Lying and the Nazis at your door

[HaigLaw]

well put!

Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.

Such a statement is no more an answer than to say capital punishment and self defense are sin because killing is killing.

The distinction between deception God condemns and that he allows may not be as clear as the distinction between murder and killing, but it is still there.

The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.

This is the same kind of inductive reasoning those here have been using from Rahab, the midwives and other places. It is not an answer to those examples to say a lie is a lie, anymore than it is to say sabbath breaking is sabbath breaking. God defines what is the sin of lying, and he does so throught the entirety of the bible, not just one verse from the ten commandments.

This is about as well-put as I've seen, and I've been following this issue for years. Thank you!

 

[JTDyck]

"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.' So he went in to stay with them." (Luke 24:28-29)

Even if I am wrong about the Rahab passage, the type of deception that Christ uses to get the disciples to invite him in is completely just and no sin at all. This tells me that there is a justifiable form of deception. A type of deception which is about accomplishing the truth, not meant to express true facts. Like acting as if one is going to another town in order to do the opposite.

To which Calvin would reply, in his commentary on Luke 24:28:

Now as to the question, Can insincerity apply to him who is the eternal truth of God? I answer, that the Son of God was under no obligation to make all his designs known. Still, as insincerity of any kind is a sort of falsehood, the difficulty is not yet removed; more especially as this example is adduced by many to prove that they are at liberty to tell lies. But I reply, that Christ might without falsehood have pretended what is here mentioned, in the same manner that he gave himself out to be a stranger passing along the road; for there was the same reason for both. A somewhat more ingenious solution is given by Augustine, (in his work addressed To Consentius, Book II., chap. 13, and in the book of Questions on the Gospels, chap. 51,) for he chooses to enumerate this kind of feigning among tropes and figures, and afterwards among parables and fables. For my own part, I am satisfied with this single consideration, that as Christ for the time threw a veil over the eyes of those with whom he was conversing, so that he had assumed a different character, and was regarded by them as all ordinary stranger, so, when he appeared for the time to intend to go farther, it was not through pretending any thing else than what he had resolved to do, but because he wished to conceal the manner of his departure; for none will deny that he did go farther, since he had then withdrawn from human society. So then by this feigning he did not deceive his disciples, but held them for a little in suspense, till the proper time should arrive for making himself known. It is, therefore, highly improper to attempt to make Christ an advocate of falsehood; and we are no more at liberty to plead his example for feigning any thing, than to endeavor to equal his divine power in shutting the eyes of men. Our safest course is to adhere to the rule which has been laid down to us, to speak with truth and simplicity; not that our Lord himself ever departed from the law of his Father, but because, without confining himself to the letter of the commandments, he kept by the true meaning of the law; but we, on account of the weakness of our senses, need to be restrained in a different manner.

This is what I have been trying to say. Calvin just does it much better. It is a matter of emphasis. I have not denied (in fact, I suggested it could be likely) that I myself might lie or deceive in order to serve the Lord with my very limited understanding of my circumstances. But the fact that God overrules it for His glory is credited to his grace, not to my lie.

I do think that you run yourself into major problems by putting the examples of Rahab and the Hebrew midwives in the same category as the examples of Jesus on the road to Emmaus and God and Nineveh. Calvin warns against this by reminding us that we are finite and God is infinite.

 

[JTDyck]

The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.

With all due respect, this is very dangerous reasoning. Christ exactly, completely and entirely fulfilled the law without exception. He is my absolutely perfect law-keeper, our Second Adam.

If this is not so, I am not saved, and neither is anyone else. Christ did not go easy on the law, and God did not go easy on Christ when He punished His only begotten Son on the cross:

Many hands were raised to wound him,
None would interpose to save;
But the deepest stroke that pierced him
Was the stroke that Justice gave.

Christ certainly rebuked the pharasaical interpretation and their false understanding of the law, but he never mitigated the firm and absolute demands of the law in any way whatsoever. This is but one of the things that makes my salvation so precious. Whatever Jesus did, he obeyed the Father in both the spirit and letter of the law.

Christ could not have sinned and did not sin in any way. When I sin, however, God forgives me. He does not overlook it. Christ was punished for every sin I commit. For Jesus' sake, God forgives.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

In the past I believed we could follow the Rahab example and lie, but when you look at the references to her in James and Hebrews it doesn't seem so:

"By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace." Hebrews 11:21

"Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" James 2:25

In both verses it praises her hiding the spies, but not lying about them. In the case of Nazis and Jews, hiding the Jews definitely would be the right thing, but lying would be sinful....

