the forest for the trees."

So I'm not suggesting we relax God's requirements. I'm saying we must get to know them even better. Self-interested men will surely use this as an excuse to sin. But that's why we who truly desire to obey God have Christian friends and elders and forums like this—to check each other and make sure we're looking for God's priorities rather than our own. The Scriptures are rich and able to be applied with great nuance to every tricky situation we run into.

Thank you for a rigorous discussion.


----------



## Philip (Nov 12, 2010)

For myself, I find that my awareness of the complexity of ethics and how to apply them is directly proportional to my knowledge of the Scriptures. Your ethics can be nice and tight and simple---as long as you don't read the Bible.


----------



## Grimmson (Nov 12, 2010)

There a foundation of the law that must be considered in deceiving a person of authority. The summary of this foundation is built on Matthew 22:37-40. 

“And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’”

Love for one another must be a driving a force in this discussion, because we do see in scripture a turn away from the letter of the law towards what the spirit of the Law is meant to represent. A lie for the sake of perseverance of life in the fear of God was acceptable; therefore be silent or speaking the truth could place one in the violation of the law because of partaking of the murder of the innocent or one doing the commanded work of God. 


Joshua said:


> There are other options: silence. Nowhere in Scripture is there an instance wherein the telling of an untruth is _commended_. Lying has only been _condemned_ in Scripture (a la 9th Commandment). Ergo, if I see an individual in Scripture who, apart from God's command, or apart from it being God Himself, engage in the telling of an untruth, it is a lie. Scripture may not explicitly condemn those things within that context immediately, just as it didn't stop and say "Oh yeah, by the way, remember polygamy's sinful" every time polygamy was alluded to.



Why is silence not always an answer? The reason is because sometimes in the case of Nazi Germany or when another Godless leader is in charge of a country/empire one may not have the option, because the result may not only be that family or person your protecting at risk, but also your own family. Therefore if one is silent and the home is searched due to that silence then one has engaged in the murder of your family(including yourself) and another due to one’s own cowardliness for the protection of the innocent. It shows a lack of hospitality and wisdom towards one another. Wisdom must be practiced in love, not in a mere justification of a sin, but instead towards the ends of protecting life and desire to bring glory to God; thus fulfilling the main purpose of the Decalogue to begin with. This same case can be given with David and the show bread as our Lord has given in Matthew 12:3-7. He is our Lord and judge and will understand the nature of what is done. 

There is an important example in the Bible where a lie to protect human life was rewarded and that was with Puam and Shiphrah from Exodus 1. Rehab case was an extraordinary case and not the norm, such as with the two mid-wives. 

If scripture nowhere directly condemns what Puam, Shipharh, and Rehab did, then neither should we, but instead try to see the wisdom of they did in light of the law of God. For we are not the judges of such people, instead it is Christ alone.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 12, 2010)

I know that folks are pursuing truth here. But I find it discouraging that the supposed pursuit of truth can be cloaked in the justification of a lie. And as we consider the philosophical balancing act proposed by several here we sometimes make statements that seem to sound very good and true but carry absolutely no trace of biblical merit.


> Your ethics can be nice and tight and simple---as long as you don't read the Bible.


 The insidious nature of this comment asserts that anyone who disagrees doesn't read (or by implication, understand) their Bible. in fact, I would call this a terribly harmful and destructive statement that flies in the face of the perspicuity of Scripture. We really need to be more careful with such assertions. 
Not one time in this thread, or other similar threads, has biblical mandate been brought forth to directly support that lying, in any circumstances, is honorable before God. The simple reason is that such mandate does not exist. Instead it is asserted (assumed) that mandate must be provided that asserts that certain people were wrong in lying. This is a disingenuous proposition for Scripture clearly mandates that we are not to lie just as it asserts we are not to murcer or have multiple spouses. Just because someone did so and was not specifically condemned in Scripture does not make their transgression any less sinful.
Just a few of the many examples of biblical mandate against lying are provided below. If one asserts anything contrary to the clear mandate not to sin then they must provide biblical mandate that clearly states that lying is permissible, ever, under any circumstances, and is therefore glorifying to God. Regardless of how much philosophizing we attempt, such mandate cannot be found in Scripture. It does not exist. And I don't say this with a finger wagging. I've attempted to do so myself for years until finally a dear pastor showed me how wrong I was in light of who God is. And that, brethren, is where we begin and end, with God. 

