Did God commend or approve Rahab's lie?

[JAL]

Watch this video:

Please keep in mind I disagree with their interpretation on 1 John 1:8.
But I like the video because it is defending God and His goodness and it sets an example for us to do good. Most today in Christianity are seeking to justify sin on some level (from my experience). So I am not surprised against all the blowback I am getting on this by me defending the goodness of God.

Ok I watched the video. Hebrews 11 commends Abraham for attempting to slaughter his son, and commends the prophets who slaughtered nations. And you want me to believe that God, having condoned mass-murder, cannot condone a lie? The video makes the argument that God cannot lie. Fair point, but I think "lie" in this context merely refers to a selfish intent to deceive for ulterior motives.

Again, there are no possible exceptions to the rule of conscience defined at post 157. Therefore God MUST condone any and every lie spoken in good conscience. In fact, He must CONDEMN every truth spoken in bad conscience. So there you have it.

 

[JAL]

Okay. I said God is not commending her for lying. Notice that the actions God is commending Rahab for are actually good things she did and not her actually lying. God is commending Rahab for particular things she did that were not a lie. Look at the verses again. Nowhere does it say that God is commending her for lying.

The implied commendation is clear enough. The lie was instrumental to her task, and Hebrews 11 places her squarely in the sainthood Hall of Fame. I don't see how this is possible if the lie were reprehensible. You want to claim that the lie was evil, but the ends justified the means - in your view she was forgiven the evil lie because she was doing a good thing. Is that really how God operates? Suppose I do an evil deed for the sake of good intentions. For example I murder a friend's parents because they are sending him to university-A when we all know that university-B is better. God will put me in the sainthood Hall of Fame? I think not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok I watched the video. Hebrews 11 commends Abraham for attempting to slaughter his son, and commends the prophets who slaughtered nations. And you want me to believe that God, having condoned mass-murder,

God is the giver and taker of life. So for God to command to take life is not murder.
In the Old Testament times: Murder is only murder if it was the individual choosing to take life without God's say so. That does not mean lying is the same thing as murder.

cannot condone a lie? The video makes the argument that God cannot lie. Fair point, but I think "lie" in this context merely refers to a selfish intent to deceive for ulterior motives.

Again, there are no possible exceptions to the rule of conscience defined at post 157. Therefore God MUST condone any and every lie spoken in good conscience. In fact, He must CONDEMN every truth spoken in bad conscience. So there you have it.

Our thoughts are not God's thoughts. A lie is simply telling an untruth. God never tells untruths and therefore God would never approve or commend another individual lying. God may allow the lying to take place, but He would never commend it. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire according to Revelation 21:8. The concept of lying under a good conscience being okay does not seem consistent with Revelation 21:8, and or God's good ways. But you can take that chance on leading others to think they can sin with a good conscience if you like (based on what you said before). I know that such a thing is an extreme error. Nowhere does the Bible say we can sin as long as it is done with a good conscience. Nor does God's Word actually say He approved of Rahab's lie, either. Many in Christianity want to convince themselves that sin is okay in some circumstances but it is never okay. God is good and He is not as you imagine Him to be. God is incapable of agreeing with own selfish or sinful ways. He is more holy than most Christians think.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The implied commendation is clear enough. The lie was instrumental to her task, and Hebrews 11 places her squarely in the sainthood Hall of Fame. I don't see how this is possible if the lie were reprehensible. You want to claim that the lie was evil, but the ends justified the means - in your view she was forgiven the evil lie because she was doing a good thing. Is that really how God operates? Suppose I do an evil deed for the sake of good intentions. For example I murder a friend's parents because they are sending him to university-A when we all know that university-B is better. God will put me in the sainthood Hall of Fame? I think not.

Actually, my mind does not work like yours. I prefer to look at things like a detective would. I also like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they may be potentially innocent instead of throwing the book at them.

Anyways, seeing we look through a glass darkly: I hold to two possibilities involving Rahab.

You can check that out in my post here.

 

[JAL]

God is the giver and taker of life. So for God to command to take life is not murder.
In the Old Testament times: Murder is only murder if it was the individual choosing to take life without God's say so. That does not mean lying is the same thing as murder.

You're trying to draw a vast, false dichotomy between murder and lying. I don't buy it. NORMALLY it would be wrong to murder or lie (by the dictates of conscience). The Law said, "Do not kill" - and yet the prophets killed. At some point you need to admit that an action is justified - whether lying or killing - if the divine Voice convicts/convinces the conscience to do it.

