True or False

[ascottishsamurai]

I'm not sure that this is in the right board or not, so please feel free to move it if you wish, but I've been working through an issue lately that I have yet to decipher very well, so I would like to present it here for additional thought and opinions.

Please look at the following passage of Scripture detailing the account of Rahab the prostitute and her protection of the spies from Israel.

Joshua 2:1-7
"1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there. 2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."

4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut."

Now, in order to understand my quandary, please examine the following passage from James.

James 2:25
"25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"

Now, these two passages seem to suggest that Rahab was considered righteous for lying, an act which Scripture clearly prohibits. But why? Is it ever considered "justified" under extreme circumstances to bear false witness? And how do you define "extreme circumstances"? Are they life or death situations? Times of war? Or was that simply an isolated situation in a time when God's presence and direction were far more clearly seen, being that he spoke verbally to His people?

...or perhaps most-likely, am I completely off the mark by misinterpreting the passages?

 

[Davidius]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/lying-nazis-your-door-31096/

 

[moral necessity]

I'm not sure that this is in the right board or not, so please feel free to move it if you wish, but I've been working through an issue lately that I have yet to decipher very well, so I would like to present it here for additional thought and opinions.

Please look at the following passage of Scripture detailing the account of Rahab the prostitute and her protection of the spies from Israel.

Joshua 2:1-7
"1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there. 2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."

4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut."

Now, in order to understand my quandary, please examine the following passage from James.

James 2:25
"25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"

Now, these two passages seem to suggest that Rahab was considered righteous for lying, an act which Scripture clearly prohibits. But why? Is it ever considered "justified" under extreme circumstances to bear false witness? And how do you define "extreme circumstances"? Are they life or death situations? Times of war? Or was that simply an isolated situation in a time when God's presence and direction were far more clearly seen, being that he spoke verbally to His people?

...or perhaps most-likely, am I completely off the mark by misinterpreting the passages?

It seems to me that James is speaking of Rahab's faith being visible through her actions. She demonstrated her faith and honor of God through her respect and honor and love towards his people. The commentary, in my opinion, is not so much on whether or not she sinned by lying as to whether or not she displayed her faith through her actions of honoring God's people in the only way that she could. Sometimes, God's commands do conflict with each other and put us in an awkward state. Sinning is sometimes the only option in certain circumstances because we live in a sinful world where a sinful solution may be the only one we can make. She is either an accesory to the death of Godly people or she is a liar. Her silence may even lead them to search her house. So, which should she choose? Again, the commentary James is making, in my opinion, is more about the displaying of her faith than it is about lying being righteous. Lying is not righteous, for God does not lie, and lying will not occur in eternity, for there will be no sin or situation there that one may encounter that only presents such options. But, in an unrighteous world, a righteous option is not always available. That's tends to be how I think about it for now.

Blessings!

 

[staythecourse]

Good question.

A similar post (maybe the one David brought up) questioned the act of the mid-wives who lied to keep the Israelite boys alive when Pharaoh wanted them murdered.

The faith is being rewarded and not the sin.

 

[TimV]

I agree with Bryan. Those midwives were two scared uneducated peasant women trembling in the court of the most powerful man in the world, a man who could have killed or tortured them at a whim. They lied, but it wasn't the lie that was praised; the lie was forgiven and the faithfulness praised.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Rahab was indeed righteous because she feared God rather than man. This is the same thing with the Hebrew mid wives. In a Just War, the Bible gives explicit approval of deception and espionage.

 

[dcomin]

It seems to me that James is speaking of Rahab's faith being visible through her actions. She demonstrated her faith and honor of God through her respect and honor and love towards his people. The commentary, in my opinion, is not so much on whether or not she sinned by lying as to whether or not she displayed her faith through her actions of honoring God's people in the only way that she could.

The problem with this proposed solution is that it is extremely difficult to conceive of how a person can faithfully sin. James tells us that for the one who knows the right that he should do and does not do it, to him it is sin. Rahab cannot be called "faithful" and her action be called "sin" at the same time.

