Quote Originally posted by dizzle View Post
So that I don't reinvent the wheel, I have already written reams on this subject.



Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.





It is a fact that this text specifically mentions that God blessed these women without any censure of their lie, and in fact specific commendation of their faith (i.e. they feared God). That would be odd indeed if their lie was grievous in the sight of God.




A further inconsistency lies in the fact that their lie is not their only “sin” in this passage if you are going to hold that there is not a hierarchy of morals in Christian ethics.

The Bible tells us to obey those placed in authority over us (Ecclesiastes 8:2; Romans 13). These texts do not give any “escape clause,” for all intents and purposes, in a superficial “low context” reading of the text, it is an unbreakable absolute. Yet not only is this highly counter-intuitive, it would cause a contradiction in the text, for in 
Acts 5:29, we are told to obey God rather than man. Why didn’t Paul mention this condition?? Because in the “high context” Biblical structure and culture, it was obvious. 

This brings us to the midwives once again. One cannot just say they were righteous in sparing the children, but then again, they disobeyed the “king.” Why was it okay to disobey the King in that situation?? Because a greater moral imperative was put upon them. It is the exact same situation with Rahab the harlot. She lied to save the Hebrew spies, and is commended for her faith in Hebrews 11:31 (and in Joshua 6:25) with no censure of her alleged immoral lie. 

Now of course this leads us to ponder what is the definition of sinful lying. Is all lying inherently or equally sinful? Or is all lying immoral?? The fact is we all consider certain technical “lies” as morally benign, such as, for example, when a boxer fools his opponent into believing he will punch with one fist but instead lands the other. Most of us are deceptive about our true physical appearance by wearing cosmetics or other appearance-altering aids.




The fact is that the Bible does teach that not all sins are equal nor will all judgment be equal (John 19:11, Matthew 10 & 11). We also inherently know this as reflected by our laws. There are differing levels of crime and differing punishments. We also recognize the concept of mitigating circumstances.

So the Bible gives us pictures of real people in real situations. There is an absolute hierarchy of morals, and in any given situation we must weigh our nations and behavior by assessing our predicament in light of these absolutes. Some may call it choosing the lesser of two evils (lie or allow the spies to be killed), but the more Biblical outlook would be choosing the greater good (tell the truth or save the lives of the spies).

Before anyone jumps in that this is situational ethics or relativism:

Relativism teaches that morals are relative to the person. In any given identical situation, what is moral for you to do, may not be moral for me to do. There is no absolute rule by which to objectively measure our actions. That is not at all what I have advocated here. I am applying an ABSOLUTE hierarchy of morals which would be applied ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY. As Koukl has put it, “Moral relativism doesn’t have to do with relative circumstances, it has to do with relative people,” and this distinction makes a world of difference, i.e. the difference between Biblical and unbiblical moral functioning. Biblical morality upholds a standard that is outside of and binding upon all persons.

The next issue of course is exactly what is the “lying” that is condemned by the Bible as sinful. It is simply immoral deception. Not all deception is immoral. My points in my last post about sports players “faking” their opponents and about people altering their true physical appearance have remained unanswered (as well as my point about the “escape clause” for the command to obey the government).

If anyone wants to be strictly technical on this, equivocation would be lying and not being entirely forthright would be lying. Jesus was not always completely forthright, nor has God throughout the entire Bible. Why is this not lying??

On another front, even if all lying were a sin, not all sins are equal, something not only taught by the Bible, but also by our own basic common sense. Cheating on a math exam is not the same as sniper shooting people in Virginia.

It further cannot be claimed that Rehab was not praised for her lying, but just for her faith. However, the fact is that her faith cannot be separated from her lie. She was praised for her actions in the whole situation, which cannot be parceled out into the good portions and the bad portions when absolutely no condemnation ever appears for her alleged immoral lie.

My position is that the Biblical sin of “lying” is simply immoral deception. Of course that means necessarily that there is deception (i.e. lying) that is not immoral. We should all agree that deception in war and sports plays is not immoral. I think we would all agree that deception in altering one’s physical appearance by wearing a toupee is not immoral, though hair plugs certainly are ;) However, in this concession that there is outright deception that is not immoral, the very title of this thread is invalidated. Not all lying (which is by definition – deception) is unrighteous.


Some attempt to equivocate by saying that not all deception is lying. That does not relieve the difficulty for that same scenario also plays right into my hand. Once it is conceded that not all deception is immoral, or that not all deception is lying, I have won a major point. All I have to say at that point then is the Rahab’s deception was the moral kind as was the midwives. All that has been done is a sleight of hand switcheroo in which the terms immoral and lying are made equal and the term deception is rendered equivocal. It is a semantical distinction that makes no real difference in this discussion…. A rose by another name……. as I will go on to further prove.