Our thoughts are not God's thoughts. A lie is simply telling an untruth. God never tells untruths and therefore God would never approve or commend another individual lying.

God must condone the rule of conscience (post 157). You have not and CANNOT explain that rule away.

God may allow the lying to take place, but He would never commend it. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire according to Revelation 21:8. The concept of lying under a good conscience being okay does not seem consistent with Revelation 21:8, and or God's good ways.

You're just proving my point. That verse ALSO condemns murderers. Thing is, a murder done in good conscience does NOT really count as (illegal) murder, if God is good, fair, and just. Take for example a murder done in self-defense, or in defense of one's children.

Consider undercover police work. An officer is informed of a bomb set to kill 10 million people. He goes undercover to find the bomb and the perp. To do this, he lies to the perp, and may even have to kill him to end the threat. Lying and murder - but if done with a clear conscience, it's not sin (post 157).

She lied. The intent of the interrogation was to locate the spies. She pretended to have no inkling of their whereabouts.

Nor does God's Word actually say He approved of Rahab's lie, either.

I don't think an evil deed would be placed in the sainthood Hall of Fame.

Many in Christianity want to convince themselves that sin is okay in some circumstances but it is never okay.

Define sin. Oh that's right. It's a violation of conscience per post 157.

God is good and He is not as you imagine Him to be. God is incapable of agreeing with own selfish or sinful ways. He is more holy than most Christians think.

Actually He's a lot more holy than YOU think, since you hold to the traditional, erroneous definition of God

 

[Clare73]

Jesus defined one’s neighbor as the poor beat up guy on the side of the road (Luke 10:29-37). Jesus did not say to check to see if this was an enemy of Israel and therefore do not help them.

Agreed. . .

However, my question was about the ninth commandment.

Again, this exception clause was not noted in your original statement.

Au contraire. . .see your post #175.

 

[Fervent]

I think a lot of this question comes down to what type of ethics one believes are correct. Looking at it from a perspective where right and wrong is about a set of rules that are blind absolutes such as "lying is bad" is going to automatically claim Rahab's lie was a violation of such a rule. But such ethics are a bit too simplistic and in my view entirely miss the point of Biblical ethics, which are centered on moral agency. Rahab was right to lie because the lie preserved life in the most direct way possible.

 

[Bobber]

I'm not sure why it would matter if she lied to them or not. One has to consider lying is that which hurts another person....these guards were slated for destruction in just a few hours ahead.

 

[Philip_B]

I really think that we should celebrate the untidiness of much of the tradition in which we stand. Scripture does not present us with a fabricated perfect history, but rather many stories have quite untidy bits to them. Now I know many people do not like Joseph Fletcher and his work 'Situation Ethics' yet when you read passages like this, you can see something of the point he is making. The world is not simply bi-nomial, there is always a context to a decision and an action, and to interpret that decision or action without the context is not reasonable. It is far more reasonable to understand that there is a hierarchy of actions, good or evil, and as mature moral beings we need to navigate this path.

If you do not have a driver's licence it is wrong to drive a vehicle on a public road. If the person you are with has had an accident and needs to go to the hospital, it may indeed be more wrong not to drive them to the hospital than it would be to drive the car. The context changes to the moral value of the action.

In the case of Rahab, I am sure we can see the moral duty of care, changing the context and allowing for the mishandled truth (effective lie) to take the second precedence in the hierarchy of goods.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not sure why it would matter if she lied to them or not. One has to consider lying is that which hurts another person....these guards were slated for destruction in just a few hours ahead.

Revelation 21:8 says all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. That’s why it matters.
Also, Satan is the father of lies according to Jesus.

 

[Bobber]

Revelation 21:8 says all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. That’s why it matters.
Also, Satan is the father of lies according to Jesus.

There's a lie in context of what God meant and then there's the spirit of something which isn't a lie in how God categorizes it. You might ask yourself if Nazi's were asking you do you know where some Jews are hiding, and you did but said you didn't do you REALLY think God considers such a lie warranting judgment? You don't think God would commend you for your bravery? If not then I think you've gone way, way too extreme not getting the spirit of what God means.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There's a lie in context of what God meant and then there's the spirit of something which isn't a lie in how God categorizes it. You might ask yourself if Nazi's were asking you do you know where some Jews are hiding, and you did but said you didn't do you REALLY think God considers such a lie warranting judgment? You don't think God would commend you for your bravery? If not then I think you've gone way, way too extreme not getting the spirit of what God means.

First, you don't have to give an answer to Nazi's who come to your door. Second, if you are clever with your words, you don't have to lie with them, either. Three, if lying saves lies and is okay, then what about other sins can we justify that can save lives? Should you take the mark of the beast because it will save your life and the life of your family? Then again, I am not surprised many here do not understand what I am talking about. We truly are living in the last days where a standard of morality has gone down the tubes. Christians have been trained to think Abraham lied, God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. It's deeply disturbing that Christians flip a switch and go into full sociopath mode and they would believe such garbage (not being able to discern between good and evil - which is the meat of the Word - Hebrews 5:14). Then again, in the last days men will have a form of godliness but they will deny the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:1-9).

Christians today do not even believe Jesus when He warned against how looking upon a woman in lust will cause their whole body to be in danger of hellfire (Matthew 5:28-30). Most churches are just preaching how you can sin and still be saved and so of course morality does not really mean anything or carry any real consequence to them.

Jesus says, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:24).

 

[JAL]

First, you don't have to give an answer to Nazi's who come to your door.

Silence isn't going to work if you're trying to protect the fugitives, as it would only arouse suspicion.

Second, if you are clever with your words, you don't have to lie with them, either.

So it's okay to mislead them as long as you don't "lie" to them. Sounds a little weak.

Three, if lying saves lies and is okay, then what about other sins can we justify that can save lives? Should you take the mark of the beast because it will save your life and the life of your family?

Absolutely. If your conscience tells you to feed your family this way, then do it (post 157). But I don't think God will allow our conscience to think that way. I think He will intervene with a Direct Revelation notifying our conscience that He will provide food for us supernaturally, even as He did for Israel in the desert.

Then again, I am not surprised many here do not understand what I am talking about. We truly are living in the last days where a standard of morality has gone down the tubes. Christians have been trained to think Abraham lied, God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. It's deeply disturbing that Christians flip a switch and go into full sociopath mode...

Are you sure you're not being a little self-righteous here? What's wrong with marrying a prostitute? Most prostitutes probably don't LOVE what they do - most are just trying to put bread on the table for their kids. And every Christian marriage is between two sinful people hoping to pull each other out of worldliness and sin. You're a sinner too and of dubious moral superiority to any prostitute.

Christians today do not even believe Jesus when He warned against how looking upon a woman in lust will cause their whole body to be in danger of hellfire (Matthew 5:28-30).

Do we believe Jesus? Conveniently you're extrapolating His reference to adultery - you are running with a perceived implication - while somewhat glossing over His more explicit statements in that passage. Do YOU believe Jesus when He explicitly says:

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Have you cut off any of your own limbs, eyes, genitals? When a fellow Christian, or a teenage child of yours, confesses he is struggling with lust, do you immediately recommend them to a surgeon for amputations? No? Don't you believe Jesus?

Here's my reading of the passage. The Father RESERVES the right, even for the elect, to withdraw salvation, for example due to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I can explain the apparent contradiction here but this post is getting long. Although I personally don't think it ever happens that God actually withdraws salvation, one pastor wisely stated, "I believe once-saved-always-saved but I don't want to risk testing God on it."

So MY reading is this: what is "stumbling" in this passage? Likely it refers to a very SERIOUS stumbling such as rejecting Christ or gravitating towards blasphemy the Holy Spirit - something that would endanger salvation. In THAT case, it WOULD be better to sustain an amputation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Silence isn't going to work if you're trying to protect the fugitives, as it would only arouse suspicion.


So it's okay to mislead them as long as you don't "lie" to them. Sounds a little weak.


Absolutely. If your conscience tells you to feed your family this way, then do it (post 157). But I don't think God will allow our conscience to think that way. I think He will intervene with a Direct Revelation notifying our conscience that He will provide food for us supernaturally, even as He did for Israel in the desert.
Are you sure you're not being a little self-righteous here? What's wrong with marrying a prostitute? Most prostitutes probably don't LOVE what they do - most are just trying to put bread on the table for their kids. And every Christian marriage is between two sinful people hoping to pull each other out of worldliness and sin. You're a sinner too and of dubious moral superiority to any prostitute.

Do we believe Jesus? Conveniently you're extrapolating His reference to adultery - you are running with a perceived implication - while somewhat glossing over His more explicit statements in that passage. Do YOU believe Jesus when He explicitly says:

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Have you cut off any of your own limbs, eyes, genitals? When a fellow Christian, or a teenage child of yours, confesses he is struggling with lust, do you immediately recommend them to a surgeon for amputations? No? Don't you believe Jesus?

Here's my reading of the passage. The Father RESERVES the right, even for the elect, to withdraw salvation, for example due to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I can explain the apparent contradiction here but this post is getting long. Although I personally don't think it ever happens that God actually withdraws salvation, one pastor wisely stated, "I believe once-saved-always-saved but I don't want to risk testing God on it."

So MY reading is this: what is "stumbling" in this passage? Likely it refers to a very SERIOUS stumbling such as rejecting Christ or gravitating towards blasphemy the Holy Spirit - something that would endanger salvation. In THAT case, it WOULD be better to sustain an amputation.

There is no point in trying to explain basic morality if you don't understand it.

 

[Clare73]

There is no point in trying to explain basic morality if you don't understand it.

Misleading is likewise lying in the eyes of God's law regarding speaking the truth.

 

[Philip_B]

Misleading is likewise lying in the eyes of God's law regarding speaking the truth.

Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’ Pilate replied, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’
John 18:33-38​

I don't think simple absolutism cuts it in the real world. Our realities are far more nuanced than that.

 

[Clare73]

Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’ Pilate replied, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’
John 18:33-38​

I don't think simple absolutism cuts it in the real world. Our realities are far more nuanced than that.

The truth of "absolutism" is not opposed to the truth of "nuance."
If it can be stated in nuance, it can be stated as an absolute.

Jesus made sure Pilate did not misunderstand him to be threatening the civil king, and that he was not claiming to be a civil king.

 

[Philip_B]

The truth of "absolutism" is not opposed to the truth of "nuance."
If it can be stated in nuance, it can be stated as an absolute.

Jesus made sure Pilot did not misunderstand him to be threatening the civil king, and that he was not claiming to be a civil king.

Truth is truth. There is nothing nuanced about truth. The nuance is in the lived experience. The question is, Is truth an absolute value that must always be held? Or if you like, Is truth always demanded or are there circumstances where the truth may take a second seat to another competing demand, such as love?

Please note I am not dispensing of the imperative of truth, for truth should always be the default position of a Christian. Depending on how you call it, Rahab lied or told the truth in a manner to mislead, as there was a competing moral impetus guiding her action. Sydney Carter caught some of this in his Poem, The Good Boy,

The Good Boy
Sydney Carter

Show me the book of rules
the good boy said
I’ll be obedient.

The rules of God
are in this Holy Book
the parson said.

But how can I
be sure that
you are right?

You can’t be sure.

I have created you
in my own image.
Do you think that I

Crave for security?
Go out upon
a limb, the way I do:

Create a world,
be crucified,
and be obedient

Only to what you are.​

Get thee behind me
Satan, the good boy said
I only want

To see the book of rules
the good boy said
to be obedient.​

 

[Clare73]

Truth is truth. There is nothing nuanced about truth. The nuance is in the lived experience. The question is, Is truth an absolute value that must always be held? Or if you like,
Is truth always demanded or are there circumstances where the truth may take a second seat to another competing demand, such as love?

Love rejoices with the truth. (1 Corinthians 13:6)

In the moral law, preservation of innocent (guilty of no crime) human life trumps all other moral law, which may be violated in such case, as demonstrated in several places in Scripture, Rahab being one of them.

Please note I am not dispensing of the imperative of truth, for truth should always be the default position of a Christian. Depending on how you call it, Rahab lied or told the truth in a manner to mislead, as there was a competing moral impetus guiding her action.

 

[RDKirk]

Ok I watched the video. Hebrews 11 commends Abraham for attempting to slaughter his son, and commends the prophets who slaughtered nations. And you want me to believe that God, having condoned mass-murder, cannot condone a lie? The video makes the argument that God cannot lie. Fair point, but I think "lie" in this context merely refers to a selfish intent to deceive for ulterior motives.

Again, there are no possible exceptions to the rule of conscience defined at post 157. Therefore God MUST condone any and every lie spoken in good conscience. In fact, He must CONDEMN every truth spoken in bad conscience. So there you have it.

What I see in scripture is that God--like any good commander--approves of tactical deception in combat.