Lying and the Bible - Part 2/3

Exceptions?

The first rude awakening occurs when the accounts of Rahab and the Egyptian midwives are thrown at me. Both are examples of people who spoke actual untruth. Both were commended in some way by God. The question is raised whether this can be used as an exception to God's rule of lying.

Rahab: Joshua 2 tells us a wonderful story of God's eternal Grace. A prostitute saw the glory of God through His works for Israel, and she believed. I love verse 11.

11 And as soon as we heard it [of God's power through Israel], our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.

In Joshua chapter 2:5,6 we are presented with this woman, Rahab who speaks untruth in order to save the Jewish spies who are hiding in her house. Her belief in the God of Israel led her to help the spies, and lying was a part of this help. At this point, there would be no real problem. Lying is a sin, and therefore what she did was a sin. The end does not justify the means. We would put this down to another testimony of God's grace in a weak sinner.

There are two verses that raise questions. The first on is Hebrews 11:31.

By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.

With regard to the issue at hand, there is no explicit connection. This verse is talking about Rahab's faith in the God of Israel. No mention or endorsement is made of her actions. I believe this verse is a comment on Rahab's attitude in Joshua 2:11. Additionally, we can use a previous verse in the chapter to shed light on our understanding of what was this faith of Rahab.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

The second passage about Rahab could raise a few more questions.

James 2:25 - And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

We begin to wonder - was Rahab justified by works, including her lie? This would allow for an argument that said cetain kind of lying is justified. I think the problem arises when we come to a text and try to understand from it what it was never intended to prove or disprove. My solution is simply this - lets look at the passage and understand it's meaning and implications in context.

a. What is the passage about?
We find a clue about this from verse 14 of the same chapter

James 2:14 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The point is the one that has been made by great theologians from the ages since the reformation - that we are justified by faith alone, but that faith is NOT ALONE. Deeds must follow our belief. Action proves that we truly believe. Rahab is one of the examples.

b. So why this controversial person as an example?
Why Rahab? Does her inclusion beside Abraham itself mean that all her works on behalf of the Israelites was justified? Lets look at the passage contextually again. First, Abraham is mentioned. He is the father of the Jewish nation. He is the called out one. His is an example of an insider if there ever was one. But to reinforce his point, James puts forward a rank outsider, a pagan, a prostitute, an outcast. And he shows us that even though she had faith (As we have seen in Hebrews 11) her faith was not alone. She staked her life on her belief that Yahweh was Lord. What a set up for his final statement in the chapter - "faith without works is dead".

c. What about her works is justified?
Sticking with the words of scripture, James 2:25 mentions specifically that Rahab welcomed the spies and sent them another way. In simple terms, she helped the people of God. This help was the evidence of her faith. We do not see an endorsement of her lies, or even that somehow she was OK in allowing the soldiers of Jericho to believe that the Jews had come to her for prostitution. All those issues are subsidiary, and not even dealt with in James. We need to say what scripture says and be quiet when it speaks nothing about an issue.

I am reminded of David, the "man after God's own heart". I struggled for a long while with the fact that though David is upheld as one of the great ones in the OT, his life is filled with immorality, inconsistency and lack of faith. What about Abraham? He is noted as an example of justification by faith, and yet the major part of his life is characterized by disbelief and lack of trust. Was there a different standard for these? Did God somehow allow those things then for them, because the situation was different? No! Once again, we see that God is steadfast in his love and gracious to all. His grace covered them ultimately through Christ (Rom 3:21-26)

The Egyptian Midwives:

Exodus 1:19-21 - The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.

A similar principle applies here, the favor of God cannot justifiably be used to endorse lies. We have seen God rewarding faith similarly in Abraham, David and Rahab, the weakness of the sinner is covered by Grace. Vs 21 elaborates - they "feared God" and God blessed them.

Edit: To further elucidate, they feared God above man. So when Pharaoh commanded them to kill the Hebrew babies, they refused. This was what God blessed them for. They obeyed him rather than man. That they spoke untruth does not justify it just because they were intending good.

We need to use scripture to interpret scripture, and use the certain to interpret the uncertain, not the reverse. Lying is sin, and we do not have sufficient warrant to add exceptions to a command which is absolute.