Sometimes, God's commands do conflict with each other and put us in an awkward state. Sinning is sometimes the only option in certain circumstances because we live in a sinful world where a sinful solution may be the only one we can make. She is either an accesory to the death of Godly people or she is a liar.

The question comes down to this: Is deception always and in every circumstance a breach of the ninth commandment? Think about this parallel - Someone breaks into your house and threatens your wife and children with deadly force. You pull out your 44 magnum and shoot the intruder dead. You have killed a man. Have you broken the sixth commandment? I would maintain that you have not, because God in His word tells us that we are permitted to use deadly force in self defense. Your act of defending your family would be considered praiseworthy, heroic, and even righteous.

Are we to conclude that it is justifiable to gun down an intruder who threatens your life or the life of another, but it is not justifiable to lie to him? Did Rahab really break the ninth commandment by deceiving the men who came to her house intent upon killing God's messengers?

Remember who she was hiding? Hello! They were spies! And what is a spy but one who sneaks into enemy territory under cover of deception. Did God condemn spying? No.

There are some circumstances under which actions that would ordinarily be sinful are justified and even righteous. Using deadly force to defend the helpless against the imminent threat of death is not a breach of the sixth commandment. And deceiving the godless who pose an imminent threat to the lives of God's people is not a breach of the ninth commandment.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I suspect most Puritan commentators would say she lied and broke the ninth commandment. See James Durham's comments on the ninth at:
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner10-1.pdf
Durham's work on the ten commandments can be had here:
Store | Naphtali Press

 

[staythecourse]

Yes they broke the 9th and so did Abraham "who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." He lied before King Abimelech in the famous deception with Sarah to save his own skin.

So, righteousness is apart from the law

 

[dcomin]

Yes they broke the 9th and so did Abraham "who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." He lied before King Abimelech in the famous deception with Sarah to save his own skin.

So, righteousness is apart from the law

Not exactly a parallel case though. First, because the commendation that Abraham "believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" is not pronounced in direct reference to his lying to Abimelech. Second, because Abraham's lie was self-serving. Nowhere in the Scriptures is Abraham's lie to Abimelech approved of or praised. But Rahab is twice commended for her act of faith.

 

[dcomin]

I suspect most Puritan commentators would say she lied and broke the ninth commandment. See James Durham's comments on the ninth at:
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner10-1.pdf

Scanned through Durham's excellent and comprehensive treatment of the ninth commandment. Thanks for posting that Chris! I didn't see anything that specifically addressed the kind of extraordinary circumstance that is in view in this discussion though. Did Durham ever deal directly with the Rahab question? I've always found him helpful and would love to read anything he wrote on this question.

 

[Mindaboo]

Here is an example that came to my mind; I am an adopted child. I was adopted by my father, who married my biological mother. When someone would ask my father if I was his daughter his simple reply was, "Yes". He did not take the time to say, "Yes, I adopted her when she was a baby.", was he lying? No, I was his daughter, was it completely true? No, I was not his biological child. I use this because I don't think Joseph was proclaiming at every turn that Jesus was not his son, but that Mary had concieved Him through the working of the Holy Spirit. Would we call Joseph a liar? It might appear that Joseph was told to marry Mary to prevent others from knowing that Jesus was the Christ. If that were so, (is it) would that be counted as a form of deception?

 

[BobVigneault]

The scripture says that Rehab was 'considered' or 'reckoned' righteous.

The lying has nothing to do with the reckoning, for her story is our story. Her righteousness, like our righteousness is a totally foreign righteousness. Hers was the righteousness of God which is by faith from first to last. She was righteous in Christ. The fact that she lied is simply to remind us that she too was a sinner and did not deserve God's mercy or salvation, in fact she deserved to die. She was saved by grace through faith.