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the Lord hates, 
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 
A proud look, 
A lying tongue, 
Hands that shed innocent blood, 
A heart that devises wicked plans, 
Feet that are swift in running to evil, 
A false witness who speaks lies, 
And one who sows discord among brethren. 


Proverbs 12:17-22
He who speaks truth declares righteousness, 
But a false witness, deceit. 
There is one who speaks like the piercings of a sword, 
But the tongue of the wise promotes health. 
The truthful lip shall be established forever, 
But a lying tongue is but for a moment. 
Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, 
But counselors of peace have joy. 
No grave trouble will overtake the righteous, 
But the wicked shall be filled with evil. 
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, 
But those who deal truthfully are His delight. 


1 John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 


Revelation 22:14-15
Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. 

As for judgment of Rahab, we are the judge of such people. Can't you see that God has given us the criteria by which to judge fellow believers in Scripture (1 Cor 5:3-12; 6:1-4)? Rahab was forgiven. She's a dear sister who trusted in God in many ways. But her lie was never justified. God was glorified in spite of her lying rather than because of it.
Lying is condemned by the very character of God and clearly shown to be a sin in His commandments, precepts and ordinances. Not one single time in all of Scripture are we given mandate that permits a lie. Yet time and time again we are told by divine mandate not to lie, that it is a sin, an abomination. The lesser of two evils is always the same, evil. It is sin. And the idea that one may at any time have only the choice between the lesser of two evils is a lie that flies in the face of 1 Corinthians 10:13 as well as 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All criteria by which lying is being justified is circumstantial narrative of what happened, not what ought to have happened, regardless of how understandable it is.

Blessings,


----------



## Philip (Nov 12, 2010)

Joe, how does my giving the truth to the Nazis at the door loving to my neighbors? Am I really loving the Jews I was supposed to be hiding? Am I really loving the Nazis who are destroying themselves? Or would I simply be adhering to the letter of the law?

The verses that you are citing are all valid---but are they speaking in generalities or categorical imperatives? You are assuming that any option must be either right in all circumstances or wrong in all circumstances. You have to remember, the command is not "thou shalt not lie" but "thou shalt not bear false witness." Bearing false witness includes actions like telling the truth out of spite, manipulation, blackmail---all misuse of facts. Now, is lying in order to preserve innocent lives a violation of the ninth commandment when seen like this? No. 



Wannabee said:


> All criteria by which lying is being justified is circumstantial narrative of what happened, not what ought to have happened, regardless of how understandable it is.



So what ought to have happened? Is the response to allow injustice? Particularly when they are commended for their faith in these acts? Rahab's act of rebellion is hiding the spies---which would include the lie. The midwives are also commended for their faith---which would include the act of deception.



Wannabee said:


> The insidious nature of this comment asserts that anyone who disagrees doesn't read (or by implication, understand) their Bible. in fact, I would call this a terribly harmful and destructive statement that flies in the face of the perspicuity of Scripture.



The perspecuity of Scripture is precisely the reason why I say this. What is clear in Scripture is that the commands of God are so much more than we know. It isn't just the action that matters, but the heart. A truth told without regard for life is no better than a lie. The "right thing" done for the wrong reason ends up being the wrong thing. The ninth commandment is not simply a command to tell the truth, but to tell it wisely and in fear of the Lord.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 12, 2010)

Perpecuity-now that's reformed discourse. Perpecuity can get persnickety, indeed. What would Jesus do? Could the Lord's rebuke apply to our discourse?

