A Right to Lie?

Hi, all! I was in an interesting debate with a couple individuals recently. The topic of the debate was the acceptability of lying.

Essentially, we disagreed over whether it was right to lie in order to save our family (if the worst came to the worst). Over time, three different views arose that I would like to see hashed out and discussed.

1. The first view is that lying under any circumstance is wrong. Sin is sin, those who hold this position say, and under no circumstance can God's law be violated, even to save lives. It is God, not man, who decides the lives of men, and if God wants my family to be safe, he will keep them safe.

2. The second view (the one I personally hold and will elaborate further on if necessary), is that it is OK to lie in order to save life, but not for the sake of lying (that is, it can be done ONLY to save life). The lives of my family are not mine to indirectly take (murder, in my opinion), and even though I am sinning, I feel that God values life more highly than anything. God has not given me the choice. I, as a member of a family, am to protect it, and cannot justify indirect murder, which is also a sin. It ultimately is a choice between one sin and another, and in such conflict, life should take precedence.

3. The third view, one held by Augustine, is to say nothing. Although this could possibly lead to the death of the family, it is not as incriminating as telling the truth or giving a lie. God wants us to avoid sin, but he still values life, so if you say nothing, you sin in no way.

I would like to here your opinions on these views and on which you personally hold. I hope this will be a fruitful and productive discussion. :)

I don't think you should lie.

A scripture popped into my mind at the question: is it right to lie?

"… and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone…"

Just thought I would make one comment on the verse, before I finish writing my school paper :)

Though the verse is speaking about liars, I do not think that if you hold to what Jimmy does (about being able to lie to save family) that you can be classified with that group. Say, I tell a lie to save my family, while believing that I am a true Christian. On the judgement day, do you think I'm going to hell because I told that one lie? Certainly not. Now, if I told lies all the time about everything (not just for "good purposes" [assuming that Jimmy's position is correct] I do think that one would go to hell, if they do not repent. A believer is known by their good fruits. So, if you have a "Christian" who is known only for lying, and not good fruits, then I believe they are not a true Christian, but one who deserves to go to hell.

So though I am not saying that I agree with Jimmy's position (then again, I'm not saying that I disagree!), I don't think that someone who holds to that is automatically put into a group with the sinners who are known for their lying. Though I don't know if Rahab was correct in lying, she was still one that was saved, and I believe did not go to hell.

Thoughts, anyone? :)

I agree with what you said, Bethany. :)
"You shall know them by their fruits…"

I am going to say that perhaps I agree with the first view you posed.

Number 2, however has major problems. In no situation will God present you with a choice of two sins, and no way for escape.

1 Corinthians 10:13 KJV
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

If we believe that God is sovereign over all things, then is contrary to scripture to say that we are presented with a choice of sins;

James 1:13 KJV
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

I would also say that God wants us to do something more than 'avoid sin'; we should hate as he hates it.

Proverbs 13:5 KJV
A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.

As for the third, I think it may be an option.

I like your analysis here. So, would you say that if a group of armed men came to your door, demanding the location of your family and asking if they were in the house, you would answer truthfully? This seems to fall short of the Biblical command, especially for fathers, to protect their children. Lying to the men would be a sin, but telling the truth would be a sin (throwing off and denouncing God's command for fathers) and a sin in the form of indirect murder. I personally believe that all sin is reprehensible, but when it comes to life, should we really be so flippant?

I agree with you, though, that the third option does seem possible (far more supportable, I think, than the first). What would you say, though, if the third was not an option? Of course, God does not force us to sin (some ultra-ultra Calvinists would disagree with me here :) ) and of course a righteous man hates lying (but does he hate murder more?), but if faced between two options in a plausible circumstance, which is the more acceptable option?

There will be no situation in which you must go against one of God's commands, in order to fulfill another.
You can come up with a scenario, but God's nature is such (as I attempted to show by the scriptures in my previous comment,) that he would not allow such a scenario to occur. There will always be a right path for you to walk in not just a path that is less evil than another.

I think that the sin of murder is greater than that of lying, I also think that the sin of neglect of family is greater than lying.

But let's not commit the either or fallacy, there may be other options.

You need not answer these intruders, if you have any means of self-defence, you use it to protect your family and (of perhaps lesser importance,) your own life also. In the event alluded to in the scenario you gave, that you have no means of protection, you can remain silent before them, or tell them you refuse to disclose your loved-ones location. And then likely die as a martyr in the cause of protecting those in your care.

Rahab lied to protect the Israelite spies from the men of Jericho. Was she wrong?

My dad's view on this: She was wrong. She could have told them exactly where the spies were, but God would have hidden them if it was His will.

Personally, I hold one of either the 2nd or the 3rd views…

Well, if she had not lied she and her family would not have been saved from the destruction of the city… and Christ would not have been born.