This is not a story about morality it is a story of redemption and the redeemed must fulfill this one requirement - they must be sinners.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I suspect most Puritan commentators would say she lied and broke the ninth commandment. See James Durham's comments on the ninth at:
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner10-1.pdf

Scanned through Durham's excellent and comprehensive treatment of the ninth commandment. Thanks for posting that Chris! I didn't see anything that specifically addressed the kind of extraordinary circumstance that is in view in this discussion though. Did Durham ever deal directly with the Rahab question? I've always found him helpful and would love to read anything he wrote on this question.

Not Rahab specifically Doug, but he covers the midwives under officious lies, and they are usually presented as comparable cases (?). Here is the paragraph:

2. Lies are commonly divided into three sorts,
according to their ends: (1) There is mendacium
perniciosum, a malicious or pernicious lie, when
it is hurtful to another, and so designed, as were
the lies of those that bare false witness against
Christ and of Ziba against Mephibosheth. (2)
There is officiosum mendacium, or an officious lie,
when it is for a good end, such was the midwives’
lie (Ex. 1:9), thus denying of a thing to be, even
when the granting of it would infer hurt and
damage to another, is contrary to truth, and we
ought not to do evil that good may come of it, and
it overturns the end for which speaking was
appointed, when we declare a thing otherways
than we know or think it to be. And as no man
can lie for himself for his own safety, so can he
not for another’s; thus to lie even for God is a
fault, and accounted to be talking deceitfully and
wickedly for him, when to keep off what we
account dishonorable to him, we will assert that
he may, or may not do such a thing, when yet the
contrary is true (Job 13:4, 7). (3) There is jocosum
mendacium, when it is for sport to make others
laugh and be merry, which being sinful in itself
can be no matter of lawful sport to make others
laugh. (4) We may add one more, and that is
mendacium temerarium, when men lie and have
no end before them, but through inadvertency
and customary looseness, speak otherways than
the thing is, this is called the way of lying (Psa.
119:29), and is certainly sinful; as when they told
David when Amnon was killed, that all the king’s
sons were killed, being too hasty in concluding
before they had tried.
​

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Regarding the midwives, Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole both argued that the midwives did not lie.

Matthew Henry on Exodus 1.18-19:

3. Their justifying themselves in this disobedience, when they were charged with it as a crime, v. 18. They gave a reason for it, which, it seems, God's gracious promise furnished them with—that they came too late to do it, for generally the children were born before they came, v. 19. I see no reason we have to doubt the truth of this; it is plain that the Hebrews were now under an extraordinary blessing of increase, which may well be supposed to have this effect, that the women had very quick and easy labour, and, the mothers and children being both lively, they seldom needed the help of midwives: this these midwives took notice of, and, concluding it to be the finger of God, were thereby emboldened to disobey the king, in favour of those whom Heaven thus favoured, and with this justified themselves before Pharaoh, when he called them to an account for it. Some of the ancient Jews expound it thus, Ere the midwife comes to them they pray to their Father in heaven, and he answereth them, and they do bring forth. Note, God is a readier help to his people in distress than any other helpers are, and often anticipates them with the blessings of his goodness; such deliverances lay them under peculiarly strong obligations.

Matthew Poole on Exodus 1.19 (for further study on this see Poole's Synopsis on Exodus 1-18, which was recently published as noted here):

This might be no lie, as many suppose, but a truth concerning many of them, and they do not affirm it to be so with all. And so it might be, either because their daily and excessive labours joined with the fears of the execution of the king’s command, whereof they seem to have gotten notice, did hasten their birth, as the same causes do commonly in other women; or because they, understanding their danger, would not send for the midwives, but committed themselves to God’s providence, and the care of some of their neighbours present with them. So here was nothing but truth, though they did not speak the whole truth, which they were not obliged to do.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Doug and Ben -- Kent Butterfield wrote an essay on Rahab. I don't recall his conclusion at the moment, but you may want to check with him on this.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Fisher's Catechism:

Q. 78.8. How many sorts of lies are there?

A. They are commonly ranked into three sorts; namely, ludicrous, pernicious, and officious lies.

Q. 78.9. What is a ludicrous or jocose lie?

A. It is when persons relate things they know to be false, with a design to make a jest or diversion to others.

Q. 78.10. What is it to be guilty of a pernicious lie?

A. It is to contrive or spread some malicious report we know or suspect to be false, on purpose to bring about some hurt or damage to another, as Ziba did against Mephibosheth, 2 Sam 16:3.