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 
Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 12, 2010)

Philip, I agree with so much of what you say, but I truly perceive that you bend the truth of the matter. For instance, you say, "It isn't just the action that matters, but the heart." This is so true and yet falls far short of the truth. The actions reveal the heart, particularly in what we say. Isn't this what Christ says in Matt 12:34? And then you follow up with this comment as though it belongs in the same breath, "The "right thing" done for the wrong reason ends up being the wrong thing." It sounds good. But it focuses on man rather than God and puts a box around our response of man's own making. The "right thing" can be done for the right reason and end up meaning death for those involved. Somehow our minds can fool us into somehow thinking that a sin that saves a life is a good thing and obedience to God that costs life is a bad thing. False boxes are drawn to try to convince ourselves that this is the case. But there is no prescriptive Scripture that allows for this. That's why the argument for those promoting lying is never fought on a Scriptural level. It has to be fought on a philosophical level because Scripture never provides a mandate of lying. And, in doing so, we divorce God's law from His character.

"Now, is lying in order to preserve innocent lives a violation of the ninth commandment when seen like this? No." Yes. Yes it is. Is this not humanistic? The focus is on man. But does not our theology all begin with God. The first great commandment is all about God. The first question of our catechisms are about God. All that exists is to focus on and bring glory to God, even unto death. Would we trade this precious truth for a lie? The second great commandment flows from this truth in subordination, not abrogation. The second is impossible without the first. The first necessitates the second. 

"So what ought to have happened? Is the response to allow injustice?" First, men ought to obey God's commandments, period. But, again, you put a false box of man's design around the argument. Injustice? As if the only option other than lying is to allow injustice? And this, in a sense, emphatically states that lying is NOT an injustice. Breaking God's clear commandment to not lie is just? Does it reveal faith? Or does it point to a god of our own making who cannot overcome our circumstances even if that means death? Is death worse than disobedience? Do we fail to remember that we are all men deserving of death and every breath is at the sufferance of He whom we are willing to disobey in order to preserve this borrowed life? Shadrak Mishak and Abednego understood this. That's why they said they could not disobey God even while every single Jew they knew around them bowed before the idol. Nebuchadnezzar could have killed them all. Would these faithful young men then have been wrong in their stance for true justice, the kind of justice that says God said what He said and meant what He said and we'll obey what He said even if you kill us and every man woman and child amongst us? He can deliver us. But then again He might not. But it doesn't matter in the end because we will never disobey Him in the face of our circumstances, but would rather die for His glory than sin against Him and live? I know it's a mouthful. But doesn't THAT resonate in your very being as exuding the character of God almighty?

Rahab could have said a lot of things. But she chose to lie. Her lie was a sin because God said so. Do I blame her? No. In my sin I might have done the same thing. But it was a sin nonetheless. The same if the Nazis come knocking. There are options. 1 Corinthians 10:13 says so. "You are assuming that any option must be either right in all circumstances or wrong in all circumstances." I am not assuming. I am obeying. I am bowing before the verity, the veracity, of the promises of God himself. To claim that God does not provide options to avoid breaking the commandments that are based on His character is to call Him a liar.

And, my friend, if the situation were such that I had to rely on what you said to preserve my body, I would pray to God and urge you earnestly to never jeopardize your soul to save my flesh. The commandments are good because they are from God and God is good. Can we sacrifice His very character on the altar of the preservation of the flesh? I pray that God would take the breath from my lungs rather than allow me to do so.


CJ, sadly, I believe indeed it could.


----------



## Philip (Nov 12, 2010)

Joe, the trouble is that I see two commands at issue here: the command to not bear false witness and the command to not murder. If by my words or my silence I allow someone to be unjustly killed, I am a participant. You are attempting to abstract categorical imperatives from the ten commandments which simply lead to absurdity. 

