Because It's the Right Thing To Do?

* You offered an apology even though you believe the other person is misinterpreting events or is overreacting
I think this is an obedient practice according to I Peter 2:23. Not suggesting false apology. I have found that most of the time, there is something I could apologize for. For example, "I am sorry that I hurt you" or "I am sorry that I spoke too hastily"

* You are purposefully kind to someone you know despises you (Romans 12:20)
I think this verse does a pretty good job of explaining it-a matter of willful obedience even when it is hard

* Someone apologizes to you in a very insincere manner ( like the classic “I’m sorry you are upset”) but you accept it as if you believe they are sincere I think this can be an act of obedience based upon I Corinthians 13:7. I can choose to think good of them and to believe them. Another good verse is Romans12:16-18

* You are outwardly supportive of an idea excitedly proposed by your husband/wife/pastor/friend… that you think is a bad idea (but not immoral or anything like that) I think this can simply be an act of kindness, to show that person that their views and desires have worth and value. This could be applied from I Corinthians 9:19-22 (I know he is speaking of salvation, but I can still apply it as thinking of encouraging them for their benefit). I think the line is drawn on this one where my agreement with them may not be beneficial. For instance, my wife wants to go to Hawaii for vacation, but there is no money in the bank. It is best not to encourage something that's not going to happen. I am opposed to placating, but with wisdom and discretion finding out if their idea is valid and listening to them intently until it is proved it is not.

* And, of course there’s “Lovely dress”, “Nice hat”, “Have you lost weight?”, “That was a delicious casserole”, “You look much younger than 46”…
I don't believe this is ever right. Lying is lying. What Goodellsboy said is true, I don't have to speak. "Be slow to speak") The Bible has much to say about the flatterer and the liar and none of it is very good.

The term lying or liar in the NT is connected with that which is considered sin by God. There were times in the OT when God uses deception to accomplish His purposes. The deception is not sin. Rahab in Hebrews 11:31 is viewed as having done an act of faith when she deceived by words to protect the spies. Such has to do with both love and duty. Rahab had no duty to give information to evil men who wished to thwart the spies who were servants of God. She also owed a duty to show love to God's servants by protecting them. We have a greater duty to love and protect our families and others than we have a duty to give information that will enable evil. Thus lying as used in the NT has to do with acts of improperly deceiving or withholding truth for the wrong reasons. It is not wrong for Marines to wear clothing that is camouflaged to deceive the enemy rather than red suits so they can make sure the enemy sees them and is not deceived. Several theologians view such responsibilities as involving varying levels of duty and the responsibility to love others. During WWII Corrie Tenbloom had no duty of owing truth to the Nazis when they were seeking out Jews. She did have a greater duty to love the Jews and thus protect them than any duty to supply information to evil men for evil purposes.

My oldest son is a narcotics officer who must use deception in order to prevent evil. He does so on a daily basis. He also teaches a Bible study for law enforcement officers. He has no conflict. His conduct in law enforcement is righteous in nature.

Doing the right thing often involves understanding the varying levels of duty and love based upon the standards of scripture.

Bob, I think there are some issues with your argumentation, but most importantly, Heb 11:31 does not say it was an act of faith to deceive by words. It was an act of faith to receive the spies in peace. The deception is not addressed there.

While that might seem a small distinction, it is important to make it since our authority is what Scripture actually says.

On a broader note about your post, deciding who has the right to know something becomes quite a twisted thicket. What if a child goes out and does something wrong with friends and then lies to you about it on the basis of a duty to show God's love by protecting someone (even themselves). Or a husband that commits adultery and then lies about it in order to prevent the evil of his wife losing her temper and becoming violent and harming herself or the children or you? Or protecting his wife from certain knowledge that would adversely affect her life? Or what about the student who lies to cover up the cheating of another student so they will not fail the class and be expelled. After, all, he is practicing God's love by protecting someone and preserving the opportunity to minister to the person right?

We would argue that in these cases (and many more we could multiply), the "liar" has no authority to decide what must be told. In other words, God has established lines of authority, not man. One of the authorities God has set up is government. So is a person bound against perjury or not? Why can't a person get up and lie on the witness stand to protect someone? Why is it okay to lie to government in some cases and not in others? These are the types of issues that need to be considered. I don't have the time or interest to lay out my thoughts, beyond this, but these things are important.

