Lying and the Nazis at your door
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
The following is by Dr. F.N. Lee from a heated and prolonged debate on this issue on another list a few years ago. It is a private list but I trust he won't mind my reposting it here.
From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's Situation Ethics and moral relativism.
From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's Situation Ethics and moral relativism.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Let's raise the stakes a bit. What if the Nazis that are going door to door ask you to take an oath in God's name that you are not hiding Jews. Refusal to take the oath gets your house searched.
If you say it's OK to lie but not OK to lie while taking an oath, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teaching of let your yes be yes and your no be no?
If you say it's OK to lie but not OK to lie while taking an oath, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teaching of let your yes be yes and your no be no?
I definitely don't think we should ever swear to other gods which would violate the first commandment, so no. I wouldn't swear to the Nazis' god.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
I would cite Christ saying that my yes needs to be yes and my no needs to be no and not take an oath. I'd then ask them why they want me to violate my conscience and scripture and take an oath when I've already said no.....
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
They are asking you to swear by your God, not theirs.
I'm having difficulty following you. Are you saying that there is no place for oaths? What of WCF Ch. 22 (LBCF Ch. 23)?
All this is very interesting. If I understand correctly, both of you are willing to lie to save the Jews, but you draw the line at taking an oath.
A5pointer
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have just peaked into this thread and am too lazy too read all the responses. I say lie. Could any of us really do otherwise? We just examined John's account of the burial today. Joseph and Nicodemus were secret followers of Jesus, this does not seem to be explicitly condemned as agregious.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
WCF 22 lets me off the hook.
III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]
Is it good for me to give Jews up to death because they are Jews ?
Then I don't have to take the oath.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
WCF 22 lets me off the hook.
III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]
Is it good for me to give Jews up to death because they are Jews ?
Then I don't have to take the oath.
It is implicit in the situation that silence or noncompliance is tantamount to admitting you are sheltering outlaws. I work with kids who go in and out of jail everyday. I know when they are lying and telling the truth.
From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's Situation Ethics and moral relativism.
Amen! The law is the law. And the law is exceeding broad. And sin is the transgression of the law. Whenever we open doors to excuse sin, we place ourselves in danger of sinning presumptuously.
Sin complicates life. God always sees in black and white, but Satan wants us to believe that we live in some kind of a grey area in between. Yes, sometimes we appear to be in a situation where it looks as if no matter what we do we will sin. But we are also often forced to make a decision in a moment's notice -- not able to complete a detailed theological study. Would I lie to save a life? Perhaps (maybe even probably) I would, but it would still be a lie. That lie would be a sin to be confessed and and forgiven by the blood of Christ.
God never approves of sin, but in His sovereignty He always uses it for his own honour and glory. The wrath of man shall praise Him and the remainder of wrath He will restrain. That must never be used as an excuse to indulge in sin.
How many times have you seen the Lord bless the circumstances of your life even though you have sinned and been unfaithful to Him? Is that not an evidence of His marvelous grace? If it encourages us to sin, then we do not understand His saving and sanctifying grace. We can only stand in awe of His absolute sovereignty and his forbearance with His own blood-bought lambs.
I have actually heard men use the "war" analogy to say "We're at war with Arminians, so we don't owe them the truth" or "We're at war with the government, we don't owe them the truth, so we don't have to be honest on our tax returns or other govt forms." They could well end up being at war with everyone and become chronic liars.
Beware the leaven of sin.
Yeah, you've brought up a good point. My first reaction is to lie to the wicked but not to God or in God's name. On the one hand I feel free to lie to save a non-Christian's life in order to be faithful to God's justice. On the other hand I don't feel free to enter into an oath before God with a group of nazis to be as faithful to them as I am to God regarding the truth. I don't want to be bound to be faithful to a group of Nazis who will come back week after week asking the same question and reminding me of my oath to be faithful to them.
Notice how Joshua seems to have had no problem sending out spies "camoflagued" as if they were not Israelites in order to spy out the land. But then one of the lands around them returns the favor and camouflages themselves to return the favor:
"But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, they on their part acted with cunning and went and made ready provisions and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes. And all their provisions were dry and crumbly" (Josh 9:3-5).
Joshua has no problem sending out people camouflaged in order to scope out the land, so he can't very well complain when it happens to him. But he should have been far more cautious in swearing in God's name. Joshua considers breaking this oath as being worse than nullifying it so as to not break God's earlier command, "you must devote them to complete destruction..."