However, inevitably someone will invite me to look at a dictionary. Okay, I accept that invitation in advance.

Here is the dictionary definition of “lie”:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Or here is one which is exactly what I have been saying all along:

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

Here are the synonyms:

be untruthful, beguile, break promise, bull, con, concoct, deceive, delude, dissemble, dissimulate, distort, dupe, equivocate, exaggerate, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, forswear, frame, fudge, invent, jazz, jive, make believe, malign, misguide, misinform, misinstruct, mislead, misrepresent, misspeak, misstate, overdraw, palter, perjure, pervert, phony up, plant, prevaricate, promote, put on, queer, snow, soft-soap, string along, victimize

(Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)

Notice that “deceive” is synonymous with “lie,” thus the hair-splitting that has been attempted just doesn’t fly. Generally speaking, lying is deceiving, deceiving is lying. Thus, it ispatently obviously there is lying that is not sinful, it is at least morally benign, and I would argue at times, morally righteous. Also note that by definition lying is not restricted to just uttering an outright falsehood by any action which is intended to mislead another. Thus a true statement can still be a lie, despite the gerrymandering here to say otherwise.

In the Biblical text, it is defined similarly…

Shaqar (Hebrew) – to do or deal falsely, be false, trick, cheat
[color=blue]Sheqer (Hebrew) - lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood
1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)
1b) deceit, fraud, wrong
1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)
1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)
1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely
1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)
1e) lie, falsehood (in general)
1e1) false tongue
1f) in vain
Kazab (Hebrew) - a lie, untruth, falsehood, deceptive thing
1) to lie, tell a lie, be a liar, be found a liar, be in vain, fail
1a) (Qal) liar (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be proven to be lying
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to lie, tell a lie, tell a lie with, deceive
1c2) to disappoint, fail
1d) (Hiphil) to make a liar, prove to be a liar

Pseudos (Greek) -
1) a lie
2) conscious and intentional falsehood
in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be
3a) of perverse, impious, deceitful precepts
Psuedomai (Greek) -
1) to lie, to speak deliberate falsehoods
to deceive one by a lie, to lie to

Again, the words “lie” and “deceive” are synonymous in many cases (there may be some subtleties that are not germane to this discussion).
The equivocating of any differences between lying and deception though is crushed by the Biblical text in any event. They are both stated as being sinful and to be avoided.

Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”

The fact is that the Biblical sin of lying is tied into the Biblical ideas of justice and equity which are the cornerstone of truth. Certain lying is wrong because it violates those principles. There are certain times when telling the “truth” would be wrong if it violated those underlying principles which the NT summarizes even further as love (Romans 13:10). The Biblical concept of truth is not merely the sterile reciting of correct data, it is the administration of justice, mercy, equity, and love. For nonexhaustive examples:

Deut. 32:4: He is the Rock. His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.

(and note that the above verse neatly explains how it is perfectly within God’s character, who does not lie, to use lies in the administration of His justice… God does not immorally lie, but He has instructed, and commended, and used moral lies)

Ps 106:3 – Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.

Is 1:15-17 – When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

Hab. 1:3-4 – [i]Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.[/b]

Zech 7:9 – This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’

Matthew 23:23 – But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.

Now I anticipate, the "oh so the ends justifies the means" objection. The ends justifies the means in EVERY situation. Say, I was cold and needed a fire. I could light up a stack of money (for I am so filthy rich that money means nothing to me) or I could light some firewood. It would be immoral for me to light up the money when it could be used for much more righteous purposes. If you need to go to the store, you could drive your car, or you could frivolously rent a stretch limousine. The intended goal would justify or illegitimize the means you use to reach it, that is true for every situation.


Some will advocate being slippery. If obfuscation or deflection is not really lying, then I guess we were all hard on Slick Willy for no reason at all. And who is making up their own definitions?? See above lexigraphical information to show that it is not me. Something does not have to false on its face to be lie or a deception. Say you have a standing rule that your teenage son cannot attend parties. He tells you that he is just going over to his friends house to hang out with some friends. He does not tell you those friends are throwing a party. He has lied to you (deceived you) with a true statement. The Bible clearly recognizes sins of omission (James 4:17) as well as commission. By the "lying is always wrong" reasoning, technically, Annais and Saphira did not lie. They did sell their land for that amount, they just didn’t say that they sold it for that amount + (x).

Some advocate using true statements to deceive. Orwell would be proud. That makes no sense whatsoever. So it is okay for me to deceive people as long as I devise a way to use truthful (but incomplete – is that then really truthful??) statements to do it. I would never go into business with someone with that philosophy.

I have more. That is a good start.
I would have said "my" but I think that goes beyond the realm of good taste.

I advise everyone to give this text a good read.

She can say it better than anything I've written so far, at the very least. Now it's time to take my dog on a walk.