I think you're parsing her words too specifically, splitting hairs, if you will, and beating yourself up too much for reaching a bottom line, correct answer.

If the Holy Spirit had meant to praise her for only certain acts and condemn her for others, He would have said so, but instead He only praises her, which lends the inference is was for her entire course of conduct in saving the spies.

No, this isn't consistent with the rest of the verse, especially Hebrews 11. Remember, Sarah initially laughed at the thought of having a child and gave Hagar to Abraham because she didn't believe she could conceive, showing a clear lack of faith. Yet Hebrews 11:11 praises her faith that she could conceive. Are you saying the Bible also tacitly praises her laughter and giving Hagar to Abraham because it doesn't specifically denounce it? Of course not! The same thing applies to Rahab. It praises her hiding the sheltering the spies but does not condone her lying about them. Hebrews 11 and James 2 only list the positive actions that reveal faith - it never denounces their sins and mistakes. So, it isn't parsing words at all: if the lie were acceptable surely somewhere in the Bible it would have praised her for it.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

For those of you who agree that it is acceptable to lie to save lives, what do you think about Peter denying Christ? Afterall, he did lie to save his life and possibly those of the other disciples. Isn't this essentially the same situation? He doesn't deny Christ is God, he denies that he was with Jesus. Isn't this acceptable then, since he lied in order to protect life?

 

[BertMulder]

Anyhow, a lie is a lie, and thus sin. Have faith in God, not in deception.

Such a statement is no more an answer than to say capital punishment and self defense are sin because killing is killing.

The distinction between deception God condemns and that he allows may not be as clear as the distinction between murder and killing, but it is still there.

The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.

This is the same kind of inductive reasoning those here have been using from Rahab, the midwives and other places. It is not an answer to those examples to say a lie is a lie, anymore than it is to say sabbath breaking is sabbath breaking. God defines what is the sin of lying, and he does so throught the entirety of the bible, not just one verse from the ten commandments.

Esteemed Mark, what you are saying does not hold true. Christ did not make exceptions in the sabbath law, but merely clarified it.

And nowhere does Scripture commend lying in the case of the midwives and Rahab. Scripture commends their faith, not their action.

To extend that a little further, Jacob lied to Isaac. Was that ok as well?

Lying to the nazis, as I attempted to illustrate, would serve no good purpose, tempting as it would be at the time. And this whole thread is started on a foolish premise. Situation ethics. The end justifies the means. The BIG lie of the Jesuits, by which the reformed church was ravaged even more than by the Inquisition.

While I have not lived under the nazis, I am second generation. And while I do not have personal experience, I am in a better position to understand their behavior. Much trickery was used regarding this issue, but using a lie, in the first place to save your own skin, is outright condemned in Scripture.

 

[k.seymore]

To which Calvin would reply, in his commentary on Luke 24:28... This is what I have been trying to say. Calvin just does it much better.

Calvin does point out rightly that it wasn't intended to deceive the disciples. I think I pointed this out the first time I quoted the passage, that it appears to me to be a polite means by which he got them to ask him to come into their house. It was probably a common means in that culture saying, "I don't want to impose, but I sure would like it if you'd invite me in." I was not focusing on whether or not the disciples were deceived. They probably understood immediately what he intended by his actions. I was focusing on the language itself. The language, in of itself, does not express true facts. Jesus did not intend, at that moment, to go further up the road. It appears that the disciples understood his language, and invited him in.

Notice Calvin's reasoning about scripture saying Christ "acted as if" he was going further up the road:

Now as to the question, Can insincerity apply to him who is the eternal truth of God? I answer, that the Son of God was under no obligation to make all his designs known. Still, as insincerity of any kind is a sort of falsehood, the difficulty is not yet removed; more especially as this example is adduced by many to prove that they are at liberty to tell lies.