"But the people of Israel did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel. Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders. But all the leaders said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them. This we will do to them: let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them.”" (Josh 9:18-20)
Thus I would not swear oaths in God's name that I will be bound to be faithful to Nazis, even though I would have no problem deceiving them in other ways, like with a camouflaged room behind a wall that has no visible door that speaks out and says, "there is no room, therefore no Jews here!".
From my point of view those who argue that lying may be sometimes justifiable may sometimes appear to have a point, as with the situation contemplated in the OP. But in my opinion those who give a lot of thought to situations in which lying is justifiable often end up justifying it in cases where it is clearly not. I don't see how coming up with a theology of "godly lying" gets us anywhere but Fletcher's Situation Ethics and moral relativism.
Amen! The law is the law. And the law is exceeding broad. And sin is the transgression of the law. Whenever we open doors to excuse sin, we place ourselves in danger of sinning presumptuously.
Sin complicates life. God always sees in black and white, but Satan wants us to believe that we live in some kind of a grey area in between
You are absolutely right: it truly is God that sees in black and white. And we all try to, but we often disagree on whether God interprets something as black or white. In the case of Rahab, she deceived others into thinking that the spies had left that town and gone on to another. Black or white? What about when Jesus himself acts as if he is leaving a town and going on to another? White, obviously. Was Jesus expressing true facts by his actions? No, that wasn't his intent. His body language was meant to accomplish the opposite of the "facts" it expressed:
"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' So he went in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)
Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage, the type of deception that Christ uses to get the disciples to invite him in is completely just and no sin at all. This tells me that there is a justifiable form of deception. A type of deception which is about accomplishing the truth, not meant to express true facts. Like acting as if one is going to another town in order to do the opposite. Or like telling Ninevah they'll be destroyed in 40 days when those are not true facts in order to accomplish the truth of repentance in them.
It is true that things are black and white in God's eyes. Day and night in God's eyes. God knows if we are hiding Jews. But I still think it is justified to make white appear to be black sometimes. It is justified to make day appear as it it is night:
"Make your shade like night at the height of noon; shelter the outcasts; do not reveal the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them [heb: be "a hiding place"]from the destroyer." (Is 16:3-4)
In other words I currently believe it was just of Joshua to deceive by the use of spies, I think it was just of Rahab to deceive by making the spies appear to be not there but merely piles of flax, I believe that it was just of Rahab to act as if the spies had left the city and gone on to another, I believe it was just of God to say he was going to destroy Ninevah in 40 days even when he was planning on doing the opposite, I believe it was just of Samuel to deceive by telling a half-truth, I believe it was just of Jesus to act like he was going to another city when it was his intent to do the opposite. I believe it was just of those in WWII who made rooms that deceived by appearing to be merely walls. I believe it is just to deceive our enemies by dressing up our soldiers in camouflage clothing that says, "I am not here, I am just vegetation" instead of the far less deceptive British red coats... etc.
It is obviously true that some people try to justify sins they are committing using justification that only applies to something else altogether. But this doesn't make the war analogy invalid. And it also seems like you are saying that all deception is leaven. So would you argue that we shouldn't use spies during wartime, or we shouldn't camouflage our troops to deceptively appear to be vegetation? Should we go the red-coat route or are some forms of deception justifiable?
My point is that it was not just of Rahab. Only God is just. But, praise His name, He is also gracious and merciful, even when we sin. It is His mercy that must be our focus.
Shouldn't Christians ask "How can I obey?" rather than looking for ways to disobey? God will honour those who honour Him.
I think we do well to consider Dr. Lee's "Godly Liar's Decalogue" posted above.
