Moral Absolutes: Lying

[Claudiu]

This has come up in a couple of my discussions with people lately. Not only philosophy people, but Christians as well.
Fellow Christians that I know believe in justified lying, and therefore lying is not an absolute. One can lie in order to save a life. This is brought up in philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant.
One of the texts that come to mind is in Exodus 1 where the midwives lied, and then it says that God dealt well with the midwives.


16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.


The scenerio that is sometimes brought up goes something like this: "Imagine you are in WWII Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your house. Now there come some Nazi's at your door and ask you if there are any Jews inside your house. There are 2 options now: tell the truth, causing the Jews to be caught...or...lie, causing the Jews to be safe." In this scenerio the question is, "would you lie in order to save a life?"

Another one is..."You are in a country where Christianity is illegal. You are sneaking Bible's into the country, but one day you are caught by the police. They ask you what church, or people you are going to deliver them to." Again the options are to tell the truth and possible have someone die, or lie and save a life.

One more point, looking at church history and all the martyrs that have stood up for their faith, it shows that people were willing to tell the truth, as opposed to just lying once, a "justified lie," in order to save their life or that of others. (However, this is different from the other scenarios mentioned).

I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say. Any ideas.

 

[MMasztal]

This is really a false dichotomy and isn't really a problem as some might think.

Simply put, we are to obey God's commandments before man's laws especially if man's laws are counter to those of God.

 

[Claudiu]

I think violating the Ninth Commandment (and all its subsequent "least" commandments) is, of course, sinning. That noted, some people don't deserve the truth. So, for example, if you knew telling the truth would lead to the death of an "innocent" person, you should choose silence over the truth, but not lying. Yes, there may be consequences, but we leave those with God. Since when has God commanded us to break one commandment in order to keep another?

Yes, these scenarios only allow the possibility of 2 options....when there is another one...keeping silent.

Thats a good one. Thanks.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 07:26:04 EST-----

This is really a false dichotomy and isn't really a problem as some might think.

Simply put, we are to obey God's commandments before man's laws especially if man's laws are counter to those of God.

Yes, God's law comes before man's.

 

[LadyFlynt]

As Josh pointed out, there is always a third option: silence.

 

[Skyler]

This has come up in a couple of my discussions with people lately. Not only philosophy people, but Christians as well.
My uncle (a Christian) believes in justified lying, and therefore lying is not an absolute. One can lie in order to save a life. This is brought up in philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant. However, I believe that lying is wrong no matter what, even in bad circumstances where lying would be an option to save someone.
One of the texts that come to mind is in Exodus 1 where the midwives lied, and then it says that God dealt well with the midwives. Opponents of my view point, that lying is wrong no matter what, would say that it is ok, and that this is a circumstance when it was allowed. I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.

I've been having the same conversation with a couple of friends. It's interesting that while the Bible always(to my recollection) praises or otherwise shows God's favor toward good deeds, it doesn't always condemn wrongdoing in the case of God's elect. Jacob is a prominent example. This doesn't mean they didn't sin--everyone does. I'm not completely sure what this means, but it does seem to set precedent for the case of the midwives.

The scenerio that is sometimes brought up goes something like this: "Imagine you are in WWII Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your house. Now there come some Nazi's at your door and ask you if there are any Jews inside your house. There are 2 options now: tell the truth, causing the Jews to be caught...or...lie, causing the Jews to be safe." In this scenerio the question is, "would you lie in order to save a life?"

I don't think we should. Despite the apparently good consequences of such an action, there are no non-anecdotal texts I am aware of to support lying even to save life. There are, on the other hand, a staggering number of references, particularly in Proverbs, condemning lying unconditionally. It seems to me that if God had intended to impose a condition on the general principle, he had plenty of opportunity to do so and chose not to.

If this is the case, then lying would of course be wrong in this situation.

Oh, and for an anecdotal example, if you've read "The Hiding Place", you may recall that Nollie did tell the Nazis "yes", and the Jew they were hiding at the time was freed after a short time.

Another one is..."You are in a country where Christianity is illegal. You are sneaking Bible's into the country, but one day you are caught by the police. They ask you what church, or people you are going to deliver them to." Again the options are to tell the truth and possible have someone die, or lie and save a life.

In this case I think the question sets up a false dichotomy. Most if not all hypothetical scenarios fall victim to this fallacy; they present lying and telling the truth as the only options. There is a third--don't say anything. Give no information, either true or false. This, I think, is the best option in this case. If you tell the truth, someone may well die. If you lie, and are found out, your punishment will be all the worse. If you say nothing, you don't betray your fellow Christians, and neither do you have to engage in morally dubious activities.