Certainly these are questions of ethics and we must walk carefully, but it is not nearly so cut and dried as some think. So while there are varying levels of responsibility, we must walk carefully here.

Larry,

1. Hebrews 11:31 indicates that the entire event regarding Rahab was by faith. It indicates she received or welcomed them. This included her protecting them and telling a deceptive story to the inquirers. It states she did not perish as a result of her having welcomed them. This was the end result. So the entire event from the welcoming to the not perishing by following instructions of the scarlet cord are in view. Central to this was her welcoming God's servants. the deception was part of an act of faith starting with the welcoming.

2. You cite several case scenarios regarding deception for different reasons. This is precisely the reason why the biblical concepts of various levels of duty and love need to be applied. If deception is to cover sin where a duty of confession is owed then the deception would be sin also. The person always has the ability to decide what would be told. The person gains authority from the scripture which gives guidance regarding the right or wrong of the subject matter known and the duty to withhold or reveal. Pastoral confidences from counseling or from deacons or elders meetings are an example when a person may have a duty to withhold truth known. No stated deception may be involved but their may be withholding because of no duty to reveal the knowledge to others. Each case must be considered and biblical truth regarding duty and love applied to each individual circumstance.

3. You bring up the subject of government and perjury. There have been and will be times, when a Christian has a higher duty than that owed government. The law may state he must reveal what is known and withhold nothing. A person may decline to do so if the government is evil in its intent and in violation of its ordained basic purposes as stated in Romans 13. In such cases the Christian will then suffer the consequences of not revealing what is known. However, perhaps in some circumstances the full deception of perjury may be practiced if one deems it necessary to protect innocent life or other. This has and does occur in some nations where persecution is being practiced by the government. We owe absolute duty to God. All other earthly institutions and persons are to be given submission in a relative manner. We of course see the obvious exception at Acts 5:29. There are other exceptions. Romans 13 gives a duty to submit to a government that carries out its ordained purpose of being a terror to evil and not good and not bearing the sword (judgment) in vain (empty manner). The law made it mandatory to tell the German Gestapo the truth. Corrie Tenbloom saw a higher duty that demanded she not do so. She also saw a duty to love the Jews and therefore protect them. U.S. Federal law makes it a crime to not tell the truth to a Federal agent when questioned. However, if the person has reason to believe that the truth will be used for evil purposes, then they may feel a higher duty and not answer or even deceive. The right or wrongness of the action would rest on the righteous nature of that being protected. Also, there are times when the Christian owes no absolute duty to the church or spiritual leadership. If scriptural principles regarding morals or doctrine are violated, a higher duty is owed to God. The very essence of the Fundamentalist movement and individuals leaving cults are involved here. The point here is that all duty owed is relative, except for our duty to God.. Comparing the priorities of duties owed is often necessary to decide on what must be done to best honor God and His word.

4. Kevin Bauder wrote an article on the application of Biblical truth which spoke to some of these issues. There is first premise truth which involves the direct statements of scripture. There is second premise truth which involves the application of first premise truth. There is no transference of authority from scripture to men because men interpret and apply the scriptures to specific situations not expressly stated in scripture. The attempt is to discern the intent of scripture.

5. Many Christian writings have handled these subjects. The Puritans wrote regarding levels of duty. This was involved in the Cromwell revolution. Today Norman Geisler, Carl Henry, Walter Kaiser, John Feinberg, and others have written on this subject. It is admitted that some cases may be difficult to apply the truth of scripture to. however, this does not relieve of the duty to apply scripture where there is no direct statement of scripture on a subject.

Unfortunately, today very simplistic answers may be given regarding this subject. This has been so in many Evangelical books.

Hebrews 11:31 states she did not perish by faith (final result) and "received the spies with peace" which involves the manner of her receiving them. This involves her actions of protecting them. If she would not have used deception to protect them she would not have protected them. The entire event is intended here. The event referred to at Joshua 2:2-22 begins with the statement that she hid the spies then gives the details. All of this is her welcome of the spies. It includes her deception to the King of Jericho. Are you saying that her just saying "welcome" is the act of faith and the rest is not part of the commended act of faith? It is pretty hard to explain away that all that is stated in scripture at Joshua 2 is intended to be commended as her act of faith. Such is literal, historical, and grammatical exegesis.

It is also interesting to note that God used deception in having the Israelites take Jericho.

