Did God commend or approve Rahab's lie?

[zoidar]

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37).

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.
So your analogy does not exactly fit according to Scripture.

If we love God we are also to love our neighbour. I think the outcome has to be taken into account.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

She was called a "harlot" before she displayed faith; she was not a harlot afterward.

I never said otherwise. I never suggested she remained as a harlot after the point she met the two spies. I am referring to her previous life before she met them.

In fact, she became an ancestor of Jesus Himself. Scripture actually displays how far a person can be brought by faith, so that:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. -- 2 Corinthians 5

But in your effort to prove your erroneous point, you now go so far as to declare unclean a woman whom the Lord has made clean.

Again, I never made such a claim otherwise. You are putting words in my mouth that I never stated. I believed for a very long time that Rahab was in the ancestry of Jesus Christ. Not news for me at all. It's pretty common knowledge among Christians. I also never said Rahab was unclean after coming to the faith, either. Again, you are putting words in my mouth that are not true.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If we love God we are also to love our neighbour. I think the outcome has to be taken into account.

One may think they need to take the Mark of the Beast in order to feed their children. But they would be showing disloyalty to God if they did that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

She receives nothing but repeated praise for what she did. And her lie was a part of that. That lie had a context: the saving of lives. And she's praised for that? That's good enough for me.

But what if she had to confess of that sin later on?
You would then think lying is okay if it saves lives?
A spy can be asked his country to fornicate with a woman in order to obtain precious data for his country that could save many lives. Just because it can lead to the saving of life by his immoral action, does not make his act of fornication any less a sin (of which he should avoid in doing).

 

[zoidar]

One may think they need to take the Mark of the Beast in order to feed their children. But they would be showing disloyalty to God if they did that.

Sometimes truth demands sacrifice. I don't see things that black and white. God knows our hearts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sometimes truth demands sacrifice. I don't see things that black and white. God knows our hearts.

It's not how we prefer to see things, but it is how things are revealed in Scripture, and how things are revealed by basic morality and loyalty. But you are free to believe as you wish (even though I do not agree with you).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sometimes truth demands sacrifice. I don't see things that black and white. God knows our hearts.

Besides, what if it was a sin that God condemned? What then?

 

[zoidar]

It's not how we prefer to see things, but it is how things are revealed in Scripture, and how things are revealed by basic morality and loyalty. But you are free to believe as you wish (even though I do not agree with you).

I agree to what you say, it's Scripture, morality and loyality. Truth is truth. Sin is basically, that which is evil and that which is of good is no sin. You can tell the truth and still commit the worst of sins, depending of circumstance.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree to what you say, it's Scripture, morality and loyality. Truth is truth. Sin is basically, that which is evil and that which is of good is no sin. You can tell the truth and still commit the worst of sins, depending of circumstance.

Sure, man has free will to do good and evil and be double minded.
But Jesus says a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.
One cannot serve two masters. For they will hate the one and love the other.

 

[ChetSinger]

But what if she had to confess of that sin later on?
You would then think lying is okay if it saves lives?
A spy can be asked his country to fornicate with a woman in order to obtain precious data for his country that could save many lives. Just because it can lead to the saving of life by his immoral action, does not make his act of fornication any less a sin (of which he should avoid in doing).

I can understand your opinion. But what I think is that I should get my theology from scripture instead of bringing my theology to scripture.

She has been praised, repeatedly, in the New Testament for a deed that included lying to the wicked to save the righteous. If God is going to praise her for that rather than criticize her, who am I to do otherwise? I'm nobody, that's who.

As for the spy, I resist engaging in hypothetical examples.

Btw, I expect she'll have an extremely high and honored spot in the next age, as will all those mentioned in the Hall of Faith. Might I meet her someday? I don't want to apologize to her regarding my words here.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think people just say that lying took place in Exodus 1 because it sounds good. Nothing in the text suggests that they lied. Now, I will admit that King David faking his insanity is akin to lying. He really was not insane. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that God approved of what he did, though.

My wife has a degree in midwifery. Babies don't all come early... including Jewish ones...