One more point, looking at church history and all the martyrs that have stood up for their faith, it shows that people were willing to tell the truth, as opposed to just lying once, a "justified lie," in order to save their life or that of others.

There are even more from countries where persecution continues, such as China or in the recent past the Soviet Union. Christians in these situations face the examples you present frequently.

I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say. Any ideas.

I certainly have.

edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.

 

[LadyFlynt]

edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.

Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay

 

[Skyler]

edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.

Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay

You are telling the truth, right?

 

[LadyFlynt]

edit: That's what I get for posting comprehensively. Everyone else gets their word in before I do.

Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay

You are telling the truth, right?

One thing you will learn about me: I tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it. I'm somewhere between blunt and brutally honest.

 

[Skyler]

Such is the life of the PB, Jonathan. You'll be okay

You are telling the truth, right?

One thing you will learn about me: I tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it. I'm somewhere between blunt and brutally honest.

Good. I usually stray between telling the truth where it's not needed and not telling the truth where it is.

On that note, I think we're getting a bit off topic...

 

[asc]

I think violating the Ninth Commandment (and all its subsequent "least" commandments) is, of course, sinning. That noted, some people don't deserve the truth. So, for example, if you knew telling the truth would lead to the death of an "innocent" person, you should choose silence over the truth, but not lying. Yes, there may be consequences, but we leave those with God. Since when has God commanded us to break one commandment in order to keep another?

I'm not sure where i stand on the issue, but to explore the argument further, silence might work in the second situation, but I wouldn't think the first. One could reasonably expect that if the SS came to your door and asked you if you were hiding any Jews and you didn't answer their question, they would start searching the house.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Sinning is never acceptable or justified, because sin is an end in itself. So lying is always a wrong and is never justified, regardless of our intentions. This is the very point Paul makes in Romans 3.

 

[reformed trucker]

I tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it. I'm somewhere between blunt and brutally honest.

That is what I like about you. I can respect that. You are like a female SolaScriptura (that's why I like him also).

 

[satz]

I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.

I would respectfully say I don't think the passage can be explained this way. It might be helpful to compare the midwives example to that of Rahab, which is similar in that she also lied to save the Israelite spies.

However, in James 2, the bible specifically points picks out Rahab as an example of justification by works. The whole context of the passage is that faith - or fear of God - is not good enough alone. It must be backed up by actions. So the bible approves not just Rahab's faith, but her actions as well.

To say she feared God but did the wrong thing in response would not make sense in the context of James' argument.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 09:34:19 EST-----

Sinning is never acceptable or justified, because sin is an end in itself. So lying is always a wrong and is never justified, regardless of our intentions. This is the very point Paul makes in Romans 3.

True, but it is God who defines sin, and we need to look at the entire bible to see how he defines it.

As a similar example, if you only read Exodus, you could not figure out that works of necessity or mercy are allowed on the Sabbath day, for the wording of the Sabbath command is absolute. But Jesus expected the Pharisees to have figured out that God does allow exceptions. And, he used narrative - the example of David and the showbread -to qualify, or show exceptions to, the absolute prescriptive Sabbath commandment from the Decalogue.

The same principles applies to the OP, God allows lying in certain exception circumstances like the midwives, and Rahab.

I would add also that this is not using man’s logic to rationalise away the word of God. This is using scripture to interpret scripture.

I am open to correction, but currently, this does seem the correction position from the bible.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.

I would respectfully say I don't think the passage can be explained this way. It might be helpful to compare the midwives example to that of Rahab, which is similar in that she also lied to save the Israelite spies.

However, in James 2, the bible specifically points picks out Rahab as an example of justification by works. The whole context of the passage is that faith - or fear of God - is not good enough alone. It must be backed up by actions. So the bible approves not just Rahab's faith, but her actions as well.

To say she feared God but did the wrong thing in response would not make sense in the context of James' argument.

Note James does not commend Rahab's lying - only her helping the spies. The end was good, the the means were sinful...

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

 

[satz]

Note James does not commend Rahab's lying - only her helping the spies

I think James is commending Rahab's entire actions. If she did not lie, she would not have been able to help the spies, for the men of Jericho would have caught them.

The end was good, the the means were sinful...

I don't think this fits with James argument. James is trying to give his readers examples of good works - like Abraham offering up his son in faith. If he gives an example of sinful means, his argument breaks down, because in the end Rahab only has faith, and not works because she sinned.