If you truly believe that all lying is necessarily sinful, then I suggest to you that you need to start advocating for the abolition of all covert operations by United States intelligence and military groups. In addition, you would have to be against all Christian involvement in the military, since one would be benefiting from information gained by illegitimate means. Spying pretty much necessarily involves deception (if you don't believe me, visit the International Spy Museum). 



Wannabee said:


> Somehow our minds can fool us into somehow thinking that a sin that saves a life is a good thing and obedience to God that costs life is a bad thing.



What is the difference between killing in a just war and murder? It is the fact that in the one case, one is killing for a just cause, and in the other, one is killing unjustly. I would suggest that there is a similar distinction between lying in a just cause and false witness.

You notice that in the case of every one of the commandments, there are distinctions:

1. We are to worship Christ, who is human.
2. See above.
3. We are to use the name of God reverently.
4. We are to keep the sabbath holy, but acts of charity are always right
5. We are to honor our father and mother, but that doesn't always mean disobedience
6. We are not to murder, but there are times when the taking of life is just
7. Thank goodness for the reformers clearing up the medieval confusion on this one!
8. We are not to steal, yet God seems to have little problem with taxes
9. We are not to bear false witness, instead we are to speak justly
10. We are to be zealous only for God and jealous only for His honor.

This is where I think you have it backward: the law of God is not negative, but positive. As Christians, we have been freed from the burden of the law so that we may enjoy the freedom of the law---this is the freedom of Christian virtue. It's not about living up to a standard, but living a holy life---a life of prudence, fortitude, temperance, justice, faith, hope, and love. The heart of the law, says Jesus, is not a categorical imperative of "thou shalt not" but a positive command of virtue to "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself."


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 13, 2010)

Interestingly, there is a distinct word for murder and another one for killing. This is not so with lying. Also, attempts to equate military feints with lies does not hold up, as has already been dealt with here. That would obviously include covert operations.

A very real consideration: A young girl is asked by a man with a gun if her parents are home. According to you she is bound to tell him no in order to protect her parents. She says, "Yes," because she has been taught to never lie and, especially under such duress, is unable to consider other options at her young age. Now, regardless of the outcome, you are confronted with this situation. Do you actually turn to the girl and tell her that she sinned in telling the truth? If the murderer was dumbfounded and left in light of the girl's honesty do you tell her she sinned? If her parents are killed do you tell her she should have lied? I would hope you would never do such a thing, but would tell the little girl that she did what was right in the eyes of God and that you admired her faith in God almighty.
Now, if she did lie and everyone lived, what do you tell her? To you tell her she did the right thing? Now you have a dilemma of massive proportions because you either embrace two opposing statements as being truth or you must recognize one as false. You either embrace postmodernism or stand on absolute truth. And, in speaking to this little girl would yo lie to her to make her feel better?

Now, instead the girl's parents are tied up before her, along with her little brother. She's handed a machete and told to kill her parents or else the soldiers will rape her in front of her parents and kill her parents and her little brother in front of her before they kill her too. Incidentally, this really happened in the Sudan. What is your advice to this little girl? Does she disobey God's mandate to not murder and hack her parents to death to save her brother or does she refuse and trust God with the consequences? You might say it's different. But it's not. In both cases you are putting God's mandate on trial, and thus God's character. But it is us who are to be judged by God according to His clear directives. We have no other choice. And it is as simple as that, regardless of how much man convolutes the matter.

If you prefer positive imperatives in Christ then realize that He has freed you to speak the truth. He is the truth. His word is truth. And someone can represent truth with a lie? Can light be represented by darkness? No, the one exposes the other.

Again, there is absolutely no Scriptural imperative to lie in any circumstances. But there are many that state that lying is sin. 


John 17:15-19
I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. 


Brother, I find your position not only Scripturally untenable, but laced with the trappings of postmodernism. It's as if you ask with Pilate, "What is truth?" Would you have men sanctified by a lie? And, perhaps most tragic, such teaching denigrates the character of God and teaches all who listen to it that truth is not absolute, circumstances dictate truth and God is not, in truth, immutable. I pray God will reveal the damage that such teaching can do to the souls in your care before you must give account for them (Heb 13:17).



