That example comes right out of Fletcher's Situation Ethics. It is a good question.

I think we agree about preserving life and hiding the Jews. I would do everything I could to keep them from being slaughtered, including hiding them, helping them escape, or doing anything else I could to help them, as I think we are obligated to do under the 6th commandment. I agree with all of that. But when it comes down to being asked point blank, "Are you hiding Jews?" I believe it would be wrong to lie. Forget the cop out about being silent and dodging the question - I think all that's fine, but if pressed and you have to give an answer, I don't see how lying would not be sinful. It would be going directly against God's Word and the very nature of God Himself. I'm not saying we voluntarily round up Jews for the Nazis, but I am saying it is NEVER acceptable to break the 9th commandment.

By the way, just because the Bible records historical lies (Rahab, Egyptian midwives) doesn't make it acceptable. Rachel lied about having her menstrual period to hide Laban's idols. Was this an acceptable lie also? Or was the reason not good enough?

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. I certainly understand your view and I would probably lie in the heat of the moment, but it would still be a sin. I will never believe God's Law is ever conditional.

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

Does Fletcher provide an answer?

__________________
Seth Stark
Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

This may nave been brought up before, but how do you justify hiding Jews or helping them escape in the first place, in light of God's command to obey the ruling authorities above you? If they say to hand over the Jews, as a government ordained by God, according to the Romans 13 passage, you are under obligation to turn the Jews over to the state. Can you sin in this regard, by not obeying Divinely ordained rulers? Or is it not sin? If not, why? The command is clear:

Romans 13:1,2-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

1 Peter 2:13,14- Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

So:

1. Hiding the Jews is a sin

2. Lying about the Jews is a sin.

We can do #1, because we don't believe God's Word commands us to obey Nazi's, but we can't lie to them?

NOTE: This being directed towards CSM's post.

__________________
Ian Kemmerer
Covenant Presbetyrian Church,Reading,PA
Fleetwood,PA

"Be still, my soul: when dearest friends depart, And all is darkened in the vale of tears, Then shalt thou better know His love, His heart, Who comes to soothe thy sorrow and thy fears. Be still, my soul: thy Jesus can repay From His own fullness all He takes away."

I do not.

And I remained convinced that preserving the life of my neighbor is actually more correctly reflecting God's nature.

That's fine. And let us both pray that we never have to make this type of decision in real life!

And I do think that God's Law is conditional, when God Himself demonstrates conditions requiring a more nuanced reading of the Law.

But if you'd like to agree to disagree, I will certainly be glad to leave it at that.

I think that just as Rahab and the Hebrew midwives show us that lying to save a life is allowed by God, those passages also show us that disobeying the government is likewise allowed when an innocent life is at stake.

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

According to our friend's logic, if the civil government required us to hand over children to them - so that they could murder them - we would have to obey them. Instead the texts cited above only tell us that it is the God-ordained role of the state to punish crime. They do not tell us that we have to obey the state in all circumstances. The state's authority is not absolute, it is limited by the word of God, and so is our obedience to it.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

Twas only trying to get to Mason's justification behind disobeying one, but obeying another law. It's called sarcasm, I think?

So that is what you think his logic is leading to then?

fine, its not that hard folk!!!

say yes, get the nazi in your house, than kill the nazi.

that way, you told the truth + 1
you saved a life +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

then steal the uniform, grenades, rifle and go unload it all on other nazis.. Rambo style!

__________________
Jeff Rod
Eastwood Presbyterian Church PCA
member.
webpage: myspace.com/reformationforever

To live a simple, peaceable life before God
To owe as little as possible, to few as possible.

I think his logic is inconsistent. That is what I was leading to. He can break one law, disobeying leaders and hiding Jews, to, knowingly deceiving a Nazi soldier is breaking the ninth commandment. But he will justify breaking the first, but can't for the second.

That pretty much sums it up. According to this logic its okay to kill people as long as we are not breaking the ninth commandment. Never mind the fact that assisting in a murder is a breach of the sixth commandment, and so lying to stop a murder (in these circumstances) cannot be a breach of the ninth commandment at all.