Q. 78.11. What is the aggravation of a pernicious lie?

A. It is the very worst sort of lying, being both a contempt of the omniscient God, who is witness to the falsehood; and a deliberate intention to do injury to our neighbour, though in our conscience we believe him innocent of what we lay to his charge.

Q. 78.12. What is it for a person to make an officious lie?

A. It is to tell a downright untruth, for their own, or their neighbour's safety and security in time of danger, as Rahab did who hid the spies in the roof of her house, and yet alleged they were gone out of the city, and that she knew not where they went, Josh 2:4-6.

Q. 78.13. Does not the apostle ascribe this action of hers to her faith, when he says, Heb 11:31: "By faith Rahab, the harlot, perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace?"

A. No; what he ascribes to her faith is, her having received the spies with peace, that is, her having consulted their safety and preservation with the greatest care and diligence; but not the lie she invented in order to conceal them. Her protecting the spies is commended, but not the manner in which she did it.

Q. 78.14. Who are they that plead in favour of officious lies?

A. The Papists, Socinians, and most of our modern moralists.

Q. 78.15. What arguments do they allege in defence of this sort of lying?

A. That it has been practised by saints in scripture; and that it is so far from being hurtful to any, that it has been beneficial to some in certain cases.

Q. 78.16. What answer is to be given to the practice of the saints in this matter?

A. That their sinful failures, in this and other instances, are not recorded in scripture for imitation, but for caution and warning, that we fall not into the same snares.

Q. 78.17. How do you answer the other argument for officious lying, "That it is so far from being hurtful to any, that it has been beneficial and advantageous to some, in certain cases, particularly in saving the life of a dear friend, or useful member of society, which might otherwise have been manifestly endangered?"

A. It is answered thus, that in no case are we to do evil that good may come, Rom 3:8. If we are not to speak wickedly for God, nor talk deceitfully for him, according to Job 13:7, neither are we to do so, though it were for the benefit of all mankind, or the best among them.

 

[TimV]

Just a point, that hypothetical situations don't always lead to answers.

A more realistic scenario is the police with a social worker knock on you door, and say there was a report of child abuse. Say there was, at least in the legal sense, where a kid got the belt. Does the wife say "Oh, yes, I can't tell a lie" or does she say "Oh, no, we never spank our kids" or does she say, "Please come back when you have a search warrant, and in the mean time I'm calling the HSDL, as I'm a bit short on cash right now, and the last time one of our people was forced to bring their kids out for inspection without a warrant we sued them and won 150,000".

Rushdoony explained it to me once when he said that you don't owe the enemy the truth.

But now for another type of lie, a ruse de guerre. Gideon used one when he tricked the Midianites into thinking there were more of Gideon's men than there were, and Joshua used one when I tricked the men of Ai into thinking he was retreating. There are several other examples of ruse de guerre in the Bible, and unless I've missed it somewhere on these two threads it hasn't been treated as a separate type of lie.

 

[Bygracealone]

I've heard the argument which says during times of war, truth is not owed to your enemy. In a war, neither side is going to tell the other side what their plans are or where they are hiding, etc. In fact, one of the major tactics in war is to lead the other side to come to a wrong conclusion and make a wrong move, which is often accomplished through deception (e.g. sending a false message across the wire knowing that the enemy will pick it up). Or setting up booby traps (giving the impression all is safe, when in fact it's not).

I seem to recall some interesting war tactics employed in the Scriptures...

