Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius  Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection? | Quote:
Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Yes, his chapter on "The Sanctity of Truth" covers Rahab, the midwives and other relevant Biblical examples relating to this issue.
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters John Murray's Principles of Conduct speaks directly to this issue. It's been 10 years since I read the book but I remember finding his view quite persuasive. If memory serves, he took Mason's position. He deals with the whole Rahab issue and he might even use the Nazi illustration.
Can anyone confirm my feeble recollection? | What was Murray's thesis (I am unfamiliar with Mason and his position)? |  |
Murray recognizes that he can't come out and say Rahab's lie was wrong, sinc e when the New Testament had a chance to condemn Rahab for lying, it didn't. But he is almost embarrassed by the fact that Rahab did lie and spends the next few pages shadowboxing with a few exegetical issues, leaving the reader largely unsatisfied.
Rahab lied. The New Testament praised her for it. squirming doesn't make it go away.
Some could say that, "Well, the NT praised her for her faith, which was hiding the spies, and not for the lie." This is hyper-knitpicking. Say that she did go out on faith and hide the spies
but didn't lie. 5 minutes later, both Rahab and the spies are executed. Nice faith, but no outcome.