1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 

Ephesians 5:8-11
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 

Ephesians 6:14-16
Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 

Romans 3:5-8
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 
For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. 


This Q and A with MacArthur is helpful.


> I would like to know when it is okay for a Christian to tell a lie. For example, like Corrie Ten Boom, an underground church, underground police officer. Just when is it okay?
> 
> *Answer*
> 
> ...




---------- Post added at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

I did edit this after one person found it helpful. My edition was the consideration of the girl in the Sudan.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 13, 2010)

NO.

The inhabitants of Jericho needed a good killin'. The righteousness of the Israelite cause was evident to her and she changed allegances - so her deception was of the same moral significance as Joshua setting men in hiding at Ai and then pretending (deceiving!) to fall back before the enemy in order to lure them away from the city... so that the ambushing party could enter and do the Lord's work of killing - butchering, really - all the defenseless elderly, women and the babies. War is hell, unless it is commanded by God, and then it is heavenly.

(It can be kind of traumatic, really, to go beyond the safe and sterile language of Scripture "they put them to the sword" and really think about how that would have looked, sounded, smelled... mothers trying to protect their babies, etc... kind of puts it in a different light, doesn't it. Yet God's will is perfect.)


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 13, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> NO.
> 
> The inhabitants of Jericho needed a good killin'. The righteousness of the Israelite cause was evident to her and she changed allegances - so her deception was of the same moral significance as Joshua setting men in hiding at Ai and then pretending (deceiving!) to fall back before the enemy in order to lure them away from the city... so that the ambushing party could enter and do the Lord's work of killing - butchering, really - all the defenseless elderly, women and the babies. War is hell, unless it is commanded by God, and then it is heavenly.
> 
> (It can be kind of traumatic, really, to go beyond the safe and sterile language of Scripture "they put them to the sword" and really think about how that would have looked, sounded, smelled... mothers trying to protect their babies, etc... kind of puts it in a different light, doesn't it. Yet God's will is perfect.)


 
Ben, I like the cut of your jib. While the theorisists wax poetic, you put wheels on the discussion.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 13, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > NO.
> ...



Thanks, CJ. My ilk have their place in the real world, with bodies and wounds and personal crises.... others are best in places like the PB.


----------



## Philip (Nov 13, 2010)

Wannabee said:


> A very real consideration: A young girl is asked by a man with a gun if her parents are home. According to you she is bound to tell him no in order to protect her parents. She says, "Yes," because she has been taught to never lie and, especially under such duress, is unable to consider other options at her young age. Now, regardless of the outcome, you are confronted with this situation. Do you actually turn to the girl and tell her that she sinned in telling the truth? If the murderer was dumbfounded and left in light of the girl's honesty do you tell her she sinned? If her parents are killed do you tell her she should have lied? I would hope you would never do such a thing, but would tell the little girl that she did what was right in the eyes of God and that you admired her faith in God almighty.



I'd say I'm not sure I'd blame her in either case.



Wannabee said:


> Now, instead the girl's parents are tied up before her, along with her little brother. She's handed a machete and told to kill her parents or else the soldiers will rape her in front of her parents and kill her parents and her little brother in front of her before they kill her too. Incidentally, this really happened in the Sudan. What is your advice to this little girl?



I'd say this is a very clear case: thou shalt not murder. The difference between the previous case and this one is that in the former, the girl is possibly capable of protecting someone against evildoers. In the latter, she is not. Does she have a clear obligation before God to give truth to the evildoers, truth that will only further their sin? In the latter case, she is being asked to murder.

Does it make me a relativist that I see shades of gray? That I mourn the fact that we live in a world where such choices are so real? I see the complexity of these dilemmas precisely because I take the law of God and the commands of God seriously. 