I have always wondered was why God would bless the patriarchs (Abraham, and Jacob) so much when they were such notorious liers?

Ditto on all of that. :)

I understand that. There is always a way out, for God does not force us to sin, but in such a stressful moment as that (when what you do could result in your entire family's death), the third option may not come to mind. I agree that you can not say anything, and that it might work, but I can think of multiple scenarios in which saying nothing can also lead to your family's deaths as well as your own (if you refuse to answer, that is pretty much and admission of guilt (at least, it would be taken as such by evil men)). Again, the topic of the thread is Right to Lie? By that, I am mainly asking whether it is acceptable to lie to save one's family if they can think of no other way in the heat of the moment? They both represent sin (I believe), but which, of the two, is better if there MUST be a dilemma in the mind of the performer?

Thank you for your take on the question, by the way! I really appreciate the answers you and everyone else have given so far.

If the watchman warn not the people of danger, when their enemies come and kill them, he is held responsible.
This is talked about in Ezekiel 3, so, we might conclude that the protectors of the family are held to the same principle, failure to do their duty results in responsibility for the consequences.

But now we have the question, who is the protector of our home, country or body.
Is it us?I believe we are to do our best to be, but where in scripture does it say we are the protector of our family?
Many times in scripture we read that God is our protection, not man. Psalm 4:8, 23, & 124 are great examples of this.

Psalm 4:8 KJV (emphasis added personally)
I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.

We do not have the perogative to decide whether God's commands suit our situations or not, mortal man does not see what Almighty God does. We are his servants, if the only thing you can think of is a sin, then you must do nothing so that you do not sin, which is an act of rebellion against our Good and Perfect Heavenly Father.

In the situation where there are evil men asking for where your family is, you are supposed to protect them. Assuming that they will stay safe where they are if you lie, may be correct, but in the way you do it, you are also then trying to save your own skin. Why else would you lie? If they are evil, do you think they will believe your lie?

Do no think however that you can escape them even if you do lie.

Take for example WWII, Holland, Nazis are making a raid on a certain watchmakers shop, where there are Jews hidden. The TenBoom family are questioned "where are the Jews?" "There are no Jews here." they answered. Now what happened? The Jewish people in hiding escaped surely enough, but the TenBooms were taken to the prision camps anyhow, and several of them died in the horrible places. The result may well have been the same if they hadn't lied.

We need have no worry of failure to do our duty, if we are following God, but be sure that if we sin, we are no longer following God. It would be better for your whole family to perish while you acted according to God's will than to stray from it, and save them all.

The example of Uzzah in the Old Testament, shows us that when we don't follow God's ways, disaster happens.
This started when the Ark of the Covenant was not being transported according to the ways God laid out (being carried by the priests,) and they had his word. Then Uzzah, tried to prevent the Ark from slipping off the cart, I'm pretty sure he knew he wasn't supposed to, If he did, he should have let the Ark of God fall to the ground, as he was not allowed to touch it. Then Uzzah gets struck dead. God means what he says. If God had wanted the Ark not to fall, he could have easily prevented it from slipping.

Bad things happen to those who are in the will of God, and those who are not in it. But, if we are in the will of God, we are suffering because we live in a fallen world, and for our faith. If we are not doing the will of God, we suffer as sinners reaping the consequences for our deeds.

If something is a sin there are no excuses for doing it, and if something is our God-given-duty, then there are no excuses for not doing it.

And God will not give you a conflict of whether you should 'not sin' or 'neglect duty', as both are sin.

Hi, MilesChristiSum!

Thank you for your reply (and apologies for my delayed response!). I think I see what you are saying, and you have actually brought me a little closer to embracing your position. Still, I would like to explore the nuances of it a bit further. :)

You mentioned that if you lie, what would be the point if not to save your own skin? I might be misunderstanding your point here, but I really don't see how the two are related. If I were to lie, it would not be to save my own skin (for if the lie WERE found out, the consequences would be devastating to me personally, not beneficial), but to help ensure my family's escape. Of course, one can never know for certain whether the lie will be effective, but even evil men can be deceived (the men of Jericho in the story of Rehab were deceived by a lie). A lie can indeed work, and, in my opinion, has a better likelihood of working in such a situation as I provided. However, the question, I think, is more of morality than of probability of success.

Regarding the Ten boom story, are you saying that if they told the Germans that the Jews were there, the results would have been the same? If so, I would ask how that would make sense, as it seems to defy logic? I think, though, that you are arguing here that they might have escaped if the Ten Booms said nothing. I would say maybe, but silence is still telling. The problem, on the whole with silence is that, while it is not a direct sin, it is more likely to result in death and can easily be taken as an admission of guilt. The Ten Booms, were they silent on a direct question, might have helped the Jews, but I would suspect that the Germans would not have taken silence as a token of innocence.