This discussion leads to the issue I have with Christians and their use of a concept I call 'shades of gray'. As soon as a violation of one of God's prohibitions becomes justified, in even the smallest of manners, this opens the door for Christians (and other) to start defining and justifying their actions regardless of their violation of one of God's prohibitions.

Not to get into the details of any of the verses which have been mentioned, but there is a huge difference between God having someone use deception (different than a lie) or lie and me justifying a lie.

Some of the examples which have been mentioned are:
Wife asks if she looks good in a dress / or looks fat.
My answer - you look beautiful no matter what you wear and if you like it then it is fine with me. This is the absolute truth.

Marines wearing camouflage - this is not a lie, nor a deception. It is just a tool in their job just like a gun, etc. There is no mandate as to what clothes one must wear at any point in time, in peace or in war.

Police lies - this is wrong, regardless of the end result. This gets into the 'end justifies the means' argument. I have seen too many police officers lie on the stand to prove their case far too often. They definitely get into some awkward situations in working undercover if they are asked whether they are a police officer or not. But this gets into a much larger discussion regarding how the legal system as a whole works which I definitely do not want to open up here since it would take several books to discuss.

If someone asks me a question, there are many responses available to me and, in fact, I do not have to make any response at all. But, if I respond, the content of my response should not be a lie.

We should not lie since that is an absolute prohibition of God. Once we start justifying any lies then it grows into problems which, as stated previously, I call 'shades of gray'.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm not sure it was deception or subterfuge...Paul was on trial for the hope of the resurrection of Christ. And there's not any indication that Paul expected them to react as violently as they did.

To: RPittman,

thank you for your post and reminder of the old Gothardites. Is he still around? He was filling arenas in the early 1970s and some were very enthusiastic about the secret new truth they obtained. Then Gothard encountered some real problems. His brother, who was involved in Gothard's ministry, was accused of immorality involving some female staff members. Gothard at first sought to cover it up but then admitted it and dismissed his brother. Then it was discovered that Gothard himself had been involved in immoral acts with one of his staff. He denied it. However, Earl Radmacher, then President of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and some other Christian leaders got involved and investigated. They reported that there was evidence that Gothard himself was involved in immorality over a period of time. This was reported at a meeting of Pastors at a retreat. Earl Radmacher gave the report with particulars. Gothard has never admitted to this. This was just before many of his staff resigned. I give this information as it came from very credible sources and was verified. It also is important for Gothard espoused some very bizaar principles that some Fundamentalists followed. I don't know if anyone today still listens to that nonsense. They need to know Gothard disqualified himself from teaching and leadership years ago.

I heard a sermon from a Pastor who was a Gothard follower in which he told a story of a Christian woman ordered to go into prostitution by her non Christian man and was obedient and went out to do so but was prevented by circumstances from getting a date and then her husband had a change of heart. The principle was that she obeyed her husband as scripture required her but God intervened. The problem is that 1Peter 3:1-3 indicates the woman is to win her husband not only through obedience but as he observes her "chaste" conduct. No room for obeying immoral commands there. Gothard was a false teacher form the start. I went to one of his seminars in 1971 and immediately saw his errors and creation of a cultic following.

To others:

The problem of lying and deceit is clear in scripture. It is a lie when it is sin. Deception and withholding truth for righteous reasons is not sinful and is therefore not lying as the term is applied in scripture.

At Hebrews 11 mentioned Rahab being commended for her actions of faith. This is characterized as "receiving the spies in peace" and the result of escaping the judgment. The historical content of this passage is the historical incident itself at Joshua 6. There she deceives her king and protects the spies and then sends them on a different way so as to not be caught. Rahab's faith is also commended at James 2:25 because she sent the spies "another way." This was part of her disobedience to her government and her deception. The entire historical recounting in Joshua is in view. Her act of disobedience to government and deception are all part of this.

At Hebrews 11:23 Moses Parents are commended for their act of faith in disobeying the government and protecting Moses. The midwives were involved here when they deceived Pharaoh by misstating the Birthing habits of the Hebrew women at Exodus 1:19.

God Himself used deception in two incidents at 1Kings 22:22 and Ezekiel 14:9. He will also use deception in the future during the Tribulation period according to 2 Thess. 2:11. In the incidents God was and will be righteous as the deception is part of His justice in carrying out his righteous purpose.