Wannabee said:


> From MacArthur: There may be some circumstances, and I don't know what circumstances they might be, but there may be some circumstances where you do not necessarily have to say everything that could be said.



Purposely withholding pertinent information is deceptive and therefore morally equivalent to lying.

What does the world think, Joe, if you tell the Nazis at your door about the Jews you hid? You are called a coward, a collaborator, who is using the law of God as an excuse for your cowardice. At the very least you would be morally obligated to tell those whom you were protecting what you would do were the Nazis to come calling. Because, my friend, to tell the Nazis would constitute betrayal---in telling them, you have betrayed the trust of the weak and innocent.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 13, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > A very real consideration: A young girl is asked by a man with a gun if her parents are home. According to you she is bound to tell him no in order to protect her parents. She says, "Yes," because she has been taught to never lie and, especially under such duress, is unable to consider other options at her young age. Now, regardless of the outcome, you are confronted with this situation. Do you actually turn to the girl and tell her that she sinned in telling the truth? If the murderer was dumbfounded and left in light of the girl's honesty do you tell her she sinned? If her parents are killed do you tell her she should have lied? I would hope you would never do such a thing, but would tell the little girl that she did what was right in the eyes of God and that you admired her faith in God almighty.
> ...


 
These are pretty strong words. Would it glorify God to be known as the village collaborator? As I recall, these folks were not well regarded and as such would besmirch the name of God.


----------



## Philip (Nov 13, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> These are pretty strong words. Would it glorify God to be known as the village collaborator? As I recall, these folks were not well regarded and as such would besmirch the name of God.



I'd say that one who betrays the trust of others by giving the truth to evildoers is breaking the ninth commandment.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 13, 2010)

Many godly men have not been well regarded by the world. What kind of criterion is that? Isn't such reasoning humanistic? Was Jeremiah well regarded by his own people? He was faithful and yet we do not know of one single convert from his ministry. Was Christ well regarded by the world? Is He? Is Christianity well regarded by the world? If I walk into the UN and begin talking to men about their souls and calling them to repentance and forgiveness in Christ will I be well regarded?

However, you really need to be more responsible in accusations Philip. Not one time did I say that one must divulge the entire truth. Quite the contrary. I would expect you to be above assembling the box you've attempted to stuff me in, regardless of how vehemently you disagree. You've spun that web yourself with your _ad hominem_ attack and degraded the discussion.

And, Ben? Help me out here. That comes across as some form of battlefield elitism.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 13, 2010)

I subscribe to the theory that _hiding_ baby Moses was an act of faith. And that the Lord actually blessed the Hebrew midwives as a result of their words to Pharoah. And that Rahab was blessed for her act of faith as well.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------




KMK said:


> God seems to be silent as to Rahab's specific action (unlike with Adam and Eve, for example). But, that doesn't mean we can point to the case of Rahab as a means of justifying ourselves.
> 
> Instead of focusing on the exact line between 'lie' and 'feint', I find it easier concentrate on WLC Q. 144.
> 
> ...



Indeed. I have little patience for "ethical delimma" scenarios. Contemplating the moral implications of "ethical delimmas" is profoundly unhelpful as it only serves as a decoy to distract us from focusing on applying the 9th in the mundane real world situations in which we find ourselves. You are correct, Sir, if we focus on mastering the duties outlined in the WLC, we will do well - and for almost everyone on the PB, all of life's situations will be covered therein. 

Folks - if you are ever in a situation in which you're hiding innocents and evildoers come to the door and they'll kill you in a heartbeat if they find out you're hiding people... well, in that situation, quickly and prayerfully follow your conscience as it is informed by a desire to love God and your neighbor... and know that whatever you do... someone, somewhere, will find fault.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 13, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Folks - if you are ever in a situation in which you're hiding innocents and evildoers come to the door and they'll kill you in a heartbeat if they find out you're hiding people... well, in that situation, quickly and prayerfully follow your conscience as it is informed by a desire to love God and your neighbor... and know that whatever you do... someone, somewhere, will find fault.