The example of Uzzah is one that is very telling in this question. There is a key difference, though, between that story and the situation I presented. Uzzah letting the ark fall would not have been a sin. If you let the evil men find your family, while you assist or sit silently by, you are actually committing a sin of indirect murder. God wants us to obey him in all things, but is telling the truth or giving telling silence in the instance I provided earlier God's will? I would answer that the answer is no. This makes the question much more complicated.

You said earlier, though, that God will always provide a way of escape. While I would definitely agree with you here (and I definitely agree with the Bible in this aspect), allow me to provide an illustration that might make my specific position a little bit more clear. This is a story that, I know, is NOT simply a hypothetical, in that it has indeed happened before. A boy and young girl are situated near the edge of a cliff. Their parent told them never to stand on the edge of the cliff itself for fear of falling. The boy and girl are alone now, and their parents and all else are beyond calling distance. While the boy's back is turned, the little girl wanders near the cliff's edge. The boy turns just in time to see her tripping and about to lose her balance and fall over the precipice. He could either do nothing or try to save her. If he tries to save her, he disobeys his parents, but at the same time he has the ability to perhaps stay her mortal fall. If he does nothing, throwing his hands in the air, he is guilty of indirect murder, yet he does obey the fifth commandment. One might object that the boy should do nothing and leave the result to God. However, God, I believe, does not act at the mere beck and call of man. He is entirely sovereign. I think it presumptuous to constantly throw our hands (almost arrogantly) in the air, do nothing and expect God to act (or, if he doesn't, pat ourselves on the back and say that it must not have been God's will after all) (although, waiting for God to act is not in and of itself a bad thing, only if it supplants our desire and ability to act). God places us here for action. My solution to the all-too-frequent problem above is for the boy to grab the little girl. He disobeys his parents, but he saves a life. What is the Biblical mandates' intention regarding obedience? I believe it to be that we must obey in all things unless those commands involve the breaking of a biblical commandment (murder). In the same way, I believe that telling the truth has a deeper purpose and even a higher law by which it is governed. I think that what God condemns in lying is the intent to deceive for one's own personal purposes and entirely apart from God and his will. I think that, when life is at stake and evil men who have thrown off God's law entirely are concerned, we have the ability, not to deceive maliciously and for one's own benefit or preservation, but to follow the purpose behind the law and to uphold life. Ultimately, I think (as in the case of the fifth commandment and the Romans 13 leadership commandment), that there is an extremely narrow exception to the ninth commandment which allows for one not to commit another, more serious offense to God's law. In most instances, I would agree with you that it is better to do nothing. Still, I think there are some instances in which one can take a very, very narrow exception (as did Rahab and others) and lie in order to preserve the lies of others. Again, this exception is narrow, and I do not want to sound as though I am creating exceptions. I am largely taking this from New Testament principles of purpose behind the law and the very relevant story of Rahab (who is not condemned for her actions). In the story of Rahab, lives were at stake, and the very faith that she is commended for in Hebrews is the faith that caused her to divert her countrymen from the hiding place of the Israelites. Were there less at stake, and she lied merely to preserve her own fortune or house, I should say that the action was unacceptable. As it did concern life itself, though, and at no condemnation of Scripture, I would say that there is a very small exception in such cases as that of Rahab, and that employing such narrow exceptions does not constitute sin (and thus can be equated with the way of escape mentioned in 1 Corinthians).

Well, if she had not lied she and her family would not have been saved from the destruction of the city… and Christ would not have been born. I have always wondered was why God would bless the patriarchs (Abraham, and Jacob) so much when they were such notorious liers?

I think the answer to this is that God blesses people, not because of, but in spite of their sin. It's His grace.

My purpose in using the TenBooms as an illustration, was to show that the evil men, did not listen to the lies either.
You said :
"The Ten Booms, were they silent on a direct question, might have helped the Jews, but I would suspect that the Germans would not have taken silence as a token of innocence."
We should not be ashamed of helping others and doing God's work however, so being viewed as 'innocent', shouldn't be our aim.
In the instance of the children on the cliff, if it is murder to let the girl fall off the cliff because of her own disobedience, than it is necessary to obey God rather than man.
When we talk about the evil men coming to do harm or murder to our family, you said :
"If you let the evil men find your family, while you assist or sit silently by, you are actually committing a sin of indirect murder."
No one says sit idly by, fight back, dying in such a cause is better than lying for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PLEI-MZnoDB4ZKY0e2OXzu-Pr9utOJ9f0n&v=l3KhZbh7aHk#t=783.

It is never (yes literally never) a good practice to base a theology of practice upon a single example in the bible; rather our theology should be derived from the message as presented throughout the scriptures. Otherwise we run the severe risk of misinterpretation of the Word of GOD. I do not believe that I came up with this idea on my own, but have heard it before, and a search could probably produce a quote by a respected theologian which parallels that thought.