You will notice that I said "Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage..." it wouldn't prove that there is no such thing as just deception because of the examples of people like Jesus, Jonah and God. I feel like I am a broken record since I keep repeating the same biblical examples over and over and yet no one seem to want to touch these particular passages of scripture. For instance, replying to my examples you say, "Only God is just... it is his mercy that must be our focus." How does this respond to my examples? Was it unjust of Jonah to say what God told him to say? Or is he only able to justly say this because God is, to use your words, "gracious and merciful" in regard to the deception? That would make Jonah a sinner for saying what God told him to say. Or was it unjust of Jesus to act as though he was leaving the city? Or is he only able to justly act in this way because God is "gracious and merciful" in regard to the deception? Of course not, that would make Christ a sinner. I know you do believe it was unjust of Rahab say the spies had left the city. I guess I can only assume from your particular language that you would also decry the immorality of wartime deceptions such as spies, camouflage, etc.. But then again, I can't be certain what you believe in regard to the justness of these types of deception, particularly the biblical examples, because for some reason you avoided saying anything about them–except for Rahab. Ok, I thought of a way to express what I am trying to say... see the next post...
HaigLaw
Puritan Board Sophomore
systematics better than Biblical theology?
I see others have differed, because, essentially, these examples and arguments can be abused.
It seems to me that there is a danger in composing a systematic theology that is so tight that it excludes precedents and examples from Biblical theology. That is, trying to develop a systematics better than God's Himself.
I see others have differed, because, essentially, these examples and arguments can be abused.
It seems to me that there is a danger in composing a systematic theology that is so tight that it excludes precedents and examples from Biblical theology. That is, trying to develop a systematics better than God's Himself.
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
You are not catching the thrust of the argument. I am not asking "How can I disobey God?" Rather, I am stating the fact that obedience in one area (given situation x) might actually be disobedience in another area.
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Again, this isn't "Delta Force." You would kill the first few Nazis. Other patrols would likely be nearby. While your spontaneous Rambo skills would get you through the first round, it is doubtful you will be able to protect your family from Gestapo raids in the next few minutes. So, you have just sentenced your family to death. While you can likely machine gun everyone who comes near the doorway, there is little you can do to stop them from angling a grenade into your window.
Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying... I have to admit now I am unsure of what you are saying. English is my second language, and I don't have a first.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying... I have to admit now I am unsure of what you are saying. English is my second language, and I don't have a first.
No, you understand what I am saying. Your posts have been very good so far.
Answerman
Puritan Board Sophomore
I just hope that American citizens would not let their guns get confiscated so we could band together and keep Gestapo patrols at bay if they ever try to pull that here. I would also hope that veterans and active military would split off with a good portion of military hardware so that we would be able to make actions like these short-lived. I would expect Rich and others like him to be leading the revolt against such rank tyranny.
I have some comfort when I see statistics on how many Americans have guns. It would take some changes to make what happened in Germany possible here. Most men that I know would not take to kindly to the government coming to confiscate their guns. I am starting to get involved in politics, and so I am working toward getting rid of laws that make gun owners register their guns, get licenses to conceal and carry etc. this has always been the first step toward military dictatorships and a violation of our second amendment rights.
I am starting to get off topic here so I will stop here.
HaigLaw
Puritan Board Sophomore
Rahab's lie was praised in Hebrews & James.
I think you're parsing her words too specifically, splitting hairs, if you will, and beating yourself up too much for reaching a bottom line, correct answer.
If the Holy Spirit had meant to praise her for only certain acts and condemn her for others, He would have said so, but instead He only praises her, which lends the inference is was for her entire course of conduct in saving the spies.
I think you're parsing her words too specifically, splitting hairs, if you will, and beating yourself up too much for reaching a bottom line, correct answer.
If the Holy Spirit had meant to praise her for only certain acts and condemn her for others, He would have said so, but instead He only praises her, which lends the inference is was for her entire course of conduct in saving the spies.
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
Hate to say this guys, but this is a little rediculous.
As if the Germans, coming to your door (they would first of all have had a tip off to be coming to your door), would then just accept your lie and walk off, without searching the place...
Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.
As if the Germans, coming to your door (they would first of all have had a tip off to be coming to your door), would then just accept your lie and walk off, without searching the place...
Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.
Such a statement is no more an answer than to say capital punishment and self defense are sin because killing is killing.
The distinction between deception God condemns and that he allows may not be as clear as the distinction between murder and killing, but it is still there.
The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.
This is the same kind of inductive reasoning those here have been using from Rahab, the midwives and other places. It is not an answer to those examples to say a lie is a lie, anymore than it is to say sabbath breaking is sabbath breaking. God defines what is the sin of lying, and he does so throught the entirety of the bible, not just one verse from the ten commandments.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Rahab had faith in God (as the author of Hebrews and the apostle James testify), but she used deception.
- Status
Similar threads