Ain't _that_ the truth! Well put.


----------



## Philip (Nov 14, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Folks - if you are ever in a situation in which you're hiding innocents and evildoers come to the door and they'll kill you in a heartbeat if they find out you're hiding people... well, in that situation, quickly and prayerfully follow your conscience as it is informed by a desire to love God and your neighbor... and know that whatever you do... someone, somewhere, will find fault.



Amen to that---either way, you've lied to someone.



Wannabee said:


> Not one time did I say that one must divulge the entire truth. Quite the contrary.



Joe, I haven't said that you did---I'm saying that to be consistent you would have to. A half-truth intended to mislead is no better than a lie.

Again, here's how I see the issue:

In the case of hiding innocents, what has happened is that people have placed trust in you and you have accepted the responsibility. Your word before God is at stake here. The way I see it, you either break your word to the innocents (false witness) or you lie to the evildoers or at least deceive them in some other way (again, if you want to be consistent, all forms of deception would count). I don't think it's an easy choice either, but if you have given your word, even if you were rash in giving it, you have an obligation to follow through, or else you are in violation of the ninth commandment. One of the duties required by the ninth commandment is that of following through on your word---your yes must be yes and your no must be no.

If Rahab had told the truth to the king's soldiers, I happen to think that she would have been guilty of treason against God. Instead, she is praised for her trust in God, her loyalty to God. Is it possible to sin in faith? I doubt it. I don't think she would be commended in the Scriptures had her action been anything other than in faith.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Nov 17, 2010)

Funny, I was just curious about this the other day. James 2:25 says, "And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" Indeed this work displayed her faith in God for if she had either told the truth or been silent, she would have betrayed the spies which would have been a great sin.

We know that we are to detest lying for that is contrary to the nature of God and we are never to do evil that good may come of it (Rom. 3:8). So as Matthew Henry put it, "There is that in which it is not easy to justify, and yet it must be justified, or else it could not be so good a work as to justify her...God accepts what is sincerely and honestly intended, though there be a mixture of frailty and folly in it, and it is not extreme to mark what we do amiss."


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 18, 2010)

This is just a very small addition to this thread, and I know it probably won't resolve this issue, but this passage came to mind (Prov. 6:30-31):

_People do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold;
he will give all the goods of his house._

I know this is not talking about lying, but I wonder if the principle expressed here applies directly to this topic. From a human standpoint ("People do not despise..."), the thief's actions were understandable, and he could be sympathized with because he was hungry. Nevertheless, he is still legally liable, and he still must face the consequences of his crime. If this could be applied broadly, then perhaps what we have here is the general principle that sin is still sin regardless of the reasons why it is committed.


----------



## Tripel (Nov 18, 2010)

Der Pilger said:


> I know this is not talking about lying, but I wonder if the principle expressed here applies directly to this topic.



But I'm not aware of any thief being commended in Scripture.


----------



## Der Pilger (Nov 18, 2010)

Tripel said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is not talking about lying, but I wonder if the principle expressed here applies directly to this topic.
> ...


 
Neither am I. But I think the thrust is this: The thief's action was not done in a despicable way, like someone who steals food even when he is not hungry, just out of spite or wanton sin. Nevertheless, the penalty was still called for. Thus, the demands of justice are not set aside out of consideration of the plight of the transgressor. In fact, under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 4) sacrifices were required even for unintentional sin. I know that's a different issue, but I wonder if it still applies here in that the price for sin must still be paid regardless of the circumstances in which it is committed, thus indicating that it is God's law that dictates whether a given act constitutes sin, not the circumstances.


----------



## Skyler (Nov 18, 2010)

Tripel said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is not talking about lying, but I wonder if the principle expressed here applies directly to this topic.
> ...


 
Arguably, Samson was a thief. 

"And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck down thirty men of the town and took their spoil and gave the garments to those who had told the riddle."


----------