That said, the midwives disobeyed the pharaoh's order; he knew it and asked why, they stated that the Hebrew women were active people and had quick deliveries before the midwives had gone in to them. This was not the true reason, both the midwives and pharaoh knew it, the Hebrew women were active and therefore experienced quick births (e.g. earlier this year two of my cousins had babies, the one was active, and had a quite short labor (>1hr I believe), while the other was not, and had a long labor (around 23 hrs).) This however was a red-herring style excuse which didn't fool the pharaoh. It didn't matter whether the babies were completely born by the time that the midwives were on scene, or not, they failed to follow his Hebrew-male birth control mandate. This is evident by the next directive given by the pharaoh which instructs his people (the Egyptians) to carry out the infanticide which the midwives would not.

Nowhere did it implicate that a lie was given honor by God. The scripture did say however that the midwives were given honor by God for their fear of Him.

Way to go midwives; choose life! it is a gift of God.

I believe they were honored by God for it all. The Bible even says He dealt well with them RIGHT after it said they lied. If God didn’t honor them for that, don’t you think He would have written it differently? Plus, we also have the issue that the 9th commandment does not forbid all lying, and Colossians 3:9 refers to lying in the Church/among believers (“each other”).

The Bible dosen't say they lied. For all we know it was the truth. I have read the passege four times searching for the word "lied" or anything like it… I'm not seeing it!

The Bible says that the midwives saved the babies. If the mothers had the babies before the midwives got there, the midwives wouldn't the ones saving them.

Rahab lied to protect the Israelite spies from the men of Jericho. Was she wrong?

I don't think she was…she's commended in Hebrews 11 for saving them.

Yeah; see, even though she's not specifically commended for lying, I doubt she would have been commended like she was if she had been wrong to lie.

And furthermore, was David right to be deceitful in 1 Samuel 21:12-13? He didn't verbally lie, but he deliberately scammed the royals by slobbering all over his beard and beating up the doors.

"True!–nervous–very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am–but why will you say that I am mad?"
~Edgar Allan Poe

Is the Biblical definition of lying restricted to outright oral falsehood?

The book of Proverbs is filled with general statements. By general statements, I mean statements that are usually the case, perhaps almost always the case, but not literally always the case without exception. In light of what we've already looked at, there's no reason to assume statements such as "lying lips are an abomination" are any different.

So the ends justifys the means… as long as you aren't lying to the Holy Spirit?

No no no; sin can never be justified. But in some cases, lying is not wrong–like in the case of the midwives, Rahab, David and Jonathan, Corrie Ten Boom (although it would have been wrong for C.T.B. to lie because she couldn't have done it in good conscience), etc. However, where do we draw the line?–that's a hard question.

No no no; sin can never be justified. But in some cases, lying is not wrong--like in the case of the midwives, Rahab, David and Jonathan, Corrie Ten Boom (although it would have been wrong for C.T.B. to lie because she couldn't have done it in good conscience), etc. However, where do we draw the line?--that's a hard question.

The book of Proverbs is filled with general statements. By general statements, I mean statements that are usually the case, perhaps almost always the case, but not literally always the case without exception. *In light of what we've already looked at,* there's no reason to assume statements such as "lying lips are an abomination" are any different.

There is one very good reason, which I can think of, The verse is:

Proverbs 12:22 (ESV) Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Why shouldn't we treat this verse as general statement that is normally but not necessarily always true?
Because it deals with one of the distinctive characteristics of the person of GOD, it deals with who GOD is.
We serve an unchanging God therefore lying lips are not an abomination at one time and then not at another.
Truth is part of God's nature, as his children we are to be seeking to be more like him.
Lying is of the devil. As Jesus explained to the self-righteous Jews;

John 8:44 (ESV) You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

If lying is wrong, what would motivate us to believe that lying is not always wrong?

Isaiah 28:14-18 ESV
14Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers,who rule this people in Jerusalem!
15Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement,when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter”;
16therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’
17And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumb line; and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter.”
18Then your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand; when the overwhelming scourge passes through, you will be beaten down by it.

Here The Lord speaks to Israel of his promised messiah, The Cornerstone.
This passage describes why we lie, it is to hide, to cover up, and shelter ourselves.
Lying takes matters into our own hands. It says we do not believe that God is powerful enough to save us from our trouble so we need to lie our way out of it. Or that we don't agree with God's will that we should have troubles which we are not temporally delivered from.
But God says that those who rely on lies will be destroyed, But those who rely on the Rock, The chief Cornerstone, will not need to run.
In no case does God condone lying, else he could not be completely faithful and true himself.

Lying takes matters into our own hands. It says we do not believe that God is powerful enough to save us from our trouble so we need to lie our way out of it. Or that we don't agree with God's will that we should have troubles which we are not temporally delivered from. But God says that those who rely on lies will be destroyed, But those who rely on the Rock, The chief Cornerstone, will not need to run. In no case does God condone lying, else he could not be completely faithful and true himself.

