Does God Bless Deception?

[Northern Crofter]

1 Samuel 21:13 — And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.

No lies are necessary to act weird and scrab doors. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that all withholding of information and all unreported and unexplained actions are lies or immoral.

It's not a lie/deceitful to pretend you are insane when you in truth are not?

You must consider the full context (v.12): "David considered these words, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath." David feared for his life and pretended to be insane, and in so doing deceived the Philistines into thinking he truly was insane when the truth was that he was not: "Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is beside himself, wherefore have ye brought him to me? Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence?" (vv.14-15)

 

[Pomopu]

The burden of proof is on the one that argues for an exemption.

Well said.

I think the way to think about it is like this. For the reader, this is my content warning I"m bringing in a severe transgression.

Clearly, it is always wrong to rape. Always. Even if you saved 100,000 people, even if you magically had the Bible translated into every language in the world, even if someone promised you someone's soul would go to heaven, even if you solved world hunger, even if you prevented every human being from ever committing rape subsequently in human history, never, ever, is it right to rape once.

Ok.

Why not telling a lie? A sin is a sin is a sin is a sin, and no "righteous cause" ever makes a sin right. A lie is a sin as much as physical, sexual violence.

My worry: As soon as you say you can lie for some other good, that opens the door to saying you can, say, kill or rape for some other good. Or nuke Japan, for instance. Or surveil the citizens of America for the sake of terrorism. . . And so the pandora's box is opened.

 

[Sam Jer]

It's not a lie/deceitful to pretend you are insane when you in truth are not?

You must consider the full context (v.12): "David considered these words, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath." David feared for his life and pretended to be insane, and in so doing deceived the Philistines into thinking he truly was insane when the truth was that he was not: "Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is beside himself, wherefore have ye brought him to me? Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence?" (vv.14-15)

I actually don't know why it was translated feigned. What I read was:
וַיְשַׁנּ֤וֹ אֶת־טַעְמוֹ֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּתְהֹלֵ֖ל בְּיָדָ֑ם וַיְתַו עַל־דַּלְת֣וֹת הַשַּׁ֔עַר וַיּ֥וֹרֶד רִיר֖וֹ אֶל־זְקָנֽוֹ ׃
I then copied the KJV out of habit.

The phrase "and feigned himself mad" seems to be the translation of the word וַיִּתְהֹלֵ֖ל. I'd check other translations and look up the meaning of vayyit.holeil, but I need to get back to work. Maybe if no one else does it I'll look it up on the way home.

 

[No Other Name]

Well said.

I think the way to think about it is like this. For the reader, this is my content warning I"m bringing in a severe transgression.

Clearly, it is always wrong to rape. Always. Even if you saved 100,000 people, even if you magically had the Bible translated into every language in the world, even if someone promised you someone's soul would go to heaven, even if you solved world hunger, even if you prevented every human being from ever committing rape subsequently in human history, never, ever, is it right to rape once.

Ok.

Why not telling a lie? A sin is a sin is a sin is a sin, and no "righteous cause" ever makes a sin right. A lie is a sin as much as physical, sexual violence.

My worry: As soon as you say you can lie for some other good, that opens the door to saying you can, say, kill or rape for some other good. Or nuke Japan, for instance. Or surveil the citizens of America for the sake of terrorism. . . And so the pandora's box is opened.

Not another case. Why can't anyone answer the ones already laid out? Sigh.

This new hypothetical is pure hogwash.

"My worry: As soon as you say you can lie for some other good, that opens the door to saying you can, say, kill or rape for some other good. "

No it doesn't. Not at all. I should not even have to explain why you have failed to address what is actually being stated in this thread.

But for those who have a hard time dealing with this:

It is not wrong to lie or deceive about mundane activities such as location or intents in order to keep an enemy of God murdering others for the acts of obeying God's laws.

This eliminates Peter's denial, outrageous genies granting world evangelism for breaking God's laws, etc.

We have the case of Samuel's lie of omission to Saul if asked where he is going and why; we have David's deception to the Philistines of being insane; we have Rahab's deception to Jericho about the spies and where they are, for that matter might as well throw Joshua in there for deceiving Jericho by sending spies in the first place. Retroactively, Moses lying by omission/deceiving the whole land of Canaan by sending spies back in Numbers 13, etc.