And faith without works, is in that context, dead.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Note James does not commend Rahab's lying - only her helping the spies

I think James is commending Rahab's entire actions. If she did not lie, she would not have been able to help the spies, for the men of Jericho would have caught them.

The end was good, the the means were sinful...

I don't think this fits with James argument. James is trying to give his readers examples of good works - like Abraham offering up his son in faith. If he gives an example of sinful means, his argument breaks down, because in the end Rahab only has faith, and not works because she sinned.

And faith without works, is in that context, dead.

The Bible never condones or praises sin, including lying. There are no exceptions to the 9th Commandment. Rahab sinned, but her overarching desire to protect the spies came from her faith. Even so, James clearly does not indicate her lie was righteous or good. Simply because her actions were motivated by faith does not make them 100% sin free.

 

[satz]

As I said, James is exhorting his readers to add to their faith good works. Out of all the examples in the bible, why would he chose Rahab unless her actions were good works?

Getting the right result by the wrong method would still be sin. The fact that James chose Rehab for this particular example seems to me to indicate that her actions were not sin but praiseworthy.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Rahab is praised specifically because she sent the spies out another way, instead of turning them in to the authorities in Jericho. She did so because she had faith in God that He would send Israel back and rescue her and her family, while putting the rest of the city to the sword. She is not commended for her lying, but for her sending out the spies. Note the precision of James' words:

James 2.25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Not, "when she lied to the authorities".

 

[satz]

Pastor Todd,

That still does not answer the question of why James would chose her when he was trying to find an example of someone who demonstrated faith through good works. Rabab's lie was an integral part of what she did. If she did not lie, the authorities would have discovered the spies.

The bible principle is, I think, that sinful actions to achieve a good end are still condemned, as with Moses striking the rock, or David moving the Ark of the Covenant on a ox-cart. If Rahab sinned by lying, her actions would be tainted just as Moses' and David's were. Even if God, in his great mercy chose to overlook that sin practically, it would still make her action a bad choice for James' example.

 

[asc]

The Bible never condones or praises sin, including lying.

I don't think it's suggested by anyone that's ok to sin, the big question is whether all forms of lying or deception is a sin.

I once had a conversation with a Christian who understood the 6th commandment to mean "you shall not ever kill another person under any circumstance". So to him, Christians should be opposed to all war, capital punishment, lethal force in self defense, etc. I sorta see a parallel. Just like issues of war and capital punishment are only exercised as a last resort or in the most dire circumstances. I could see similar situations where deception would be acceptable, but this would be in the rarest of circumstance.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Pastor Todd,

That still does not answer the question of why James would chose her when he was trying to find an example of someone who demonstrated faith through good works. Rabab's lie was an integral part of what she did. If she did not lie, the authorities would have discovered the spies.

The bible principle is, I think, that sinful actions to achieve a good end are still condemned, as with Moses striking the rock, or David moving the Ark of the Covenant on a ox-cart. If Rahab sinned by lying, her actions would be tainted just as Moses' and David's were. Even if God, in his great mercy chose to overlook that sin practically, it would still make her action a bad choice for James' example.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it, as many commentators do not. Perhaps you fail to see the historical milieu of Rahab's actions--they truly were remarkable for her time and place. I believe that it's entirely possible that James is commending her sending out the spies and not mentioning the lying for the purpose of emphasizing the good of what she did, as that most certainly points to her faith. As I said above, to believe that a walled city such as Jericho would be conquered by a people who had recently (40 years or so) been released from slavery, and having no city of their own, but wanderers in the desert, with no arms but bows and spears, etc. is truly a faithful act.

 

[satz]

Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it, as many commentators do not. Perhaps you fail to see the historical milieu of Rahab's actions--they truly were remarkable for her time and place. I believe that it's entirely possible that James is commending her sending out the spies and not mentioning the lying for the purpose of emphasizing the good of what she did, as that most certainly points to her faith. As I said above, to believe that a walled city such as Jericho would be conquered by a people who had recently (40 years or so) been released from slavery, and having no city of their own, but wanderers in the desert, with no arms but bows and spears, etc. is truly a faithful act.

Pastor Todd,

From what I can see, within the context of James teaching, it does not matter how great her faith was, she had to react appropriately - with good works.

Saying James approved of her actions although she was sinning is like saying he would approve of a man who stole money to tithe. Again, he is explicitly commending her action, not just her faith.

If all lying is wrong under all circumstances, how can we justify Joshua sending out spies into Jericho in the first place?

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I understand your question, and do believe that in times such as war that deceptive tactics are allowed. Joshua used a "feint maneuver" at Ai, and drew out the bulk of the soldiers for slaughter, and I believe he was guiltless in doing so. There are other instances of a similar nature, and each case is to be carefully considered.