That is what I used to believe, until I saw problems with it. How could God bless the midwives, who lied to Pharaoh, and how could he bless Rahab, who also lied?
James 2:25 says: Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
It says justified by works. If the work she did by lying to save the spies was wrong, why would she be justified in what she did, and not just in her faith and good intentions?

Lying takes matters into our own hands. It says we do not believe that God is powerful enough to save us from our trouble so we need to lie our way out of it. Or that we don't agree with God's will that we should have troubles which we are not temporally delivered from.

Ah ah ah, now you're encroaching on people spiritually! What if my neighbor's dog is trying to kill me, and I shoot it to defend myself? Is that faithlessly taking things into my own hands? We can't expect God to do everything; He has given us many ways within His revealed will to defend ourselves to His glory. The question here is: is lying one of those? So what you just said proves nothing.

In no case does God condone lying, else he could not be completely faithful and true himself.</blockquote>

Not true; God often allows humans to do things He can't do–such as the thing married people do to have kids. God can't do that; but it is right for humans under the circumstance of marriage. God can't worship, either. But we are supposed to. So just because God does not do something doesn't mean we can't.

I agree that lying is USUALLY wrong, but the Bible makes it clear that there can be circumstances under which it is acceptable.

Ah ah ah, now you're encroaching on people spiritually! *What do you mean by this? we are dealing with a spiritual topic. I intend only to set forth God's Truth found in God's word. I appreciate those of you who help me do this, as I do not understand the scripture perfectly.* What if my neighbor's dog is trying to kill me, and I shoot it to defend myself? Is that faithlessly taking things into my own hands? *Has God ever said don't kill dogs? I believe lying is one of those things directly spoken to.* We can't expect God to do everything; *No we don't expect God to do what he has instructed us to do, but if we think we can do anything apart from his permission, and strength, we do not truly understand the nature of either our helpless sinful selves, or our Almighty Creator.* He has given us many ways within His revealed will to defend ourselves to His glory. The question here is: is lying one of those? *To say that denying one of the core characteristics of our creator brings Him glory, I believe to be a gross untruth. To lie is to display that part of our sinful nature which is contrary to his perfection, and follows after the devils pattern. What is a lie? it is any part of untruth mixed with truth. Truth must be pure else it is no longer true; Any whit of falsehood making it a lie.* So what you just said proves nothing. *Tu quo que. but think nothing of it.* In no case does God condone lying, else he could not be completely faithful and true himself.

Not true; God often allows humans to do things He can't do–such as the thing married people do to have kids. God can't do that; but it is right for humans under the circumstance of marriage.
The justification for what we do is found in the instruction given to us by God. God is not a sexual being, but he has determined that we are and has commanded us as such.
God can't worship, either. But we are supposed to.
God cannot worship, unless he worships himself, like the Son worshiping the Father; because worship is only rightly done towards a being worthy of worship. There is no being more worthy than the infinitely worthy God.
So just because God does not do something doesn't mean we can't.
Right, God cannot sin, because He is perfect, we however can, because we are sinners.
I agree that lying is USUALLY wrong, but the Bible makes it clear that there can be circumstances under which it is acceptable.</blockquote>
If God says he hates lying, and includes lying in various lists of sins (e.g. Prov.6:16, Rev. 21:27); why would He allow it at some times, and not at others?

How could God bless any sinners? we are all riddled with corruption, and we only see a little of it ourselves, being possessed of deceitful hearts. So, God blesses those whom he chooses to bestow his grace upon. Those who follow his will, If we had to be perfect to receive any blessing from God, we would be hopeless.
Rahab was justified by her works which proved her faith and good intentions because without the work of taking the spies into her house, the good intentions and faith were dead and nonexistent. I would still maintain that lying was wrong, but so were hundreds of other things she had done in her life, should we try to justify harlotry? look at Tamar, Judah's daughter in law.

It is wrong to kill dogs under certain circumstances (especially our neighbor's). But it is also right under certain circumstances. The only difference this has to lying is the fact that lying is wrong much more often than not; I don't think we can say that about killing dogs.

Saying you're not hiding spies when you really are is not denying one of the core characteristics of God.

God is incapable of lying. Here, the issue is not whether or not lying is always wrong. Either way, God can't do it.

You did just disprove my argument about God and worship. I give it to you.

God hates divorce, but He allows it under the condition of a lust affair on the part of one's spouse. So in that case, He does not hate it; therefore when the Bible says He does hate it, it's a general statement. Why? Because divorce is almost always wrong.

Harlotry had nothing to do with Rahab's faithful work with the spies (plus, there is nothing in Scripture that could possibly imply that harlotry is ever okay).