If this is a valid principle (note the "if"), then can we apply it to the "war" we wage against the enemies of Christ's Kingdom?

 

[dcomin]

Q. 78.14. Who are they that plead in favour of officious lies?

A. The Papists, Socinians, and most of our modern moralists.

Wow! I really hope I'm not a Papist, Socinian or modern moralist! But the reasoning just doesn't come together for me on this. For example, Fisher states:

Q. 78.16. What answer is to be given to the practice of the saints in this matter?

A. That their sinful failures, in this and other instances, are not recorded in scripture for imitation, but for caution and warning, that we fall not into the same snares.

Q. 78.17. How do you answer the other argument for officious lying, "That it is so far from being hurtful to any, that it has been beneficial and advantageous to some, in certain cases, particularly in saving the life of a dear friend, or useful member of society, which might otherwise have been manifestly endangered?"

A. It is answered thus, that in no case are we to do evil that good may come, Rom 3:8. If we are not to speak wickedly for God, nor talk deceitfully for him, according to Job 13:7, neither are we to do so, though it were for the benefit of all mankind, or the best among them.

Fisher's answers seem to indicate that neither Rahab nor the Hebrew midwives should have done what they did. He says that Rahab's action is recorded "for a caution and warning, that we fall not into the same snares." Does this mean that if we are faced with a similar situation, we are to learn from Rahab's negative example that it is wrong and sinful to lie in order to conceal God's messengers and we should, so as not to fall into the same snare, rather turn over God's messengers to the authorities?

It's difficult to reconcile this application with the Scripture's overt commendation of Rahab's actions as faithful.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Matthew Henry on Joshua 2:

III. The piety of Rahab in receiving and protecting these Israelites. Those that keep public-houses entertain all comers, and think themselves obliged to be civil to their guests. But Rahab showed her guests more than common civility, and went upon an uncommon principle in what she did; it was by faith that she received those with peace against whom her king and country had denounced war, Heb. xi. 31. 1. She bade them welcome to her house; they lodged there, though it appears by what she said to them (v. 9) she knew both whence they came and what their business was. 2. Perceiving that they were observed coming into the city, and that umbrage was taken at it, she hid them upon the roof of the house, which was flat, and covered them with stalks of flax (v. 6), so that, if the officers should come thither to search for them, there they might lie undiscovered. By these stalks of flax, which she herself had lain in order upon the roof to dry in the sun, in order to the beating of it and making it ready for the wheel, it appears she had one of the good characters of the virtuous woman, however in others of them she might be deficient, that she sought wool and flax, and wrought willingly with her hands, Prov. xxxi. 13. From this instance of her honest industry one would hope that, whatever she had been formerly, she was not now a harlot. 3. When she was examined concerning them, she denied they were in her house, turned off the officers that had a warrant to search for them with a sham, and so secured them. No marvel that the king of Jericho sent to enquire after them (v. 2, 3); he had cause to fear when the enemy was at his door, and his fear made him suspicious and jealous of all strangers. He had reason to demand from Rahab that she should bring forth the men to be dealt with as spies; but Rahab not only disowned that she knew them, or knew where they were, but, that no further search might be made for them in the city, told the pursuers they had gone away again and in all probability might be overtaken, v. 4, 5. Now, (1.) We are sure this was a good work: it is canonized by the apostle (James ii. 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. xvi. 3, 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 (v. 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. iii. 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.

Matthew Poole on Joshua 2.3-4:

Josh 2:3-4. Or, But the woman had taken—and had hid them, to wit, before the messengers came from the king; as soon as she understood from her neighbours, or common rumour, that there was a suspicion of the matter, and guessed that search would be made. And this is justly mentioned as a great and generous act of faith, Heb 11:31, for she did apparently venture her life upon a stedfast persuasion of the truth of God's word and promise given to the Israelites. I wist not whence they were: her answer, contained in these and the following words, was palpably false, and therefore unquestionably sinful; howsoever, her intention was good therein: see Rom 3:8. But it is very probable, she being a heathen, might think, what some Christians have thought and said, that an officious lie is not unlawful. Or, at worst, this was her infirmity, which was graciously pardoned by God, and her faith was amply rewarded.