In this thread a number of people have pointed out that they believe that reasoning in the way I have is a slippery slope and that people will use this reasoning to try and justify all lies. I totally agree that people will try to justify any sin using arguments they find strong. Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus–that doesn't make scripture a slippery slope even though sinners will justify their actions with scripture. I agree with Calvin's intent which he stated at the end of the quote above. And reading all his comments gives us the impression that he knows people who justify sin using this passage about Jesus acting as if he is going to do something. Notice how he resolves the problem word "pretend" which he earlier said was a "difficulty" because it is "insincerity":

Christ might without falsehood have pretended what is here mentioned... when he appeared for the time to intend to go farther, it was not through pretending any thing else than what he had resolved to do...

Since the phrase "what he had resolved to do" is the same thing as his "intent" here is what Calvin is saying:

"When he acted as if it was his intent to go further, that pretense was nothing else but what he intended to do." !?!!!

He just argued that although scripture says Jesus was "pretending" as if it was his intent to do this, he wasn't actually pretending because it was really his intent! Does that line of thinking convince you? Now if that line of thinking really fully convinced Calvin we probably wouldn't expect him to say what he does next:

Our safest course is to adhere to the rule which has been laid down to us, to speak with truth and simplicity; not that our Lord himself ever departed from the law of his Father, but because, without confining himself to the letter of the commandments, he kept by the true meaning of the law; but we, on account of the weakness of our senses, need to be restrained in a different manner.

He says our safest course is to conform to the letter of the law as it is laid down, and although Jesus did not confine himself to the letter of the law as it is laid down, he still never departed from the commandments but kept their true meaning... in contrast to this: we are so weak that we couldn't possibly understand the true meaning of a commandment to be restrained in a different manner than Jesus: through the letter of the law.

So Calvin in another sense didn't believe Jesus was keeping the letter of the commandment in this passage in Luke, but Calvin argues that we should not follow his example because we are too weak to know the true meaning of the command, therefore we should simply obey the letter of the law. And why? Because we don't know the "true meaning" we can't fully understand the true course... so Calvin tells us to obey the "safest course"...the letter of the law!

I'll bet everyone would agree with Calvin that keeping the letter of the law is the safest course! ...even though one might not always be keeping the true meaning of the law!

 

[k.seymore]

For those of you who agree that it is acceptable to lie to save lives, what do you think about Peter denying Christ? Afterall, he did lie to save his life and possibly those of the other disciples. Isn't this essentially the same situation? He doesn't deny Christ is God, he denies that he was with Jesus. Isn't this acceptable then, since he lied in order to protect life?

Jesus interprets what Peter was going to do "You will deny me" and Peter says "I will never fall away." It is never right to deny Christ. Not only that but we are told he 1st denied Christ, then the 2nd time he made an oath that he never knew Christ, then 3rd he invoked a curse on himself and swore that he did not know Christ. This isn't the same situation. Rahab and the spies actually swore an oath to God which said, “Our life for yours even to death!" Rahab was under a curse to preserve the spies lives in order to be faithful to the oath she swore to God. No matter if you interpret the way she was faithful to God as sin or not, it isn't the same situation.

 

[Thomas2007]

You know the really sad part about all of this is? Many Christians today don't seem to have any concept of what Scriptural covenanting even means, hence the covenant that Rahab and the spies enter is meaningless to them. As a result, I think we can learn a good lesson from this discourse - if you ever get into a situation where you need to escape persecution or some other violation of your life and property, trying to covenant with your fellow Christians for aid is a very bad idea.

 

[satz]

The sabbath command as given in the decalogue lists no exceptions whatsoever, but Jesus clearly allowed for some (Mark 2). Additionally, as his authority, he quoted the story of David and the shewbread - he used a narrative example and told the pharisees they ought to have learnt from that narrative that there were exceptions to the prescriptive sabbath command.

With all due respect, this is very dangerous reasoning. Christ exactly, completely and entirely fulfilled the law without exception. He is my absolutely perfect law-keeper, our Second Adam.

If this is not so, I am not saved, and neither is anyone else. Christ did not go easy on the law, and God did not go easy on Christ when He punished His only begotten Son on the cross:

Sorry, but I don't quite understand you...

I never said Christ sinned, ever.

Perhaps my choice of the word 'exceptions' was confusing. Christ was not 'fudging' on his obedience to the law, he was clarifying what the law really meant.

The 'firm and absolute' demands of the sabbath law -completely uncompromised in any form- allowed for works of necessity and mercy.

I am saying the command against lying also allows - by God's design and intention - certain exceptions. Perhaps you disagree with the verses I used but I don't see how what you wrote above conflicts with them...