This thread began with the right and wrong nature of flattery and other trivial statements that may not be true. Of course those are deceptions of an unrighteous nature and simple lies. Some cite examples of deception to cover sin. Of course such deception is always sin. However, where disobedience or deception is brought upon the Christian by the evil intents and purposes of men than a greater duty of love toward others and a need to protect or enable righteous purposes would mean disobeying the ones owed a lesser duty to obey the duty of a greater priority. This is not relative ethics as the principles of what is righteous and unrighteous conduct are fixed in scripture. We need to apply them to each circumstance. A lie is always wrong. All deceptions are not lies within the biblical sense. Some may disagree. However, this viewpoint is not new and many do hold to this view.

Areas that especially gain my attention are Christian ethics. Christian Biblical Counseling, and Christian Epistemology regarding our truth authority which involves refutation of the KJVO errors. From my view, more than some Fundamentalists think wrongly in these areas.

In Christian ethics the more Fundamentalist churches appear to take a less thoughtful, more simplistic approach which often leads to errors in thinking and even action.

Larry,

Regarding Rahab as stated in Hebrews 11:31: John Owen in his multi volume commentary on Hebrews states: "7. She showed, testified, manifested her faith by her works. She "received the spies with peace." In these few words doth the apostle comprise the whole story of her receiving of them, her studious concealing of them, the intelligence she gave them, the prudence she used, the pains she took, and the the danger she underwent in the safe conveyance of them to their army: all of which are at large recorded, Josh ii as an eminent fruit of that faith and demonstration of that faith whereby she was justified."
AN EXPOSITION OF HEBREWS, John Owen, 7 volumes in 4, vol. 4, p. 181, , The National Foundation for Christian Education, Delaware, 1960 reprint of the of the Goold Edition published in 1855, Treatise originally completed 1671.

The Pulpit commentary, R.C. H. Lenski, Leon Morris in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Donald Guthrie in the Tyndale NT Commentaries all mention the Rahab text without any statements excluding Rahab's deception from the work of faith. The Pulpit commentary mentions that some have no problem with the deception. It is handled by books on ethics. The "New Dictionary of Ethics and Pastoral Theology" lists Luther and Bonhoffer as those indicating that falsehood is permissible under some circumstances while Augustine and Wesley do not. The article on "Truth" lists several instances in biblical history where deceit is not condemned, besides Rahab, the Hebrew midwives, Jael and Sisera (Judges 4:18-21) Samuel at Bethlehem 1SA 16:2, Elisha at Dothan 2Kings 6:19, Jesus at Luke 24:28. In the "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer, he notes "there were very unusual extenuating factors involved in her deception." I believe I referred to some books on ethics in a prior post. I am not a scholar but I can say that there are scholars who agree with John Owen's inclusive view and acceptance of the entire account of Rahab as being viewed as an act of faith

It would appear to be exegetically and hermeneutically sound to accept the statements at Hebrews 11 and James 2 as being inclusive of the entire incident as recorded at Joshua 1. This appears to be what John Owen did accept.

Susan, I agree with you, I think. My only point was that in that specific part of the chapter, it's fairly clear that Paul is addressing only the Sanhedrin at that point in Acts:

Note that there's no mention of women, although I'd have to check the greek and ensure that "anthropos" (for "Brothers") is not the term used in v. 3; as you are well aware, there were no Jewish women on the council.

Is that clearer, or am I still misunderstanding what you wrote?

I know this conversation is fairly old, but this is a topic that I have thought about a lot and asked a lot of people about, so I don't mind bringing it up again.

First off, I appreciate both Bob and Larry's thoughts though I more closely agree with Bob (so my biases are clear from the outset).

Biblically speaking, both the Hebrews references could be argued either way I think (I'm thinking of Rahab and the Egyptian midwives). I also like the example of Paul. While I feel Hebrews does legitimize the deception in those passages, I can also see where others would disagree. In fact, I had professors in bible college who held both views.

We have to be careful using situations to demonstrate our points because sometimes they can be misconstrued to seem to point to one conclusion or another. With that said I do think it can be useful and I'd like to make a point using a situation.

Larry said:

The point being made (it seems) is that we should just always tell the truth and let God be God. He can supernaturally intercede if he wants to.

Now consider this: Someone is pointing a gun at my wife and I have my own gun pointed at him. Should I shoot the guy threatening my wife? Following Larry's reasoning, I should not shoot him because that would not be an act of faith. It would be taking things into my own hands. God can intercede if he wants. The guy could miss, the bullet could misfire, my wife might not be seriously wounded, the cops might show up in the nick of time, an earthquake might happen... I could go on and on. There are hundreds of things that God might use to keep my wife safe, but I don't wait for those things. Instead, I shoot.