 

[Bygracealone]

This matter is all the more difficult in light of the sixth commandment:

WLC 1:135 WLC 135 What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves(1) and others(2) by resisting all thoughts and purposes,(3) subduing all passions,(4) and avoiding all occasions,(5) temptations,(6) and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;(7) by just defence thereof against violence,(8) patient bearing of the hand of God,(9) quietness of mind,(10) cheerfulness of spirit;(11) a sober use of meat,(12) drink,(13) physick,(14) sleep,(15) labour,(16) and recreations;(17) by charitable thoughts,(18) love,(19) compassion,(20) meekness, gentleness,(21) kindness; peaceable,(22) mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;(23) forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;(24) comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.(25) 


WLC 1:136 WLC 136 What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,(1) or of others,(2) except in case of publick justice,(3) lawful war,(4) or necessary defence;(5) the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;(6) sinful anger,(7) hatred,(8) envy,(9) desire of revenge;(10) all excessive passions,(11) distracting cares;(12) immoderate use of meat, drink,(13) labour,(14) and recreations;(15) provoking words,(16) oppression,(17) quarrelling,(18) striking, wounding ,(19) and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.(20) 

 

[dcomin]

This matter is all the more difficult in light of the sixth commandment:

WLC 1:135 WLC 135 What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves(1) and others(2) by resisting all thoughts and purposes,(3) subduing all passions,(4) and avoiding all occasions,(5) temptations,(6) and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;(7) by just defence thereof against violence,(8) patient bearing of the hand of God,(9) quietness of mind,(10) cheerfulness of spirit;(11) a sober use of meat,(12) drink,(13) physick,(14) sleep,(15) labour,(16) and recreations;(17) by charitable thoughts,(18) love,(19) compassion,(20) meekness, gentleness,(21) kindness; peaceable,(22) mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;(23) forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;(24) comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.(25) 


WLC 1:136 WLC 136 What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,(1) or of others,(2) except in case of publick justice,(3) lawful war,(4) or necessary defence;(5) the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;(6) sinful anger,(7) hatred,(8) envy,(9) desire of revenge;(10) all excessive passions,(11) distracting cares;(12) immoderate use of meat, drink,(13) labour,(14) and recreations;(15) provoking words,(16) oppression,(17) quarrelling,(18) striking, wounding ,(19) and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.(20) 

Exactly! I certainly concur with Matthew Henry that Rahab's situation was extraordinary, in that God had purposed Jericho's destruction. But it seems that there must be a way to reconcile the duties required by the sixth commandment and those required by the ninth commandment in extreme circumstances where it seems that these duties are in conflict with one another.

 

[Gloria]

I'm not sure that this is in the right board or not, so please feel free to move it if you wish, but I've been working through an issue lately that I have yet to decipher very well, so I would like to present it here for additional thought and opinions.

Please look at the following passage of Scripture detailing the account of Rahab the prostitute and her protection of the spies from Israel.

Joshua 2:1-7
"1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there. 2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."

4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut."

Now, in order to understand my quandary, please examine the following passage from James.

James 2:25
"25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"

Now, these two passages seem to suggest that Rahab was considered righteous for lying, an act which Scripture clearly prohibits. But why? Is it ever considered "justified" under extreme circumstances to bear false witness? And how do you define "extreme circumstances"? Are they life or death situations? Times of war? Or was that simply an isolated situation in a time when God's presence and direction were far more clearly seen, being that he spoke verbally to His people?

...or perhaps most-likely, am I completely off the mark by misinterpreting the passages?

I've wondered this myself. Thanks for posting!

 

[staythecourse]

3. Their justifying themselves in this disobedience, when they were charged with it as a crime, v. 18. They gave a reason for it, which, it seems, God's gracious promise furnished them with—that they came too late to do it, for generally the children were born before they came, v. 19. I see no reason we have to doubt the truth of this; it is plain that the Hebrews were now under an extraordinary blessing of increase, which may well be supposed to have this effect, that the women had very quick and easy labour, and, the mothers and children being both lively, they seldom needed the help of midwives: this these midwives took notice of, and, concluding it to be the finger of God, were thereby emboldened to disobey the king, in favour of those whom Heaven thus favoured, and with this justified themselves before Pharaoh, when he called them to an account for it. Some of the ancient Jews expound it thus, Ere the midwife comes to them they pray to their Father in heaven, and he answereth them, and they do bring forth. Note, God is a readier help to his people in distress than any other helpers are, and often anticipates them with the blessings of his goodness; such deliverances lay them under peculiarly strong obligations.

Thanks Andrew. Matthew Henry is always right in my estimation (only because I am biased. He has helped me much)

But I believe he has come to a wrong conclusion in this case. It says God blessed the midwives for telling the Pharaoh the male children were being born fast. Why would the Lord bless them if they are doing nothing special? They were protecting the children apparently by a lie. God bless them, too! (Well, I guess He did)

 

[staythecourse]

1 Then Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim, R19 saying, "Go, view the land, especially Jericho." So they went and came into the house of a R20 harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged F10 there. 2 It was told the king of Jericho, saying, "Behold, men from the sons of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land." 3 And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land." 4 But the woman R21 had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 "It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them." 6 But she R22 had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof. 7 So the men pursued them on the road to the Jordan to the fords; and as soon as those who were pursuing them had gone out, they shut the gate.

"The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.

However, Rahab the harlot and her father's household and all she had, Joshua spared; and she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day, for she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.

In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

Those are all the pertinent verses.

Rahab is blessed:
1. because of her faith
2. in the only true God
3. who had done miracles for Israel
4. resulting in her showing favor to the Israelites
5. by welcoming, hiding and sending off the spies
6. and lying to her countrymen
7. for her salvation.

Clear as mud.

 

[skellam]

Interesting discussion. It seems there are good arguments on both sides. I agree with Doug about the tension between fulfilling the requirements of all the commandments especially in cases where a life is to be protected. The oft used example is a German during WWII facing the Nazis at the front door while a Jewish family hides in the next room. If these Nazis burst through the door with the intent to kill the family, would we not be obligated to obey the 6th commandment and protect their lives even with lethal force if it was within our power to do so? If so, then why is it a sin to not tell the complete truth in order to fulfill the 6th commandment of protecting life?

I was thinking other cases in scripture where lies were told in addition the already mentioned Rahab and Pharaoh's midwives:

1. It could be argued that Abraham did not tell the whole truth to his son when asked where the lamb was for the burnt offering -- "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" "Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together." (Genesis 22:8)

2. Abraham instructed his wife to lie to protect his life -- "As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you." (Genesis 12:11-13)

3. Genesis 34:24-25 describes how Simeon and Levi killed all the men in a city after tricking them into having them all circumcised.

4. Gideon deceives the enemy into believing that a great army is attacking them. Thus he leads his people to victory (Judg. 7:16-8:28)

5. The men of Israel used deception to preserve the tribe of Benjamin from their hasty oath. "The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.' 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah. So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.' " (Judges 21:17-22)

6. Joshua 8 -- Joshua uses deception to create an ambush to conquer the city of Ai.

7. Maybe not a direct lie but Esther deceives Haman into attending a banquet which he believes is to honor him (not revealing that she herself is Jewish or that she plans to have him killed) in order to preserve the Jewish people.

 

[staythecourse]

David used deception frequently.

1. When he was among the Philistines avoiding Saul. He was wiping out entire Philistine villages and lying to the commander about it.

2. He also lied in getting the Show bread in his initial retreat from Saul.

3. He played an insane man to deceive a king as well.

And Jacob was known as a deceiver.