 

[JP Wallace]

Clearly, it is always wrong to rape. Always. Even if you saved 100,000 people, even if you magically had the Bible translated into every language in the world, even if someone promised you someone's soul would go to heaven, even if you solved world hunger, even if you prevented every human being from ever committing rape subsequently in human history, never, ever, is it right to rape once.

Ok.

Why not telling a lie? A sin is a sin is a sin is a sin, and no "righteous cause" ever makes a sin right. A lie is a sin as much as physical, sexual violence.

My worry: As soon as you say you can lie for some other good, that opens the door to saying you can, say, kill or rape for some other good. Or nuke Japan, for instance. Or surveil the citizens of America for the sake of terrorism. . . And so the pandora's box is opened.

You may be right. But please note my previous comment - the law clearly says that you shall honour you father or mother, which the Westminister and Puritan tradition interpreted as to mean that we must obey lawful authorities when they issue lawful commands and laws.

However that being the case, if all laws are always applicable absolutely in every case, which seems to be what you are saying (which I grant is the case for most laws, most of the time without doubt), on what basis were the apostles justified in disobeying the authorities when they were commanded not to speak in the name of Jesus?

It would seem that if you strictly apply your principle that the Apostles opened that door and walked right through it.

I would also note that the Westminister theologians did use the language of "lawful" commands, suggesting that there is such a thing an "unlawful" command, which also suggests that such laws do not require obedience.

Now if there are circumstances where an unlawful authority can be disobeyed, are there also cases where an unlawful authority bent on doing unlawful acts has forfeited the right to truth as it seems clear that thay can certainly forfeit the right to obedience.

 

[iainduguid]

I actually don't know why it was translated feigned. What I read was:
וַיְשַׁנּ֤וֹ אֶת־טַעְמוֹ֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּתְהֹלֵ֖ל בְּיָדָ֑ם וַיְתַו עַל־דַּלְת֣וֹת הַשַּׁ֔עַר וַיּ֥וֹרֶד רִיר֖וֹ אֶל־זְקָנֽוֹ ׃
I then copied the KJV out of habit.

The phrase "and feigned himself mad" seems to be the translation of the word וַיִּתְהֹלֵ֖ל. I'd check other translations and look up the meaning of vayyit.holeil, but I need to get back to work. Maybe if no one else does it I'll look it up on the way home.

According to HALOT, the Hithpolel of hll (III) means "to be mad; to act like a madman"; cf Jer 25:16; 50:38; 51:7. cf the related noun form holelot "madness", which is common in Ecclesiastes.

Carry on...

 

[RamistThomist]

III. Emotional appeal. Let's also open a thread about aborting products of rape?

But let's assume there is not an exemption for this (and if evidence to the contrary is presented I am willing to accept that there is one). What about this?

Gestapo at the door: Do you have any Jews?
Christian: Why would I have Jews?
And etc.

Is the risk higher? Yes. But we may not do evil that good may come.
[automerge]1749134355[/automerge]

Who? In which post?

They'd have to answer for themselves.

As noted above, I employed a reductio ad absurdum. It's a standard move in logic. And I haven't seen a good answer to it.

 

[MW]

I would be curious then to know how any (or all) explain/interpret Psalm 56 in light of I Samuel 21.

Some see David’s actions as a necessary ruse to escape danger, not inherently sinful. His motive was the preservation of his life, not to be malicious towards another person. Others see it as something inherently wrong as David was acting with a lack of faith, but God’s mercy considers human weakness, especially in desperate situations. Whether his actions are deemed to be sinful or not, Ps. 56 is a plea for help in the general situation of being oppressed by "man." It doesn't address a particular action of David.
[automerge]1749165960[/automerge]

It almost seems as if @MW is arguing since it was only in case Saul asked, and if we have no record of Saul asking, then there is no deception. This seems fallacious reasoning to me.

As stated, we see the backstory because we are the readers. Extract the actions of the characters from that backstory and nothing happens between Samuel and Saul. There is no deception. A man goes to a town to offer sacrifice. He actually offered a sacrifice, so his stated reason for coming was true. There was strategic concealment of the fact of the anointing so as to avoid provoking Saul. If Saul did not know about it that was his failure. Samuel was under no constraint to make it known. All in all, it was not sinful deception but wise discretion in a precarious situation.