They obviously lied, even if the text is not explicitly saying that.

 

[Norbert L]

Update (April 30th, 2020):

I am actually a bit on the fence on this topic now (holding to two possible positions), and I am asking the Lord for the answer again, and I am doing a topical study on lying to determine the truth on this matter.



Anyways, thank you for reading, and may God bless you all.

Here's a modernized version of a lie. Perhaps it will give you some insight.

During WWII in Nazi controlled Europe a family was hiding Jews to protect them from going to the concentration camps. If that family was asked by authorities, do you know of anybody hiding Jews? ... and that family lied and said "No". Would they be considered righteous or wicked for that lie?

 

[DamianWarS]

Currently, I am actually on the fence on this one.
Check out post #2.

Blessings to you in the name of Jesus Christ.

How does this influence your VPN stance?

 

[Philip_B]

Is the moral value of actions to be understood, in part at least, on intent? And I hear the dull roar the ends do not justify the means and yet assessing the choice between actions I can see the point where people feel they need to choose the least worst option. In this I believe both Bonhoeffer and Fletcher would find some common ground.

 

[RDKirk]

Ok, thanks, now I found the OT scriptures also (Joshua 2).

…Yes, the men came to me, but I didn't know whence they were: and it happened about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out; where the men went I don't know: pursue after them quickly; for you will overtake them….
Joshua 2:4

It is possible that she didn’t really lie. It may be that she didn’t know where did they come and it is possible that they went out when it was dark and she didn’t know where did they go. It is possible that they came back and were in her house, but she didn’t directly say that they are not in her house.

So, in other words, I don’t think she lied, she just told the truth in such way that the people were not harmed.

Did you read the entire chapter?

And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, that are entered into thy house; for they are come to search out all the land.

And the woman took the two men, and hid them; and she said, Yea, the men came unto me, but I knew not whence they were: and it came to pass about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out; whither the men went I know not: pursue after them quickly; for ye will overtake them.

But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

The first lie she told was that she didn't know where the spies were, when in fact she had just hidden them on her roof.

And the woman took the two men, and hid them; and she said, Yea, the men came unto me, but I knew not whence they were: and it came to pass about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out; whither the men went I know not: pursue after them quickly; for ye will overtake them.

But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

And the men pursued after them the way to the Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as they that pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.

<snip>

Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the side of the wall, and she dwelt upon the wall.

And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers light upon you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye go your way.

She told the soldiers that she didn't know where the spies went and suggested that the soldiers would catch them going back east toward the Jordan River. However, she then told the spies to go west up into the mountains and hide for three days. That was actually the second lie.

 

[RDKirk]

Both statements are true, and they only revealed one truth to the Pharaoh. So no. It's not a lie. It's not like the midwives said to the Pharaoh, "We are weak women who cannot hurt a monkey, and we did not even have any weapons or means to kill the children."

Now, if they said that, it would be obvious they were lying or something, but such was not the case.

Also, it says the midwives feared God. So this means they feared God and not the Pharaoh. So there would have been no need to lie to the Pharaoh. Again, the text does not say they lied.

You've twisted yourself into absurdity on that one, so I'm not going to grace it with a response.

Lot is praised as being a righteous man, but his offering up his daughters to a bunch of Sodomites a righteous act or deed? I don't believe so. Lot was generally a righteous man, but his actions were not always perfect. In fact, Lot later got drunk and this led to his own daughters taking advantage of him so as to get pregnant by him. The seed of these two daughters were later destroyed by God (Showing his disapproval of that kind of offspring or action). So no. Not everything in the Bible has to condemn something so out in the open and obvious for it to be condemned. Just tuning into our moral compass is all it takes.

As I said earlier, scripture either immediately reports the negative consequences of the action or a later narrator comments negatively on it. In this case, two things happened: One is that the scripture immediately reports the negative consequences of Lot's action.

However, that's not the whole of Lot's story. It's also important for other reasons to understand that Lot had been God's witness to Sodom long before that day, so unlike Ninevah, Sodom did not have the excuse of never having had a witness.

 

[timewerx]

If Jesus actually broke the Sabbath, we would all be doomed.
He had to be our perfect sinless Lamb in order to die for our sins.

Being sinless is not about blindly following the rules, it's about doing the right things in every situation.

You do not sin if you have to break the law to do a greater good.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok, thanks, now I found the OT scriptures also (Joshua 2).

…Yes, the men came to me, but I didn't know whence they were: and it happened about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out; where the men went I don't know: pursue after them quickly; for you will overtake them….
Joshua 2:4

It is possible that she didn’t really lie. It may be that she didn’t know where did they come and it is possible that they went out when it was dark and she didn’t know where did they go. It is possible that they came back and were in her house, but she didn’t directly say that they are not in her house.

So, in other words, I don’t think she lied, she just told the truth in such way that the people were not harmed.

Thank you for helping me.
I had to read it a few times to catch what was being said from Rahab's perspective.

In the King James, the word "whither" is key.

One definition that helps here is: "To what place, absolutely."

Below in blue is the words of focus here.

Joshua 2:3-8 KJV Says,

3 "And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.
4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:
5 And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither [i.e. To what place, absolutely] the men went [were going] I wot [know] not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.
6 But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.
7 And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.
8 And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof;"​

She is basically saying to the guards, "To what place absolutely the men were going, I know not."

In other words, while Rahab knew that she had hidden these two spies on the top of her roof (i.e. they had went outside on the roof), she did not know whether they stayed on top of her roof her not, and she did not know where they were ultimately or absolutely headed in regards to their destination.

Two Modern Translations confirm this truth in the KJV.

"At nightfall, when the city gate was about to close, the men went out, and I don’t know where they were going. Chase after them quickly, and you can catch up with them!”"
(Joshua 2:5) (CSB) (Christian Standard Bible).​

It's true. She did not know where they were ultimately going or their destination.
So she was not lying about this. Her failing to give them the details about how she hid them on the roof was hiding a truth from them. She was using clever word play about talking about their ultimate place of returning back from where they came from.

"When it was time to shut the city gate for the night, the men left. I don’t know where they were heading. Chase after them quickly, for you have time to catch them!”"
(Joshua 2:5) (NET) (New English Translation).​

Again, it is a true statement that Rahab did not know where the two spies were headed (i.e. their end destination of return). This wording in Modern Translations again supports what is said with the word "whither" in the King James Bible.

For here are some interesting definitions for the word "whither" in the Macmillan Dictionary, that help to shed light on what could have possibly Rahab meant.

So yes; I agree. Based on this data, it is very possible that she simply did not lie at all, and she was using clever word play to protect them.


Sources used:
WHITHER - Definition from the KJV Dictionary
WOT - Definition from the KJV Dictionary
WHITHER (adverb) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
Definition of went | Dictionary.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Being sinless is not about blindly following the rules, it's about doing the right things in every situation.

You do not sin if you have to break the law to do a greater good.

Sorry friend. That's just nonsense (according to the Word).
If you break the Law it is sin according to the Bible.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
(1 John 3:4).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You've twisted yourself into absurdity on that one, so I'm not going to grace it with a response.



As I said earlier, scripture either immediately reports the negative consequences of the action or a later narrator comments negatively on it. In this case, two things happened: One is that the scripture immediately reports the negative consequences of Lot's action.

However, that's not the whole of Lot's story. It's also important for other reasons to understand that Lot had been God's witness to Sodom long before that day, so unlike Ninevah, Sodom did not have the excuse of never having had a witness.

Not sure how your points involving Lot disprove what I said as a part of my point.
In any event, my post stands on the midwives because nothing is said in the text that they lied.
You are just assuming that they did.
I mean stop and think for a second. Do you honestly think that it is impossible that the Hebrew women could have given birth early and then hid the children before the midwives were able to check up on them?

Where does it say in Scripture that this is a lie, brother? It doesn't. You are just not buying that what they say is actually possible. I got news for you. The Bible is filled with all kinds of impossible things. It's a book of miracles, friend.