The odds are, my wife was in danger and I am responsible to protect her. We are similarly responsible to protect the lives of all humans. Is lying worse that killing someone (I realize it is not murder, but I am still ending a life)? If the Nazis show up asking me where I'm hiding the Jews, would it be better to lie about the Jews being there at all or to shoot the Nazis to keep the Jews safe?

I'm not saying that this thought solves all of the issues, but I do think that we can't use the "God is sovereign, just have faith" argument to claim that lying can never be an act of faith.

Hi Larry, Can I ambush your scenario a bit? I really like it, but can I twist it to a lying scenario where lying becomes the main focus? What if in the scenario someone comes into your home and you grab your gun and conceal it? The gunman points the gun at your wife and tells you to get rid of any weapons. You tell him you don't have any. The gun is hidden in your boot/pocket, etc.? Would lying and telling him you don't have a gun, but you really do, fall under righteous lying (one side) or an act of faithlessness (one side)?

Thanks, Larry. Sorry for twisting your scenario for my own nefarious gain.

Kim Noble

(PS__The "you" is general and not directed at Larry.)

My point is that no one would think I had violated scripture if I had to kill to save someone's life (cops do this all the time), but as soon as we cross over into lying to save someone's life, no one is willing to morally accept that.

I have a moral obligation to protect lives, I also have a moral obligation to tell the truth. When those two things conflict, what should I do?

If someone comes threatening someone else's life (like the Nazis looking for hidden Jews), they have forfeited their right to be told the truth regarding that matter. Just like if someone is threatening my wife's life, they have forfeited their right to be safe around me.

They don't EVER conflict; they are separate decisions. If I tell the truth, and someone else takes a life, I am NOT responsible in ANY way for that for refusing to lie.

No, not an over simplification. I am ONLY responsible for myself, NEVER for anyone else. Basic biblical truth. Ezek 18

Not interceding in the mugging MIGHT be a violation of biblical principle, for which I would be morally responsible before God. IN NO way would I ever bear one once of responsibility for the life choices of the mugger.

So the question is, can lying/deception to save a life be a "good" thing? That is the whole crux of the discussion. I like the analogy to the difference between killing and murder. When does killing become murder? How can we tell the difference? I think motive plays a big role. Is it the same with deception and lying?

Hi Brandon--I agree, I think differentiating between the two can help, but I also see a slight twisted problem, as well. The OT accounts and gives proper punishments for killing (accidental deaths, etc.) and murders (intentional death, etc.) which helps distinguish between the two words. Does the OT account for differentiating between lying (to help a situation/save a life) and deception (cause for stoning outside the city limits type stuff)? I can't recall an account, but my OT knowledge is almost nada, at best.

I think, biblically, it might harder to figure out this lying vs. deception situation even though models are in the bible (the above (a) and (b) examples) which seems to leave a blank slate to try and wrestle through--or at least some might say that. For others, it's probably black and white.

Motives/intents are a tricky thing and I believe that the conscience plays a part--certainly. James 4:17 would be nice to use in everyday thought life for anything that isn't explicit, but isn't James 4:17 talking about relations with each other in the body of Christ and if we aren't doing the things in laid out in Chapter 4, specifically regarding boasting and arrogance, not the conscience. Or can it be used in everyday life as a conscience catch-all of anything not explicit in Scripture?

I appreciate any discussion on this--thanks!

Chip,

Agreed. But we still need to answer the question about whether the choice to lie is right or wrong. Is it better to let someone die or lie to the killer to save them?

SKJNoble,

I appreciate your point about OT law, but I don't know how applicable that is. I, like you, am no expert, but I know that God made provisions in OT law for things that don't apply anywhere else. For example, there are provisions for divorce, even though later the NT says that God prefers that people not get divorced at all. I think the closest thing we can get to a biblical reference to this topics are those that have been mentioned already (Egyptian midwives and Rahab).

I also appreciate your thoughts about the context of James 4:17. I admit that I haven't read the whole chapter in a while. However, after doing so, I see no reason that this principle can't be applied generally to all areas of our lives. If we should do good in relation to our Christian brother, shouldn't we also do good to everyone? I feel I can make that step and still remain true to the principle in the text.