There are clear exceptions to Romans 13. It is acceptable to disobey a sinful law, but not acceptable to lie about it. See Acts 4:13-22. When forbidden to preach the name of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, Peter and John directly refused and continued preaching His name anyway. Furthermore, in Acts 5:29 Peter says plainly "We ought to obey God rather than men." Also see Daniel 6:4-10. When Daniel (and all the Jews) were ordered not to pray, Daniel knelt in a public place in direct defiance of this law. Clear, unquestioned examples, Biblically condoned, of intentionally disobeying sinful laws (exceptions to Romans 13). So, hiding and aiding Jews would NOT be a sin. Point #1 of Ian's post is simply not true. Hiding the Jews is not a sin.

Daniel, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was acceptable to break the 6th commandment. But telling the truth about hiding Jews is NOT breaking the 6th commandment, especially if you've taken every measure you can to help the Jews in the first place. Besides, there's no way to know what will happen to the Jews. You are assuming they will die, but perhaps they won't. Perhaps God would protect them somehow. Perhaps He intends for them to die. We can't know. All we can do is obey God's clear, unconditional commandment.

The bottom line to this discussion is as follows: Are there any times when lying is acceptable? If you say yes, then please provide a Biblical precedent. If no, then lying is always a sin. I say again, do you have any Scripture where the God specifically encourages, allows, or commends lying for any reason? I understand your point, but in the absence of directions from God's Word your position is indefensible.

Please site a specific Biblical reference for this. Simple historical examples do not necessarily imply commendation. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, records many horrible actions. When did God ever demonstrate a nuanced reading of the Law? If anything He elevated it to even higher standards (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7).

Whiel I appreciate the sentiment, this is not "Medal of Honor: Eurapean Assault." For some reason I dont think that would work out in real lfe.

I am reminded of an incident in Spurgeon's life when a madman came to the door to attack him. "I'm looking for someone called Spurgeon." yelled the madman. Spurgeon replied, "You must mean my brother for that is his name."

__________________
Stuart
Elder, Lambeg Baptist, Northern Ireland, UK

In Him the fulness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form and in Him you are complete (Col 2.9-10)

The sacrifice of a broken heart doth please Him but the sacrifice of a broken Christ alone doth satisfy Him (Richard Steele)

Maintain her fidelity to her husband and keep her vow, same thing in this scenario. One's covenant obligations to God supercede men. This and the issue with the Nazi's is more about the third commandment than the dichotomy between the sixth and ninth that Jacob proposes.

In my view those that have a conscience problem about lieing to the Nazi's presuppositionally hold to a moralistic standard which includes an implicit statism. Hence, they can't put together or understand their standing in the Covenant and hold that as a unity against the wicked civil magistrate that has enjoined itself as a false prophet against God.

To them, then, the unlawful means of communication is to "lie" to the Nazi's not the "truth" they told. To them a lie or a truth is the revelation of abstract facts - not the revelation or maintainence of concrete truth. This position concedes to satan a moral justification for sin and like Adam and Eve in the garden it compounds sin by placing the blame of the outcome on satan and refuses to recognize their own potential guilt.

When satan tempted Christ in the desert He responded with: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Satan claimed a power that was not his to give, likewise the Nazi's claimed a power that was not theirs.

While Rahab is the correct example in Scripture - the opponents talk circles around the lie, never dealing with the fact that she was a harlot, and the spies (who are engaged in deception for espionage purposes) lodged with a harlot. She then made a covenant with the spies, "swear unto me by the LORD," and the spies did upon the grounds "if ye utter not this our business." Rahab was not concerned with her own life, but the life of all of her family, her father, mother, brethern and sisters.

So, Rahab not only lied to the king, but she did so upon covenant grounds in the name of the LORD, consistent with the third commandment. In other words, to tell the truth would have been perjury against the LORD. I am really amazed at people that would perjure against the Lord before they will perjure against the civil magistrate and then argue that the blame falls upon the civil magistrate.

God took a harlot, and when she received angels of the Lord with peace and entered that Covenant in the name of the LORD, enjoined their espionage activities, and adopted her unto the family of God. While Scripture honors her for this, moralists condemn her, no that was a heinous sin they say - but God made her into a covenant child and honorable married woman in Israel the loins of which were blessed as a progenitor of the incarnate Christ.

Her espionage activity in harboring spies and lieing to the civil magistrate is held up by Scripture as evidence of true faith - because it is covenantal in it's scope, not moralistic.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana