Moral Absolutes: Lying

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by snap_dragon View Post

And we're very thankful you're not a Jew, period.

...or a Christian from the Romans if that scenario works better for you.

My point, friend, is that you're not responding with anything of substance. Instead of responding with biblical and confessional points to those of us who have asserted that lying is a violation of God's Law every time, you have appealed to sentimentality and emotions to try to make your point. But that won't work.

You cannot prove that lying will actually save Christians from the Romans, Jews from the Nazis, or people from the Secret Service.

As Christians, the Lord demands that we obey His Law, and leave the consequences to Him. This doesn't mean we will always do so. In fact, I'm convinced that we all daily break God's Law.

Nonetheless, the Lord has never said it's okay to break His Law. EVER.

I am grieved at the idea that some of you think that the Thrice Holy God of Scripture is okay with sin, or that He has ever called evil good. Nothing in the text of Scripture says, implies, or compels us to think such a thing. Instead, the Lord is perfect, and has commanded us also to strive for said perfection.

I'm going to repeat my point again:

Lying, by definition, is withholding information from or deceiving people who deserve to have the information you are withholding/distorting.

Therefore I am not saying that God approves of sin. Rather, what I'm saying is that silence or half-truths are not third options (see my marijuana example above), and it would be absurd to say that deception at all times is wrong. As one obvious example, is it wrong in wartime to have decoys in an attempt to confuse the enemy? If not, then it is permissible in some situations to deceive people, and I'm telling you right now that the criterion is whether or not people deserve to receive the information.

This is not using extreme examples forming policies; it is accounting for all the evidence and constructing an appropriate framework given that evidence.

 

[snap_dragon]

I appreciate your clarification, Confessor

I think Greg Koukl puts it rather clearly here.

( and extremely off topic...I request prayers for a young couple we are having over tonight. The husband left the wife 3 months after marriage and talks about divorce...leaving her alone and coming to church by herself. They are both coming over and I am praying that God grants me the right words and actions. I really feel quite badly for her...apologies for this tangent.)

Everyone, have a great weekend...

 

[Claudiu]

I think Greg Koukl puts it rather clearly here.

( and extremely off topic...I request prayers for a young couple we are having over tonight. The husband left the wife 3 months after marriage and talks about divorce...leaving her alone and coming to church by herself. They are both coming over and I am praying that God grants me the right words and actions. I really feel quite badly for her...apologies for this tangent.)

Everyone, have a great weekend...

Thank you for the link

 

[Skyler]

I'm going to repeat my point again:

Lying, by definition, is withholding information from or deceiving people who deserve to have the information you are withholding/distorting.

I'm not sure where that definition comes from. The definition I'm familiar with is "presenting false or misleading information with the intent to deceive." Where did you get this definition? And how do you determine whether or not one deserves the information?

 

[KMK]

Dear Ken,

Your candor is very winsome. Would that we all had that desire! This brings up another point about how we hear. We ought to have the kinds of relationships with one another that encourage truth telling, which would include being patient, kind, and desiring to believe the best of one another. Knowing that we are committed to one another no matter what, (of course always under Christ and His commands) "promotes the truth between man and man". As a pastor, and I'm sure you've experienced this as well, we often are the last to hear the truth, because folks desire the Pastor to have a complimentary view of themselves, and it is often believed that to hide their misdeeds will support this view. For that reason, I apply my best efforts encourage my congregation to speaking freely with me when they are having trouble. In counseling a couple this last week I told them, "whatever bad things you see in me, I know many more about myself. Don't hesitate to call me if I can help". This kind of honest humility, especially from the Minister, promotes truth-telling.

Very good advice. Thank you.

Sorry, Joshua, I didn't notice that you closed the thread.

 

[py3ak]

Does he address the extended narrative of Hushai vs. Ahithophel?

 

[py3ak]

In some ways, I think that is the killer passage, though. Rahab and the Hebrew midwives are lightweights compared to that one. So if that one isn't addressed thoroughly, I'm not really convinced.

 

[py3ak]

Yeah, but I don't have John Murray already, and I'm not going to spend money on him.

I understand there is a difference between narrative and prescription, between situation and principle. But narrative does factor in to the total Biblical picture on a topic. As one simple example, "Swear not at all" - and yet there is a chapter in the Confession addressing "lawful oaths and vows": part of the reason why the seemingly absolute statement "Swear not at all" is not, in fact, taken absolutely, are the oaths and vows that appear in narrative portions of Scripture.

Here's a quick rundown:
1. David hears that Ahithophel has gone over to Absalom and prays that God will confound his counsel.
2. Hushai approaches David offering his services.
3. David sends Hushai to Absalom with instructions to pretend to be loyal to him, in order to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel.
4. Hushai gives very plausible but nonetheless bad counsel in opposition to Ahithophel.
5. In spite of Ahithophel's reputation for counsel of high quality, people listen to Hushai's bad and deceptive counsel, because the Lord had appointed him to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel.
6. Hushai fulfills his role as fifth columnist by giving David a heads-up about what happened by sending two messengers.
7. Hushai's messengers are spotted and pursued, but they are hidden through a sprinkling of straw and some convincing lies.

 

[LawrenceU]

Thanks, Josh. I've always been intrigued by that narrative. It smacks of a great military manoeuvre.

 

[py3ak]

It doesn't have to give an impression that God approved of the lying. All it has to do is set out that David himself didn't think that in this case lying was wrong: that is sufficient to establish that godly men may differ.

 

[Claudiu]

Reopened for further discussion on Ahiphothel and Hushai.

Yay!

 

[Hippo]

"And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you"
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.

I have always found these to be difficuly verses, and of course it is not God lying but the lying spirit is not condemed.

 

[Confessor]

"And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you"
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.

I have always found these to be difficuly verses, and of course it is not God lying but the lying spirit is not condemed.

I think that is just a case of God's decreeing a lie to occur. It doesn't speak of its permissibility (i.e., as a precept) at all.

 

[satz]

I understand, but I'm still trying to see where God commanded/commended lying. For us to be able to justify the telling of an untruth, In my humble opinion, we need something more than a narrative that *might*, according to our finite understanding of things, give an impression of such.

Josh,

I am not sure if you intended the re-opened discussion to be strictly restricted to Ahiphothel and Hushai... I apologise if this is the case (although, since discussion on the Ahab passage is tolerated, I assume there is some leeway).

With regard to your comment on narrative, no one has dealt with the fact that in dealing with the sabbath, Jesus explicitly used narrative to explain the perscriptive sabbath law.

As I have also said, people are approaching this subject from the assumption that God could never justify lying. The bible says God is truth and God cannot lie, but there are plenty of examples of God deceiving his enemies.

Hippo has mentioned the passage on Ahab's prophets. The spirit told God he was going to lie, and God did not rebuke him. In fact, God said, go ahead with your plan. There is no passive assent.

In 1 Sam 16 God tells Samuel to offer a sacrifice for the express purpose of deceiving Saul as to his real intention. And more examples could be raised.

How about Jehu who lied to win the confidence of the baal worshippers (1 Kings 10:18). And God explicitly says "thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes" (v30)

There is no warrant to start with the assumption that God would never, ever approve of lying.

Also, as I have said in the thread it is also inconsistent to say indirect "deception" in military actions is acceptable, but direct lying is always condemned. As an example, how is that any different from the pharisees saying that indirect adultery through fantasy is acceptable but only direct physical adultery is condemned?

 

[py3ak]

Well, the expressed fact is that God did ordain Hushai to be the means of defeating Ahithophel; he comes in answer to David's prayer and David instructs him to lie to Absalom. This wasn't because David wasn't aware of God's requirements - "Lo, thou desirest truth in the inward parts." But the concatenation of prayer-answer to prayer-instruction-lying made efficacious by God makes it difficult to believe that either David or Hushai thought they were doing anything wrong.
So at the very lowest level, it is certainly possible for two men of God to think that in some situations lying is permissible.

 

[KMK]

"And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you"
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.

I have always found these to be difficuly verses, and of course it is not God lying but the lying spirit is not condemed.

Mr. Jim Ellis (Gomarus), my pastor (Rev. Todd Ruddell), and I discussed this very passage while eating tonight. If Pastor Ruddell is able to look at the thread, maybe he'll elucidate it once again, but he may be too pressed for time.

You get to hang out with Mr. Ellis and Rev Ruddell? I live in the wrong state!

Seriously, this has been a great thread and I am praying for renewed conviction in the 9th in my family, my church, and my country.

 

[bob]

The Scriptures clearly teach that "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" and that we should not bear witness. Christ tells us in the gospel of John that Satan is a liar and the father of it. I think that everyone that is writing here, even those that are open to some forms of deception, would readily agree. I think those that are more wooden in their application against deception and lying should be cautious to not judge those who wrestle with this concept more harshly than necessary. The Scriptures are filled with examples of deception and lying. As a Christian, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Does the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness" forbid all forms of deception?

As the believer considers this ethically, we find that deception bears in many aspects of our lives. Can we engage in telling tall tales? Exagerate? Hyperbole? Is deception fair in playing games and sports? Should a quarterback pumpfake? Fake the handoff to the running back? Can you bluff when playing poker? Is all fair in war? During many wars, false intelligence is given to the opposition, whether through phony radio broadcasts, mustering a display of troops opposite a landing site, feints etc.

This thread has published a few illustrations (or at least seeming so), but in fact, the Bible is filled with these accounts. Of course, these accounts do not necessarily grant that the actions were proper, but we must at least consider what the text says about those actions. PErhaps we will find that although we are commanded Not to kill, we find that, for example, if a thief comes into the house at night and you kill him , you are not guilty of bloodshed. Perhaps there are some qualifications that help define what is meant by lying or not bearing false witness.

Here are few other examples:

Abram twice tries to hide the fact that he is married to Sarai. Isaac does the same. They are chastised by the pagans, although curiously, God never appears to address their conduct. In Abram's case, God strikes the pagans with plagues and barreness and in all three instances, the patriarchs leave with God blessing them.

Rahab has been mentioned. Her works are praised in the book of James and her faith in Hebrews. True, her lying is not specifically mentioned, but consider her acts as a whole - wouldn't we hang folks like her? It's not very patriotic to harbor spies, betray your country men, commit treason, and lie and mislead the authorities. She does all this in faith and she is commended for it. As I once heard D. A. Carson remark: "Put that in your theological peace pipe and smoke it!"

The midwives has been mentioned. I find it curious indeed to insist that they did not lie, or at least did not tell all the truth. While perhaps at times they did not arrive in time, certainly they did at other times, for the SCriptures state that they didn't do what the king commanded them and they kept the sons alive.

A few instances of deception occur in the life of David:

Michal make a pretend David in his bed and tells the guards he is sick and buys a few more minutes to allow him to escape.

Jonathan and David hatch out a scheme when David hides and Jonathan tells his dad he went home for awhile.

There are numerous accounts in battle such as when Jael invites Sisera into her tent and gives him milk and a bed, only to drive a stake through his head when he falls asleep.

Of course, we know that God uses deception as a means to accomplish his purposes. Job remarks that both the deceived and the deceiver are His. There is that curious passage in which God puts a lying spirit in the prophets. I really am not sure that I quite understand everything that is transpiring there. Angel? Demon? Jeremiah remarks that God deceived him and the people. God tells Jeremiah that He will deceive the prophets and the people, as He does in Ezekiel.

There are hosts of other incidents that could be mentioned. Some are clearly wrong. Joab kills a couple men by feigning friendship. Judas betrays Christ with a kiss. Others are mentioned without commentary. Others are mentioned in which the context seem to indicate that they are praised overall in their actions.

The Scriptures repeatedly remark that God cannot lie and that we are to be holy as He is Holy. We know that lying lips are an abomination. I think it is good to pray as did Agur in the book of Proverbs: "Remove falsehood and lies far from me" and to pray as did Christ "Keep me from temptation."

That said, is every form of deception forbidden by the Scriptures? There are a lot of incidents to consider.

 

[Rangerus]

Here is a little different view point which came to mind while reading through this thread. Starting with Matthew 22:39 KJV

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Using this as a primary guide, and knowing God judges the heart, it seems it is interpreted best by understanding we should never lie to our neighbour, nor against our neighbour. I think the intended meaning of "thou shalt not lie" as meaning to bring malicious harm or misguidance to our neighbour (whom we should love) by willingly deceiving or misleading.

That being said, I would never say anything to satan, his demons, or his representatives that would enable satan to harm or endanger my neighbour.

I'm sure this is fraught with unsound doctrine, but it is just a thought.

 

[bob]

As I think a little more about this subject, considering God's character and the fact that we are to imitate Him, perhaps something to ponder is whether or not it is consistent with God's character to deceive people. If we were to ascertain that God can deceive without violating His holiness and His nature, we are forced to conclude that deception need not be equated with lying.

I've not really considered this question, so perhaps some could share their thoughts. We know that God can use anything as a means through which He accomplished His purposes. Perhaps some of the questions fall into the difficult doctrine of causation.

A few passages to consider:

1Kings 22 - "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2The 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

Isa 29:10-14 "For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered."

Eze 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Isa 66:4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them

 

[Claudiu]

The issue that I can sometimes see with this lying and deception issue is there are two ways of looking at it:

1] black/white...and no gray-zone situations, so that there is no room for lying
or
2] black/white...and there are gray-zone situations, so there is room for lying because in certain situations, although lying is not good, the issue at hand may be seen as a bigger problem, like saving someone's life.

 

[KMK]

Well, the expressed fact is that God did ordain Hushai to be the means of defeating Ahithophel; he comes in answer to David's prayer and David instructs him to lie to Absalom. This wasn't because David wasn't aware of God's requirements - "Lo, thou desirest truth in the inward parts." But the concatenation of prayer-answer to prayer-instruction-lying made efficacious by God makes it difficult to believe that either David or Hushai thought they were doing anything wrong.
So at the very lowest level, it is certainly possible for two men of God to think that in some situations lying is permissible.

This seems logical, but, couldn't the same argument be used to show that it is possible for men of God to think, in some situations, polygamy is permissible?

 

[Calvinist Cowboy]

I have enjoyed reading this thread very much and hope that the discussion will continue. It has certainly caused me to think.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

I am inclined to believe, like Kant, that if the act of lying is immoral, it is immoral always and in every case. Important to note here is that the immorality of lying (or any act) is not merely consequential, but also 'spiritual' -- by lying, even if it has no negative effect on other people or external events (even if it has positive effects in this regard), I am nonetheless causing harm to my soul.

A standard scenario contra moral absolutism goes something like, "Say a crazed gunman comes up to you out-of-the-blue and tells you to kill this one baby or else he will kill these thirty babies. Clearly, what any person should do here is save the thirty babies by killing the one baby." This kind of thinking shows how truly depraved utilitarian/consequentialist ethics is.

First of all, what assurance have I that the gunman would actually carry out his twisted threat? He may be playing a game. Second, what I should do before anything else is attempt to talk him out of it, which may prove successful. Barring that, I may try to disarm him, which also may prove successful. But, more importantly, if the gunman does commit this atrocity any immorality that takes place is on him and not me. I am not the author of this scenario, and he cannot force me to take any 'ethical' part in an immoral situation he created. As a person committed to morality all that need concern me is acting morally, and by no stretch can murdering a baby, in and of itself, be considered a good thing. And even if the consequential 'good' of my evil act would 'outweigh' the evil of the alternate (which is on him, not me), I would still be acting immorally insofar as I would be doing damage to my soul by committing an evil. Which, qua moral person, I cannot allow for myself.

Whoever denies this is not really serious about acting morally, but rather, by his acts, having 'pleasure' outweigh 'pain'. The latter stance is one of moral anti-realism: 'morality' is just something people have constructed and it is very useful, but we can discard it when the going gets rough because it isn't really real. Moral realism, by contrast, takes morality seriously and recognizes its superiority over hedonism.

 

[he beholds]

I would lie to save someone's life.
I don't know if that makes me a premeditated sinner, but I am 100% certain that if I were brave enough in the moment to do so, I would lie.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

I would lie to save someone's life.
I don't know if that makes me a premeditated sinner, but I am 100% certain that if I were brave enough in the moment to do so, I would lie.

If you would lie to save someone's life, at what sin would you stop before having to say, "Sorry, but I can't do that to save your life"? Perhaps, I suspect, something like rape or murder... but there's a whole lotta sin between lying and rape/murder.

I'm not sure that God is in the business of giving His blessing to our committing a wide range of sins just so that some guy can add a few more years to his temporal life.

 

[a mere housewife]

The thread is terribly long -- has anyone yet mentioned that the command is actually 'not to bear false witness against a neighbor' as the other command is not, never to kill (or there could be no just death sentence and no just war), but to 'do no murder'?

Isn't 'hiding' at all a lie? An attempt to deceive with appearances? Are we to relegate the sin against the command merely to words? If the spies hiding themselves is legitimate, then surely Rahab saying that they aren't there is just another facet of the whole attempt to deceive with appearances. Yet no one seems to be upset at the spies for manipulating appearances into a deception of their true whereabouts.

I too, if I were brave enough (and I pray I would be), would hide Jews (or spies from Canaan) and say they weren't there if came to that. I would not believe that I was bearing false witness against a neighbor in doing so.

 

[Confessor]

I want to let it be known that I and (I assume) the others who advocate speaking an untruth to save lives--e.g. the Nazis-at-your-door scenario--are not advocating an ends-justify-the-means situation. That is not what is occurring. What is important is to understand that lying is not some blanket statement of "deceive no one anytime."

Adding qualifiers to commandments to better understand them is not utilitarian, situationalist, or consequentialist. For instance, if my parents commanded me to murder someone, I would be upholding both the fifth and sixth commandments by not following the command. Obeying parents does not mean that we should do what they say no matter what, and when we break their commands to uphold God's law, the fifth commandment is being upheld. Notice here that the obedience required in the fifth commandment goes against a prima facie concept of obedience; it involves a qualification and not an unqualified "do whatever your parents say" command. On the surface the fifth commandment appears to say that we should do whatever our parents say, but that is not the case.

Take also for example the sixth commandment. It doesn't mean that we should not take life at any instance. And, in fact, there are very peculiar lines that need to be drawn (e.g. When exactly am I acting in self-defense?; When is mortal harm the minimum defense necessary?; etc.). The sixth commandment is not a blanket statement of not killing people; tons of qualifications have to be made.

So also, with the ninth commandment, there is an important qualification to be made. And that is whether or not the potential recipient of the information deserves the information. Otherwise a pump fake in basketball would be immoral, and we would be obliged to tell the Nazis of all the innocent Jews in our house so that they may be murdered. On the surface this may appear not to be a definition of lying, but it accounts for all the information better than a broader definition of never speaking untruths ever. And, in fact, I would advocate that this definition is the "usual" or experiential definition of lying when everything is properly understood (just as the concept of obedience in the fifth commandment is); neither go against experience by any means.

 

[jlynn]

As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!


---------------

But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?

Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.

Dear Ken,

I did not see Shrek the Third, but what a funny exchange! I believe the most direct answer would be to tell "Charming" "I'm not going to say". No need for all the "hemming and hawing".

Thanks for your kind words about challenging you--I find the same in your posts dear friend. I don't often jump in to these kinds of threads, because I don't have the time. But this is very important. We live in a nation of liars, and serve a Lord who said to us that the Truth will make us free. I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to give up the Jews in the hiding place. But I do think it forbids us from saying "There are no Jews here". I know, for myself, I would falter on those words if they were a lie, and in my faltering, would give them up. Do we really want to be able to tell a lie without "batting an eye"? There are a few TV shows based on people lying. There's a new show, "Lie to Me". I have not seen it--the title turns me off. I'm not saying one should not watch it--it just doesn't interest me. But the premise is that everyone lies, and that very often. The Jim Carey movie a while back called "Liar Liar" sparked a national debate on how it was necessary to lie in order to get by in the world. I disagree, and believe our culture would be well served by a healthy dose of the truth at every level. I'm not talking about "speaking the truth unseasonably" which the LC sees as one of the things forbidden in the ninth Commandment, but what if we were all committed to telling the truth! I believe we would be the better for it, and to see reformed Christians justifying lying--the speaking of untruths--is very disconcerting to me. I believe we are impoverished as a people because we cannot tell the truth, and have difficulty discerning the truth from lying as a result.

We have had, in recent memory, a president that lied under oath to protect himself, and office of the presidency. Is that acceptable? It is not. The best thing for Mr. Clinton would have been to tell the truth, confess his sin, and turn from it to Christ. Now, what an example would it have been, even if it cost him the presidency, publicly to confess his sin, ask God for mercy, and proclaim that Christ died to save sinners! The truth does indeed "release the captives"! How much more would God have been glorified in such an action rather than protecting the office of the presidency, which will someday pass away!

I completely agree!

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Well, the expressed fact is that God did ordain Hushai to be the means of defeating Ahithophel; he comes in answer to David's prayer and David instructs him to lie to Absalom. This wasn't because David wasn't aware of God's requirements - "Lo, thou desirest truth in the inward parts." But the concatenation of prayer-answer to prayer-instruction-lying made efficacious by God makes it difficult to believe that either David or Hushai thought they were doing anything wrong.
So at the very lowest level, it is certainly possible for two men of God to think that in some situations lying is permissible.

I'm not sure this episode proves that, Ruben. I think most of us rationalize certain sins when we get caught up in the "heat of the moment" so to speak. Just because David lied in this case and it worked out for him according to God's plan doesn't necessarily mean God condones the lying or that David truly believed lying is sometimes acceptable. David may have viewed this as a mistake upon later reflection. All we are given is the narrative without editorial by God, so it is impossible to draw conclusions about whether lying in this case was "justified" or not, or whether or not David ultimately believed lying in this case was the right thing to do.

 

[jlynn]

Folks, as Christians, we're not pragmatists. Just because you folks have the belief that telling a lie will, in fact, save the proverbial Jews from the Nazis at the door, doesn't mean it will. Then, what have you done? You have added sin to sin.

God has never commended lying in Scripture, it has only been condemned. Thus, unless you have presuppositions underlying the text about the Hebrew midwives, you should not assert that they were lying. The text neither says that they did so, implies that they did so, or demands that they did so. One part of the 9th Commandment is upholding the good reputation of your neighbor. So, then, it follows that since the text doesn't demand, imply, or even say that the midwives lied, we have the responsibility (as believers in the 9th Command) and the duty to assume that the midwives did not lie.

As for the passage that commends Rahab's faith, I believe Rev. Ruddell has adequately dealt with any notion that the Lord commends her for lying.

I'll say this again, and it really should be the final answer:

1. We are Christians. We are neither pragmatists nor atheists (i.e. do what we think will "work" apart from what God's Law says we should/shouldn't do).

2. As Christians, then, we obey God's Law (i.e. we don't lie).

3. The withholding of truth by means of silence from those who would use said truth to break God's Law does not = lie. Also, telling a lie to the Nazis doesn't guarantee that Jews will be saved, but it does guarantee that you will have presumptuously sinned against Grace by ignoring God's Law. Who are we to honor more with our actions, God or men?

4. God is not OK with us breaking one of His Laws to uphold another of His Laws.

5. We are to obey God's Law and leave the consequences to Him. He's God. He knows what He's doing. He's able to save the Jews or the deliver the Jews as He sees fit. We are to obey God's revealed will, not presume that we know what His secret will is.

This is true and thought provoking! The entire thread has been interesting to read and think about.

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 05:21:22 EST-----

I am inclined to believe, like Kant, that if the act of lying is immoral, it is immoral always and in every case. Important to note here is that the immorality of lying (or any act) is not merely consequential, but also 'spiritual' -- by lying, even if it has no negative effect on other people or external events (even if it has positive effects in this regard), I am nonetheless causing harm to my soul.

A standard scenario contra moral absolutism goes something like, "Say a crazed gunman comes up to you out-of-the-blue and tells you to kill this one baby or else he will kill these thirty babies. Clearly, what any person should do here is save the thirty babies by killing the one baby." This kind of thinking shows how truly depraved utilitarian/consequentialist ethics is.

First of all, what assurance have I that the gunman would actually carry out his twisted threat? He may be playing a game. Second, what I should do before anything else is attempt to talk him out of it, which may prove successful. Barring that, I may try to disarm him, which also may prove successful. But, more importantly, if the gunman does commit this atrocity any immorality that takes place is on him and not me. I am not the author of this scenario, and he cannot force me to take any 'ethical' part in an immoral situation he created. As a person committed to morality all that need concern me is acting morally, and by no stretch can murdering a baby, in and of itself, be considered a good thing. And even if the consequential 'good' of my evil act would 'outweigh' the evil of the alternate (which is on him, not me), I would still be acting immorally insofar as I would be doing damage to my soul by committing an evil. Which, qua moral person, I cannot allow for myself.

Whoever denies this is not really serious about acting morally, but rather, by his acts, having 'pleasure' outweigh 'pain'. The latter stance is one of moral anti-realism: 'morality' is just something people have constructed and it is very useful, but we can discard it when the going gets rough because it isn't really real. Moral realism, by contrast, takes morality seriously and recognizes its superiority over hedonism.