Christ certainly rebuked the pharasaical interpretation and their false understanding of the law, but he never mitigated the firm and absolute demands of the law in any way whatsoever. This is but one of the things that makes my salvation so precious. Whatever Jesus did, he obeyed the Father in both the spirit and letter of the law.

Christ could not have sinned and did not sin in any way. When I sin, however, God forgives me. He does not overlook it. Christ was punished for every sin I commit. For Jesus' sake, God forgives.

I am in complete agreement with you. The firm and absolute demands of Gods law against lying however, are not to be understood just by taking one or two verses and deciding those are God's final view on the subject. It must be understood by looking at the entire bible and God's dealings with people.

Again, Jesus reasoned from David eating the shewbread that works of necessity were allowed on the sabbath day. The story he gave had nothing really to do with the sabbath. So to say there is no explicit allow for lying in the bible does not answer the question. God expects us to infer it from the narrative examples that have been referenced in this thread.

 

[satz]

Esteemed Mark, what you are saying does not hold true. Christ did not make exceptions in the sabbath law, but merely clarified it.

Hi Bert,

As I said in the post above, I agree. I used the word exceptions in the context of the strict reading that might result from only reading one verse in Exodus or Deuteronomy. My point is there is work that is allowed on the sabbath, whether you consider that an exception or a clarification.

For now, I believe that the same principle applies to the commandment against bearing false witness.

And nowhere does Scripture commend lying in the case of the midwives and Rahab. Scripture commends their faith, not their action.

To extend that a little further, Jacob lied to Isaac. Was that ok as well?

For Rahab, scripture specifically commends not just her faith, but her works as well, as James states. Yes, she did well in hiding the spies, but if she had given them up to the men of the city after that would she still have been commended? Faith without works is dead, after all. She did hide the spies, but after that she was confronted by the men of the city. If she did not want to give up the spies, she had a choice, she could refuse to answer, lie or take some other action. The fact is, she chose to lie, and God commended her entire course of action. No, there is not a specific verse praising her for specifically lying, but I do not think it is so easy to try to seperate lying from what she did, as it was a essential part of her successfully hiding the spies.

Lying to the nazis, as I attempted to illustrate, would serve no good purpose, tempting as it would be at the time. And this whole thread is started on a foolish premise. Situation ethics. The end justifies the means. The BIG lie of the Jesuits, by which the reformed church was ravaged even more than by the Inquisition.

While I have not lived under the nazis, I am second generation. And while I do not have personal experience, I am in a better position to understand their behavior. Much trickery was used regarding this issue, but using a lie, in the first place to save your own skin, is outright condemned in Scripture.

I actually agree with your comments regarding the use of lying to the nazis. However, I thought the point of this thread was just to use that situation as a launching pad to discuss the issue.

I disagree that the arguments for lying in certain circumstances have been made on situational ethics, or ends justify the means reasoning. Unless you mean it is God saying that the ends justify the means. Lots of scriptures have been given with examples from the bible to prove the point that God allows deception in certain circumstances. There may be disagreement about the verses, but to call his situational ethics in the sense you mean is unfair and ignoring the arguments put forth.

 

[BertMulder]

God does use sinful men. As Brakel puts it, God uses a crooked stick...
But that does not make man's action any less sinful.

Just like Abraham sinned by lying to Pharao and Abimelech...
Just like Isaac lied by lying to Abimelech...
Just like Jacob deceived his father..
Just like the brothers of Joseph sinned selling Joseph into slavery...
Just like David pretended he was witless in Gaza...
Just like Abraham sinned with Hagar
Just like Jacob sinned having 2 wives
Just like David sinned having multiple wives

God was often long suffering, not punishing the sins of all these holy people. And God used all these sinful actions of sinning saints, for our edification.

All things MUST work together for good, those that love him, and are called according to His purpose. Even the sinful actions of sinful saints. Even the sinful actions of the reprobate, for that matter.

But to transgress God's law is still sin.

 

[SRoper]

You know the really sad part about all of this is? Many Christians today don't seem to have any concept of what Scriptural covenanting even means, hence the covenant that Rahab and the spies enter is meaningless to them. As a result, I think we can learn a good lesson from this discourse - if you ever get into a situation where you need to escape persecution or some other violation of your life and property, trying to covenant with your fellow Christians for aid is a very bad idea.