I don't know, the slippery slope gets to harlotry pretty quick after we've said that God doesn't mean what he says all the time; if an eternally unchanging God says he hates something, and that something is an abomination to him, without any hint at exceptions, it is a dangerous cataract to tread to say that certain circumstances show otherwise.
Are you familiar with the example of Tamar? This is where my reference to harlotry being condoned came from.

I never said God doesn't mean what He says all the time. I said He frequently makes general statements. Proverbs 12:22 speaks just as strongly about lying as Malachi 2:16 does about divorce; yet Matthew 5:32 specifies that there is a place for it–but that place is rare. As Rahab's harlotry had absolutely nothing to do with her faithful care of the spies, we cannot say that there was any chance it was right! And there is no hint whatsoever in the passage about Tamar that it could possibly have been right to play the harlot. The Bible does not specifically condemn it in that passage, but it does not condone it by any stretch of the imagination. But Rahab's action with the spies are used as a good example in the Hall of Faith, and if the lying had been wrong, don't you think Paul would have briefly mentioned that to "avoid the appearance of evil"? Also, the way the passage about the midwives is constructed seems quite deliberate to me–it says that the lied, and God dealt well with them. Those two statements are said like one. Though not the only interpretation, the first and most logical interpretation of that is that their lying was good–and, again, if it had been wrong, why would God have said it in a way that makes it sound good?

I am weary of terms like "is lying justified?" If a lie is told that is right under Biblical standards, that does not mean it was justified; it means it's not wrong. Sin cannot be justified, so such a lie does not need to be justified or redeemed, as it was never sinful to begin with.

How could God bless any sinners? we are all riddled with corruption, and we only see a little of it ourselves, being possessed of deceitful hearts. So, God blesses those whom he chooses to bestow his grace upon. Those who follow his will, If we had to be perfect to receive any blessing from God, we would be hopeless. Rahab was justified by her works which proved her faith and good intentions because without the work of taking the spies into her house, the good intentions and faith were dead and nonexistent. I would still maintain that lying was wrong, but so were hundreds of other things she had done in her life, should we try to justify harlotry? look at Tamar, Judah's daughter in law.

You are right, God does not need to bless anyone, but he chooses to bless those that trust in him when they do what is right. Since Rahab is blessed specifically for sending the spies out another way, we are left with two choices to decide between. Either Rahab did wrong by lying, which in fact was the only way she could have been able to send the spies out another way, or she did not do wrong.
While there were quite a lot of other wrong things she did, she was not blessed for any of those, since they were sinful. Just because she did one thing right in no way can justify everything she did.
One other thing I would like to point out is that the Bible doesn't say that lying is always sinful. It says that bearing false witness against your neighbor is sinful, and that lying lips are an abomination (i.e. someone who is characterized by lying), and not every single lie. Now that being said, I believe that it would be almost always not okay, but in this case I believe it was permissible. Here is another reason why I think so. She was actually bearing false witness for her neighbor, and not against her neighbor (the spies), and was also keeping the men of Jericho from having innocent blood on their hands.
Had she told the truth, she would have been willingly helping them to kill the spies, which would not have been right.

The Bible says that the *midwives* saved the babies. If the mothers had the babies before the midwives got there, the midwives wouldn't the ones saving them.

I'm not even reading this discussion- too many long posts. But the midwives were commended for lying to save the babies.

But if we don't lie, I think that God can work it out perfectly, like Nollie Ten Boom.

I never said God doesn't mean what He says all the time. I said He frequently makes general statements. Proverbs 12:22 speaks just as strongly about lying as Malachi 2:16 does about divorce; yet Matthew 5:32 specifies that there is a place for it--but that place is rare. *Here Jesus explains the exception, in the case of lying there is no exception explained.* As Rahab's harlotry had absolutely nothing to do with her faithful care of the spies, we cannot say that there was any chance it was right! And there is no hint whatsoever in the passage about Tamar that it could possibly have been right to play the harlot. The Bible does not specifically condemn it in that passage, but it does not condone it by any stretch of the imagination. But Rahab's action with the spies are used as a *good example* in the Hall of Faith, and if the lying had been wrong, don't you think Paul would have briefly mentioned that to "avoid the appearance of evil"? *In the Heb.11 passage, Paul doesn't mention any of the sins of the faithful, just the instance in which they were faithful. Why isn't Sarah's initial doubt mentioned, or Moses' killing of the Egyptian (I understand if you think this was a righteous act, but he sure did fear pharaoh's wrath for it, so I think he didn't think so after the fact).* Also, the way the passage about the midwives is constructed seems quite deliberate to me--it says that the lied, and God dealt well with them. Those two statements are said like one. *If you read this passage in any version, you will not find mention of the concept lie. It is not even in the Hebrew, it is a contextual construct, reading between the lines, it could have been a lie, or maybe not, but the Bible doesn't say they lied.* Though not the only interpretation, the first and most logical interpretation of that is that their lying was good--and, again, if it had been wrong, why would God have said it in a way that makes it sound good?

Read the Hebrew, some versions may have worded it in a way which causes you to think so, but the Hebrew says: and dealt well- God- to the midwives- and multiplied- the people- and they became mighty- very-.
There is no conjunction here indicating cause and effect from the clause before, which is their statement to Pharaoh. The next verse gives the reason stated for their being blessed: And it came to pass- because- feared- the midwives- God- that he made- to them- houses-.

She was actually bearing false witness *for* her neighbor, and not against her neighbor (the spies), and was also keeping the men of Jericho from having innocent blood on their hands. Had she told the truth, she would have been willingly helping them to kill the spies, which would not have been right.

Had she told the truth, or even not told them anything, and the spies were captured, the city of Jericho could have thrown the spies into a seven times hotter fiery furnace, or maybe a ravenous lions' den. God doesn't need a falsehood to protect anyone. Whoever he chooses will be protected from whatever situation our finite imaginations could come up with. Limiting God is creating an idol of him in our hearts, one that is not perfect or infinite or all-powerful. Rahab could have said that she was harboring spies, but wouldn't surrender them, and the guards could have walked right by without taking notice. I am not saying we should tempt God, or put him to the test; that is taught against in scripture, I am saying trust God so much, that you don't take things into your own hands by doing things he hates.

Again, Rahab's lie was part of her faith! It was essential to her action. Part of Paul's point in mentioning Sarah is that she overcame her doubts. And Moses's killing of the Egyptian (which I agree was wrong, because he didn't have Biblical grounds for killing the man) had nothing to do with his leading the Israelites out of Egypt–especially when you consider all the time that elapsed and all that happened in between.

Yes. The Bible does. say. they lied. In verse. 17, it says that the midwives. saved. the babies. Therefore. the midwives. must. have been. there. otherwise. the mothers. would be. the ones. saving. the babies.

I still think the Hebrews implies that.

No offense, but your argument about making an idol by limiting God is ridiculous. Nobody's doing that. Defending what is right is not thinking of God as limited; it's working for Him.

Yes; I agree with you, Dani. =)

Again, Rahab's lie was part of her faith!

Here's something that Paul does say in Romans 3 (ESV)
5But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

Here Paul assumes that the reader knows that lying is wrong, and shows that it still is wrong when trying to accomplish a good end.

Yes. The Bible does. say. they lied. In verse. 17, it says that the midwives. saved. the babies. Therefore. the midwives. must. have been. there. otherwise. the mothers. would be. the ones. saving. the babies. I still think the Hebrews implies that.

The latter sentence may be right, but the former is not.
They may have lied, but it does not say so; reading between the lines might be good for understanding (informing thinking) but a very poor practice for teaching (stating publicly).
Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
I think in this verse you would agree that lying is counted as being wrong.

No offense, but your argument about making an idol by limiting God is ridiculous. Nobody's doing that. Defending what is right is not thinking of God as limited; it's working for Him.

Another where I say the latter is right and the former wrong.
I try not to mind my argument being called ridiculous, because It doesn't really matter what I think, it matters what God does. I'm pretty sure that I did not come up with the idea myself either I think that I have heard it on wretched from Todd Friel.
An Idol is anything we put in the place of God. Therefore if we say that God is anything less than what He really is, then we have made an Idol which might look like God in most respects, but is not the true nature of God. This is not to say that you cannot worship God without understanding him fully, but that we must not knowingly alter any of his attributes for any reason.

Hey guys.

Um, MilesChristiSum, you seem to be missing something.

Rahab is mentioned in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. This is very very surprising. She was a harlot. She actively sold her body for money. This is a disgusting sin which God hates.

And yet here she is, walking around with the name-tag: Rahab the Prostitute, in the middle of a passage recounting important acts of faith made by spiritual giants and giantesses of biblical history. Honestly, she seems a bit out of place.

What's even weirder is the act of faith for which she is enrolled in this passage. Her act of faith is…

…LYING??? Well, okay. The text says "because she gave a friendly welcome to the spies." Thing is, part and parcel of that friendly welcome was a deliberate twisting of truth, or, as I like to put it, a protection of precious truth and life. She, when you go back and look at the tex in Joshua, she describes what she did for them was "dealt kindly". This kind dealing includes protecting the truth of their presence and the preciousness of their lives, with an untruth. Obviously, this 'dealt kindly' parallels Hebrew's phrase 'friendly welcome.' Her falsehood was a part of her hospitality. And she is directly commended for her hospitality.
All of this is directly said to have stemmed FROM FAITH!! By faith she did this.
Her lie was of faith. Faith in the power and majesty of God, faith that his people would triumph…
Paul says in Romans 14 that 'whatever does not proceed from faith is sin'… leading to the obvious conclusion that what proceeds from faith (eg Rahab's hospitality) is not sin. James 2:25 indicates that her actions in preserving the spies and sending them out another way was a work that justified her [faith].
Also, think about this. The spies were living a lie. They were willfully deceiving the people of Jericho to hide the truth from them. They were lying.
And GOD sent them (not these two; but He did send the original twelve spies).

God told twelve different individuals to lie. Continually. For several days.

Also, think of Ehud the judge who killed the fat king. He lied and said he had a secret message for the king's ear, when he really had a sword for his belly. And God used this deceit to deliver Israel from oppression.

How can this be? See my next post.

Sooo…how can this be? How can God commend, and even command lying?

The simple answer we must come to is that not every twist of the truth is sinful. Where good will come of the falsehood (eg life will be preserved) or where God has even commanded it, then it is not and cannot be sinful.

Spirit of the law. Not the letter but the spirit. Do everything in one's power to preserve life. Even lie (ex. Rahab). That's the spirit of the 6th commandment.

Do everything in your power not to harm your neighbor with untruth, or to seek selfish personal ends with untruth. That's the spirit behind the ninth commandment.
Telling a lie to save lives is not forbidden by this commandment. Living a lie as a spy in a just war is not forbidden by this commandment.

Personally, I think we should not call these (albeit rare situations) lying, which puts it on the level of selfish sin, but as I hinted before, I prefer to call it protection of the truth and true esteem for its preciousness. I know this sounds like redefinition… >_>

Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be defended with lies. Sometimes the consequences of telling the truth are so contrary to God's revealed will (death of innocents, conquering of godly nations, think WW2, and etc…) that we must not let the truth pass through our lips. It sounds weird, even wrong.
But really, this rare type of non-sinful untruth is commended, even commanded, by God in Scripture.
God hates the death of innocents. He hates violation of women. He hates theft. To keep knowledge of the truth from evil men in those cases in which knowledge of the truth would enable them to carry out these abominations… to preserve the truth from their evil is really the only truly God-honoring choice there is. And it's not really lying in the truest sense when you look at it that way. Its preserving the truth from the evil works of darkness It's preventing evil from being carried out. It presents a powerful NO to wickedness. It is a defense of the ultimate truths that life is precious, purity is precious, that God-given stewardship must be honored, and so on down the line.

Sometimes a lie is a beautiful thing in the sight of God because it is a defense of His truth.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to respond to any responses. I only come on once in a blue moon. But this topic piqued my interest and the discussion further interested me, so I felt obliged to share what I believe on this issue. I hope it proves helpful and reinforces your love of God's Truth, the Word, who is Christ. To his glory alone!

Grace and peace to all,

ka

Here Paul assumes that the reader knows that lying is wrong, and shows that it still is wrong when trying to accomplish a good end. *That's not the context of the passage. The passage is saying that when we sin, it just goes to prove how holy God is, but our sin is not justified because of that. And by the way, I don't think a good end automatically makes lying okay.*

Yes. The Bible does. say. they lied. In verse. 17, it says that the midwives. saved. the babies. Therefore. the midwives. must. have been. there. otherwise. the mothers. would be. the ones. saving. the babies. I still think the Hebrews implies that.

The latter sentence may be right, but the former is not. They may have lied, but it does not say so; reading between the lines might be good for understanding (informing thinking) but a very poor practice for teaching (stating publicly). *Again, why would Paul not throw in something like "although she was wrong to lie"--to avoid confusion?* Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. I think in this verse you would agree that lying is counted as being wrong. *Of course, because that lying would be wrong.*

No offense, but your argument about making an idol by limiting God is ridiculous. Nobody's doing that. Defending what is right is not thinking of God as limited; it's working for Him.

Another where I say the latter is right and the former wrong. I try not to mind my argument being called ridiculous, because It doesn't really matter what I think, it matters what God does. I'm pretty sure that I did not come up with the idea myself either I think that I have heard it on wretched from Todd Friel. *I don't appreciate being called an idolater because I think the Bible implies that lying can sometimes be a Biblical means God has given us to defend justice. I could be wrong, but if I am, that doesn't make me an idolater, and I don't need to be compared to one by stretched analogies.* An Idol is anything we put in the place of God. Therefore if we say that God is anything less than what He really is, then we have made an Idol which might look like God in most respects, but is not the true nature of God. This is not to say that you cannot worship God without understanding him fully, but that we must not knowingly alter any of his attributes for any reason. *To say that He has allowed us to lie under rare conditions is not altering His attributes, nor is it making any less of His own truthfulness. He doesn't have to lie to defend Himself, because He can do anything.*

I agree with all that, except:

"Where good will come of the falsehood (eg life will be preserved) or where God has even commanded it, then it is not and cannot be sinful."

That's an end-justifies-means basis. It has to be crucial for the truth to be preserved in order for the "lie" to be okay… not just have a good end.

I really like your term "preserving the truth." That was very helpful to me! Thank you!