 

[No Other Name]

As stated, we see the backstory because we are the readers. Extract the actions of the characters from that backstory and nothing happens between Samuel and Saul. There is no deception. A man goes to a town to offer sacrifice. He actually offered a sacrifice, so his stated reason for coming was true. There was strategic concealment of the fact of the anointing so as to avoid provoking Saul. If Saul did not know about it that was his failure. Samuel was under no constraint to make it known. All in all, it was not sinful deception but wise discretion in a precarious situation.

1) I am almost never on when you are, so before anything else: good morning! I hope you are well rested and God continues nothing but blessing on you

2) Isn't strategic concealment and wise discretion part and parcel of deception (certainly not sinful deception; no one was arguing Samuel was committing sin) when asked? And doesn't his intent matter regardless of if anyone actually asked or not? He fully intended to answer he was sacrificing (true) and fully intended to deliberately withhold the meeting with Jesse.

 

[MW]

2) Isn't strategic concealment and wise discretion part and parcel of deception (certainly not sinful deception; no one was arguing Samuel was committing sin) when asked? And doesn't his intent matter regardless of if anyone actually asked or not? He fully intended to answer he was sacrificing (true) and fully intended to deliberately withhold the meeting with Jesse.

Good morning to you, too.

No, strategic concealment is not deception. There is no deception in withholding information. He wasn't under oath to testify to something.

Yes, intention does matter. We must speak the truth from the heart. This is what Samuel did.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It doesn't address a particular action of David.

Do you not think the preface to the Psalm is inspired and/or do you think most of the Reformation era commentators got it wrong in identifying Psalm 56 as linked to I Samuel 21? For example, see the Geneva Bible:

 

[MW]

Do you not think the preface to the Psalm is inspired and/or do you think most of the Reformation era commentators got it wrong in identifying Psalm 56 as linked to I Samuel 21? For example, see the Geneva Bible:

I see the historical link. But as I noted, it is general. It does not refer to any particular action of David. You are making a link I cannot see.

 

[omniavanitas]

I do know one thing, which is that whatever it is to be true, God is maximally so. He is Truth itself. I am called to "be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect," to imitate Jesus Christ, and to in this way have restored via the Holy Spirit the image of God in me.

In other words, I agree with Augustine. To my mind, it is a failure of faith and imagination to choose to "lie" for the sake of a greater good or greater cause. I will, in my mind, consider it always and in every circumstance wrong to tell a lie--so I don't assume to be more arrogant than God, who has bound my conscience to represent creation truly, and Himself truly, and in the instance I misrepresent creation I misrepresent the Creator, and so on. To lie about any one proposition is to tell a lie about God, the one who has demanded that proposition be true, that orders it to be true, upholds it to be true, and so on.

The moment we compromise for the sake of some other good, sacrificing in that process the known good to be done, we've become playthings of the demons. But yeah. Don't take my word for it. Go read the literature on Kant and lies and Augustine and lies and the millions of words written to parse it out.

I agree. If the standard is truth and we stray from it, we sin regardless of what the motive behind it was. I think it's just a consequence of a fallen creation that sometimes we have to pick between virtues and end up sinning in one way or another. For example, people keep using the example of Rahab or WWII. Do we miss the mark by lying or do we miss the mark by letting innocent lives perish? We sin either way, but we try to do what we believe would be most virtuous which will almost always be preserving life.

To answer the OP: yes, God's goodness transcends our fallenness. We're going to fail to meet the mark, but God still uses our shortcomings like you said. I think it's quite a comfort knowing that our perfect God can still use our imperfect acts to accomplish His perfect will as we walk with Him.

I hadn't thought of this passage as being parenting advice, but it makes sense when you think of what the brothers symbolize. As a hunter, Esau is in the wilderness being worldly while Jacob is the opposite as a shepherd. I'm not sure if that's the main takeaway, but it definitely brings Proverbs 22:6 to mind.
Somewhat related, Augustine actually notes their difference despite them being twins as an argument against astrology in the same book (VII) of his Confessions right after he briefly talks about theodicy.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I had posted earlier that our Bible study Wed. evening was on this topic, and will be again (DV) this coming Wednesday, and I sent this variety of views around to those who attend. I also gave a brief summation of these views in a pdf I sent around (and attach here).

Is it Ever Okay for a Christian to Lie?

Is it Ever Okay for a Christian to Lie?

Lying to protect the lives of God’s people or to prevent genocide is recognized in the Bible as a legitimate exception.

ca.thegospelcoalition.org

Is It Ever Right to Lie? A GOD-CENTERED APPROACH

Is It Ever Right to Lie? A God-Centered Approach

A Christian ethic of truth-telling is more complex than many think. How can Christians faithfully interpret and apply the whole biblical testimony?

www.desiringgod.org

Is it ever right to lie?

Is it ever right to lie? | GotQuestions.org

Is it ever right to lie? If telling a lie prevents an even greater evil, is telling the lie still a sin?

www.gotquestions.org

Answers in Genesis: Is Lying Justified?

Is Lying Justified?

For those for whom the Bible is their final authority, there is no question that lying is never justified.

answersingenesis.org

Perplexing Passages: Do Exodus 1 and Joshua 2 Permit Christians to Lie?

Perplexing Passages: Do Exodus 1 and Joshua 2 Permit Christians to Lie?

Our goal should never be to wiggle our way around the truth or search for an ethical loophole.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

______

Brief summation, "Truth-telling, or lying", I sent around:

Got Questions; Is it ever right to lie? :

Is it ever right to lie? | GotQuestions.org

Is it ever right to lie? If telling a lie prevents an even greater evil, is telling the lie still a sin?

www.gotquestions.org

“There are at least two instances in the Bible where lying produced a favorable result. For example, the lie the Hebrew midwives tell Pharaoh seems to result in the Lord’s blessing on them (Exodus 1:15-21), and it probably saved the lives of many Hebrew babies. Another example is Rahab’s lie to protect the Israelite spies in Joshua 2:5. It is important to note, however, that God never condones these lies. Despite the positive outcome of these lies, the Bible nowhere praises the lies themselves. The Bible nowhere states that there are instances where lying is the right thing to do. At the same time, the Bible does not declare that there is no possible instance in which lying is an acceptable option.

The question then remains: is there ever a time when lying is the right thing to do? The most common illustration of this dilemma comes from the life of Corrie ten Boom in Nazi-occupied Holland. Essentially, the story is this: Corrie ten Boom is hiding Jews in her home to protect them from the Nazis. Nazi soldiers come to her home and ask her if she knows where any Jews are hiding. What is she to do? Should she tell the truth and allow the Nazis to capture the Jews she was trying to protect? Or, should she lie and deny that she knows anything about them?

In an instance such as this, where lying may be the only possible way to prevent a horrible evil, perhaps lying would be the best of the available options. Such an instance would be somewhat similar to the lies of the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. In an evil world, and in a desperate situation, it may be the right thing to commit a lesser evil, lying, in order to prevent a much greater evil. However, it must be noted that such instances are extremely rare. And, even in those situations, lying would still be a sin, because it would still be violating the character of the God of truth (Hebrews 6:18). The vast majority of lies are due to people seeking to protect themselves, promote themselves, or harm someone else. That is why the Bible so clearly, strongly, and consistently condemns lying as a sin.”​

______

Is It Ever Right to Lie? A GOD-CENTERED APPROACH (desiring God)

Is It Ever Right to Lie? A God-Centered Approach

A Christian ethic of truth-telling is more complex than many think. How can Christians faithfully interpret and apply the whole biblical testimony?

www.desiringgod.org

2. “The Bible sometimes commends misleading speech.”​

“…while the Bible stresses the sanctity of truth and condemns what is untrue, it also includes passages in which communicating contrary to what is known so as to mislead bad people is treated either without disapproval or with commendation.

The Hebrew midwives deceive Pharaoh to save babies (Exodus 1:15–21).

Rahab deceives a king to save spies (Joshua 2:1–7; 6:17, 25; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25).

God orders Israel to ambush the men of Ai (Joshua 8:3–8).

Jael deceives the Canaanite general Sisera (Judges 4:18–21; 5:24–27).

God develops a cover story to deceive Saul (1 Samuel 16:1–5).

Michal deceives Saul to protect David (1 Samuel 19:12–17).

David tells Jonathan to cover his absence by deceiving Saul (1 Samuel 20:6); Jonathan then deceives Saul to protect David (1 Samuel 20:28–29).

David deceives Ahimelech the priest about the mission he is on (1 Samuel 21:2).

David deceives the people of Gath by feigning madness (1 Samuel 21:13).

David deceives Achish about where he was raiding (1 Samuel 27:10).

David deceives Achish about his real allegiance (1 Samuel 29:8–9).

David tells Hushai to deceive Absalom by giving bad advice (2 Samuel 15:34); Hushai then deceives Absalom this way (2 Samuel 17:5–13), and God ensures Absalom is ruined by Hushai’s deceitful advice (2 Samuel 17:14).

A woman deceives Absalom’s men to save David’s men (2 Samuel 17:19–20).

Elisha deceives Syrians sent to arrest him (2 Kings 6:14–20).

Jeremiah deceives people to keep secret God’s message to Zedekiah (Jeremiah 38:24–27).

God says he will himself deceive false prophets (Ezekiel 14:9).

“In these passages, bad people are misled, and Scripture treats these episodes either as if nothing wrong happened or as if the deceptions were good. While God never is false and never wants us to be, the Bible shows that God sometimes wants good people to mislead bad people.”​

The writer again declares,

“3. God’s speech fits the worthiness of the recipient.​

“…the core idea is plain: God communicates clearly with people who want to hear and accept what is true, and he communicates in ways hard to grasp when speaking with people who do not want to hear and accept what is true. Some people, it would seem, are not worthy of receiving clear communication. Nothing God says is untrue (Psalm 25:10), but he adjusts how he communicates to fit the worthiness of those to whom he speaks.”​

This article was, generally, too abstract and philosophical for me; but at least he is clear in the above passages.

______

Answers in Genesis: Is Lying Justified?

Is Lying Justified?

For those for whom the Bible is their final authority, there is no question that lying is never justified.

answersingenesis.org

Here AIG unequivocally condemns all lying or deception – no exceptions under any circumstances. Any deviation from the truth is evil.
______

Is it Ever Okay for a Christian to Lie? (Gospel Coalition, Canada)

Is it Ever Okay for a Christian to Lie?

Lying to protect the lives of God’s people or to prevent genocide is recognized in the Bible as a legitimate exception.

ca.thegospelcoalition.org

With regard to the Hebrew midwives lying to Pharaoh in Exodus 1:18-21, and Rahab in Joshua 2:4-5 lying to the civil authorities of Jericho (cf. Josh 6:25), and how God dealt with them, the author of the article says,

“Putting this all together we might state the situation in the following terms: the people of God are required to tell the truth, without equivocation or deceit, in every situation, except when doing so would result in the death of innocent people. This would not apply to testifying in court, as the Magistrate does not bear the sword in vain, but it would apply to situations such as Christians were presented with during the Holocaust and to situations now being faced by Christians in places like Afghanistan and North Korea. . .

“Lying to protect the lives of God’s people or to prevent genocide is recognized in the Bible as a legitimate exception to the general principle that the people of God should be known for telling the truth.”​

______

Perplexing Passages: Do Exodus 1 and Joshua 2 Permit Christians to Lie? (Gospel Coalition U.S.) Sam Storms, author

Perplexing Passages: Do Exodus 1 and Joshua 2 Permit Christians to Lie?

Our goal should never be to wiggle our way around the truth or search for an ethical loophole.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

“Were the Allies in World War II justified in deceiving Hitler concerning the location of the Normandy invasion?

Is it ethical for the police to operate radar in unmarked cars? After all, by using unmarked cars they are deliberately deceiving us into thinking they are civilians.

Is it ethical for the police to conduct undercover, plain-clothes investigations that, by definition, demand that they deceive people concerning their identity and intent?

Is it ethical to lie to someone about where you’re taking them in order to keep the secret of a surprise party in their honor?”​

Storms then says,

“Falsehood vs. Lie​

It appears, then, that there are occasions when deception is ethically permissible. But note: not all falsehoods are lies. A lie is an intentional falsehood that violates someone’s right to know the truth. But there are cases in which people forfeit their right to know the truth. So the question is not whether it is ever morally permissible to lie, but ‘What is a lie?’ A lie is the intentional declaration or communication of a falsehood designed to deceive someone who has a moral and legal right to know the truth. A lie is telling an untruth to someone to whom you are morally and legally obligated to speak the truth. There are, however, certain occasions in which you are not under obligation to tell someone the truth (e.g., in times of war, criminal assault, and so on.).

A lie is an intentional falsehood that violates someone’s right to know the truth. But there are cases in which people forfeit their right to know the truth.

I want to be certain that no one responds to this article with anything less than a fervent commitment to truth-telling. In arguing, as I have, that there may be occasions when the communication of a falsehood is ethically permissible, I am not suggesting Christians that should become lax or casual in their treatment of the truth. The truth sets us free (John 8:32).”​

______

I haven't personally expressed my views, but wanted to let the group hear others.

My summation in pdf:

 

[Semper Fidelis]

On a seemingly unrelated note, I was listening to someone talking about how they enjoyed fishing yesterday. I then thought about how many of the Apostles were fishermen.

My mind then went to the command "Thou shal not kill," and I imagined someone with a wooden apprehension of that command applying to the killing of fish. It's not hard to imagine because of the "proof-texting" manner that some take to object to the killing of any kind and conflating everything in a foolish and simplistic manner.

I didn't expect to open a thread about deception and see that same basic folly on full display.

It's clear to me that some don't have a demonstrable ability to make anything but the most simplistic ethical choices in every situations. They have a verse handy, and the need to think more deeply or even perform some thical reasoning based on GNC is completely lost.

Deception in war and other places in the Scriptures? It doesn't matter. No need to do the hard work of reasoning. A prooftext is all you need.

God would never deceive? Don't worry, have a simplistic answer even to this: 1 Kings 22:21-23

And if we acknowledge how deception was used, it doesn't matter. We don't need GNC; we only need to compare it to cases where deception is sinful. We look at any issues where ethical judgment might need to be considered, compare them to the most straightforward case, and convince ourselves that all deception is exactly the same.

It is the same folly that is on regular display regarding the 6th Commandment. No need for police officers or the military. We just need to trust God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Numbers 23:19 (cf.1Sam.15:29) represent the contrast between false man and the trustworthy God in this way: "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Hebrews 6:18 & Titus 1:2, ref. God who does not lie, the sure and certain promises of God, on which he will never and yea cannot fail to perform; cf. Is.25:1.

He is the God of truth, Dt.32:4; Ps.31:5; Is.65:16; his truth is in contrast to the idols, Ps.115:1; his judgment is forever according to truth, Rom.2:2; the Son of God is Truth itself, Jn.14:6.

Now this study must also be aligned accurately with such texts as Psalm 18:26: "With the pure You will show Yourself pure; And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd." Rich ref'd above 1Ki.22:21ff, where the LORD clearly intends to ruin Ahab, sending him lying words that will deceive him by the agency of a wicked spirit in the mouths of his preferred prophets. 2Ths.2:11 speaks similarly of the "strong delusion" God will send upon his opposition so they will believe the lie.

Besides the principle I formerly wrote, concerning those who war with God hence with the truth also, and who thus forego any claim to the truth or the whole truth; I point out how--more than any other factor--God does not as much deceive in any direct or active manner (self-contradicting) as he gives men over to the lie which is their native tongue. As if he offered them two ways to think: "If X (the real truth) does not suit you to believe, perhaps the thought of Y is more believable?" And in the case of these blinded (Jn.9:41) they snatch at the falsehood because it is their preference.

If I may, scripture presents a usually overlooked instance of God's shrewd dealing with a monstrously devious character through the instrument of a once-practiced supplanter, namely Jacob. Jacob, whose life in the first part of his story showed him using leverage and lies to get what he wanted, was put into a situation where Laban--an arch deceiver--providentially manipulated and dominated him for a season, giving Jacob a taste of his own medicine. But as that season carried on, we arrive at the curious case of the water troughs and the rods which Jacob put in them, Gen.30:29-31:1. Some forget that Jacob teaches his wives the favorable result in his case was from the LORD, Gen.31:9-12, his course directed by a dream or vision.

In my opinion, Jacob's skill and knowledge of the flock he worked (as a slave! see Gen.31:38-42) showed he was a superb husbandman, an intelligent breeder. The branches in the water troughs: they were sleight of hand and misdirection intended by God for an audience of one, namely Laban. It was Laban who was deceived by Jacob's actions, believing Jacob obtained his result by some "magic" taught him by the "genie" that blessed him. Laban could never have success imitating Jacob to get similar results, because if he aimed at copycat effort (as he assumed two unrelated things were tied causally together) this "magic" failed him as it must.

Laban's sons were especially resentful of Jacob, but Laban curbed his anger for he continued to view Jacob as one under his control, and therefore Jacob's blessing (and the source of that blessing) could still be managed and exploited (he was furious when he heard Jacob escaped, see Gen.31:29). Laban tried changing Jacob's wages, in order to obtain good results for himself, and was frustrated because he erred in thinking not according to nature (creation/providence) but magic. His false religion filled with lies and empty promises was the real reason he lost to Jacob in a battle-of-strength, and the deceiver's last "deception." One day, the same Angel who guided Jacob while he persevered under Laban's yoke (and plundered his wealth) finally instructed Jacob: the time had come to escape, Gen.31:13. And so he did.

I say: there never was any real connection between what animals saw in the water and their lambs and kids. But Laban was given to believe there was because he thought gods and their powers could be brought to serve the wishes of men. The one true God knew exactly how Laban thought and acted, and upturned those evil intentions meant to bind and exploit his servant, Jacob. God fooled Laban. Jacob didn't tell Laban any lies, nor did he actually steal from his father-in-law and oppressor. Yet, certain of his actions (that did not actually effect any results on the animals) had the result of misdirecting Laban according to his blindness to the truth. He could not escape the effect of his false perspective, and God used his own evil character against him.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Besides the principle I formerly wrote, concerning those who war with God hence with the truth also, and who thus forego any claim to the truth or the whole truth; I point out how--more than any other factor--God does not as much deceive in any direct or active manner (self-contradicting) as he gives men over to the lie which is their native tongue. As if he offered them two ways to think: "If X (the real truth) does not suit you to believe, perhaps the thought of Y is more believable?" And in the case of these blinded (Jn.9:41) they snatch at the falsehood because it is their preference.

I agree with this in the main.

My broader point is that the word "deception" has a broad semantic range even in the English language.

Not all deception is a direct form of lying and not all proximate causes related to someone being decided makes the participant a liar in the same form as some foolish notion of drawing an analogy to rape to to outright unethical behavior.

My point is rather modest. I was just thinking today how few verses there are to establish the GNC principle that the 5h Commandment extends beyond merely honoring your biological parents.

In contrast, the 9th Commandment is broadly revealed in the Scriptures not to entail clear cases where military deception or even God's Providence using something to harden His enemies. Now, one must always distinguish between God's will of decree and His legislative will, but even so, it's clear that God blesses forms of deception against His and His people's enemies.

So, if someone asks me if it is *ever* OK to employ deception, I'd have to ak them what it means rather than pick one semantic meaning of the term, apply the most wooden example, and tell him: "No, deception is always wrong."

 

[MW]

I was just thinking today how few verses there are to establish the GNC principle that the 5h Commandment extends beyond merely honoring your biological parents.

I'm not sure what "few" might mean in this context, but Larger Catechism questions 124-133 suggests to me there are many verses that are applicable here.

 

[No Other Name]

I'm not sure what "few" might mean in this context, but Larger Catechism questions 124-133 suggests to me there are many verses that are applicable here.

I thought his context was quite clear. "Few" meaning the number of verses contained in LC 124-133 that deal more broadly with honoring elders or civil magistrates beyond the texts that confirm God's will for us honoring our father and mother specifically.

Certainly, compared to the number of verses in most other sections on the other Commandments that providentially need to do less extending beyond the specified words of the Biblical texts containing and/or commenting-and-expositing on the Ten Words proper.

 

[MW]

I thought his context was quite clear. "Few" meaning the number of verses contained in LC 124-133 that deal more broadly with honoring elders or civil magistrates beyond the texts that confirm God's will for us honoring our father and mother specifically.

Certainly, compared to the number of verses in most other sections on the other Commandments that providentially need to do less extending beyond the specified words of the Biblical texts containing and/or commenting-and-expositing on the Ten Words proper.

If we are keeping in mind the rules for understanding the commandments the scope for "inference" is rather large.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If we are keeping in mind the rules for understanding the commandments the scope for "inference" is rather large.

Yes. That's my point. We don't "prooftext" every principle, but properly establish important principles by GNC. The mode of argumentation in this thread (from some) would cast doubt on the ability to extend the 5th Commandment to its full Biblical range.

 

[MW]

Yes. That's my point. We don't "prooftext" every principle, but properly establish important principles by GNC. The mode of argumentation in this thread (from some) would cast doubt on the ability to extend the 5th Commandment to its full Biblical range.

I see now. So working from a template rather than reinventing a unique design for each commandment. That is a good point. Sorry for misunderstanding.