Thomas, you are willing to lie, but are are you willing to swear false oaths in order to protect your fellow man? If not, then why should someone go to you when they are persecuted? Should they not go to someone else without such scruples?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

But to transgress God's law is still sin.

But we do not believe that to lie in a war-situation is a breach of God's Law.

 

[BertMulder]

But to transgress God's law is still sin.

But we do not believe that to lie in a war-situation is a breach of God's Law.

That is what the Jesuits believed to, and used it to slaughter thousands (millions?) of protestants...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

But to transgress God's law is still sin.

But we do not believe that to lie in a war-situation is a breach of God's Law.

That is what the Jesuits believed to, and used it to slaughter thousands (millions?) of protestants...

Maybe it is, but that is irrelvant as the Jesuits are not fighting a godly war.

 

[MrMerlin777]

This is indeed a tough question.

Frankly my opinion means little to it, however, I would do what it took to preserve the lives I was protecting. Including, lying and even killing (defensively) if I had to. Notice though the act would be to preserve life, the Jesuits acted to destroy lives. Therein, I believe, lies a big difference.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is indeed a tough question.

Frankly my opinion means little to it, however, I would do what it took to preserve the lives I was protecting. Including, lying and even killing (defensively) if I had to. Notice though the act would be to preserve life, the Jesuits acted to destroy lives. Therein, I believe, lies a big difference.

Thanks brother, you have made the point better than I could.

 

[Davidius]

So are all the commandments fair game during wartime, or only the 9th?

Are lies that "are told to produce good results" acceptable outside of wartime?

 

[RamistThomist]

In war, if you use diversionary tactics, are you sinning?

 

[Davidius]

I know we've been around and around, but nobody seems to have a good answer.

May a female spy seduce a high-ranking enemy officer in order to obtain information that would save lives? If not, why not? Why can she break the 9th commandment but not the 7th?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So are all the commandments fair game during wartime, or only the 9th?

Are lies that "are told to produce good results" acceptable outside of wartime?

We are not saying that any of the commandments are "fair game" at all, what we are saying is that the 9th commandment does not forbid lying in this particular circumstance due to the examples set down in Scripture. Just as we argue that killing someone is not a breach of the 6th commandment either in warfare or if they have committed a crime worth of death as defined by God.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I know we've been around and around, but nobody seems to have a good answer.

May a female spy seduce a high-ranking enemy officer in order to obtain information that would save lives? If not, why not? Why can she break the 9th commandment but not the 7th?

Can you provide us with a Biblical example to justify this?

 

[Davidius]

I'm asking the question based on "good and necessary consequence." If lying is okay, why not adultery?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'm asking the question based on "good and necessary consequence." If lying is okay, why not adultery?

But you have not proved that lying is a sin in that particular circumstance, if it is then why is Rahab commended by the NT writers for her faith which was evidenced by lying to protect the spies?

 

[satz]

So are all the commandments fair game during wartime, or only the 9th?

Are lies that "are told to produce good results" acceptable outside of wartime?

I know I have said this before, but while your question is a good one, it does not really affect the answer to the OP.

God specifically gives us examples show his approval of lying in certain situations.

Exactly what situations he approves of, and how far those principles may be extended to other commandments is a worthwhile discussion, but does not invalidate the principle that there are exceptions to the strict reading of the 9th commandment, just as there are to the 4th commandment.

EDIT: Just saw your post above... to put it another way, I think we can establish clearly from the bible that God allows lie in war, or to save innocent lives. How far good and necessary consequence will extend this principle beyond fact situations similar to those in the bible is up for debate, but the answer does not, In my humble opinion, affect the validity of the exceptions to the 9th commandment that those bible examples show.

 

[Davidius]

And around and around we go. No need to discuss the same issues six times.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And around and around we go. No need to discuss the same issues six times.

 

[BertMulder]

The way to hell is paved with good intentions....

 

[BertMulder]

The esteemed apostle Paul also intended well, when persecuting the church, prior to the Lord opening his eyes.

Yet, although he was pardoned for those sins, he was still sinning, even if, as he himself writes, he committed them 'ignorantly, out of unbelief'.

And even that sinful act God used to scatter the church away from Jerusalem, so that the Gospel was, as a consequence, brought to the surrounding contries.

Still, that does not lessen the sin.