However, in the case of Rahab, I believe we have a different situation altogether, where she was asked a specific question and gave an answer that was not true. While some in the history of the Church have excused her lying, I do not, and I do not believe James is. I have already told you how I believe James separated her actions, and emphasized the good she did, and minimized the wrong, to the point of leaving it unmentioned. This is my view.

Your view is that James is considering the "complex" of what she did in the entire circumstance. While I understand what you're saying, I do not believe it is the proper interpretation, nor do I believe James condones that portion of her actions that are clearly forbidden in other portions of Scripture. I am aware of those who interpret the 9th Commandment narrowly to refer only to "legal testimony" and "property". However, that certainly is not the view of my Confession of Faith as summarized in the Larger Catechism, which is as follows:

Q. #145 What are the sins forbidden in the ninth Commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out–facing and over–bearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others;kspeaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale–bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vain–glorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;e denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumours, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavouring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practising, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

Good exchange. I'll leave the last word to you and the rest to decide on the merits of the arguments. However, I will caution that we live in a society that believes lying is necessary to get along in the world. This speaks of God's judgment *already* upon us.

Isaiah 59.12-15; 12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; 13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. 14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. 15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm not sure where i stand on the issue, but to explore the argument further, silence might work in the second situation, but I wouldn't think the first. One could reasonably expect that if the SS came to your door and asked you if you were hiding any Jews and you didn't answer their question, they would start searching the house.

Actually the issue with the Nazis scenario is "Do they have a right to the truth?". The answer is obvious if you think about it.

 

[Claudiu]

I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.

I would respectfully say I don't think the passage can be explained this way. It might be helpful to compare the midwives example to that of Rahab, which is similar in that she also lied to save the Israelite spies.

But it says that "God dealt well with the midwives."

God never deals well with sin, and in this case he would have dealt well with them because of their fear. In other words, God dealt well with them...why? Was it their actions (which was lying, and as we know that is sin, and God does not approve of), or was it because of the fear they showed. God does not deal well with sin, he deals well with fear or faith.

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses

Notice it doesn't talk about what they did, but the fear part only...it doesn't say how they lied, or even how they saved the babies.

 

[ChristianHedonist]

Question: What does it actually mean to (or to not) bear false testimony against your neighbor? For example, if the Gestapo were seeking to unjustly arrest and perhaps put to death innocent people, would bearing false testimony be testifying of the location of said innocent people such that injustice could be done? To put it another way, would not bearing false testimony, and thus obeying the 9th commandment, be testifying about said innocent people in such a manner as to protect them from injustice. It seems that turning innocent people over to injustice could be bearing false testimony against them, since they have done nothing to deserve what is planned against them. Any thoughts?

(note: I'm not 100% certain where I stand on this issue, I just thought this was a provocative question)

 

[SolaScriptura]

Maybe I'm a really bad bad man who's barely saved...

But I'd lie to murderous thugs to save innocent lives IN A HEARTBEAT.

 

[JoeRe4mer]

I know a lot of Christians are not comfortable with anything even approaching situational ethics and for good reason, but the text clearly says that The Lord blessed the Hebrew midwives for telling the opposite of the truth i.e. a lie, so there are obviously circumstances where it is not a sin to do so, rare though they may be.

 

[satz]

But it says that "God dealt well with the midwives."

God never deals well with sin, and in this case he would have dealt well with them because of their fear. In other words, God dealt well with them...why? Was it their actions (which was lying, and as we know that is sin, and God does not approve of), or was it because of the fear they showed. God does not deal well with sin, he deals well with fear or faith.

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses

Notice it doesn't talk about what they did, but the fear part only...it doesn't say how they lied, or even how they saved the babies.

Fearing God isn't enough to earn God's favour. The devils fear God and tremble, but don't earn his favour. If we say the midwives sinned by lying but God dealt well with them because of their fear, we might as well say the midwives could have just killed the babies and God would ignore their sin of murder and deal well with their fear of him. But that would be rediculous.

My point is, fear or faith has to result in God works. And that was what God was rewarding.


Also, why assume God condemns all lying? God forbids murder, but there are exceptions for self defense and war. God commanded rest on the sabbath, but there are exceptions for works of necessity and mercy. Why not exceptions to the command aganist lying for saving lives? And again, these exceptions are not thought up by pragmatic reasoning, but by revelation from the bible.

 

[LawrenceU]

I think you have to do an awful lot of gymnastics to make the midwives and Rahab not blessed as a result of their lying. But, then their lying was not like the vast majority of lying.