Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe  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 Davidius
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. | Considering how convinced you seem of Rahab's innocence, why did you even raise the question?  If her case is cut and dried then we need have no discussion about Jews.
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart
|