On lying

[Rushing Jaws]

it's more than withholding the truth in many cases (although a lie of omission is still a lie) - most lies are telling a falsehood in place of the truth.

I kinda disagree with the part about "who has a right to have it" - that can be a subjective thing. The police believe they have a right to the truth, but a criminal will feel that they do not.

In Rahab's case, the authorities in power thought they had a right to the truth, and since it was their city, legally they did. But in Rahab's case, she had the moral prerogative to prevent God's people from being captured or murdered.

## That is a most dangerous argument - treachery is treachery and is a hideous crime, whether it supports God's people or not. A religion which bases ethical judgements on such shameless self-interest is not remotely Christian, & is certainly not morally good. To kill foreign spies would not be murder, but common sense execution of enemies.

I think the same would hold true in the case of protecting Jews from Nazi's.

## That sounds like justification for treason, because that is Rahab got up to. Rahab looks good only because she helped the "right", i.e., the "winning" side; her treachery meant the extermination of all her fellow-townsmen except her family.

Why are those who betray the "enemy" always heroes ? As Christian ethics, that is really messed-up. If Joshua had been as moral as some Roman generals, he would have put her to death, since someone so disloyal to her own people could certainly not be trusted to be loyal to her new friends. Tarpeia betrayed the Roman people - & it was the enemy general who brought about her death. Now that is moral, because a good man will not take advantage of treason by others, but will punish those who
offer to commit it. That sort of morality puts parts of the Bible to shame.

[Andrew Patrick]

Rushing Jaws,

1) What is your take on when God sent a "lying spirit" in the mouths of Ahab's prophets, or when he says that he shall "send them a strong delusion?" (citations given in the posts above).

2) I would not use Roman ethics as our guideline. By that standard, one's loyalties are fixed and set by circumstance beyond our control.

That is, according to your Roman perspective Rahab was born an enemy, and will always be an enemy, and as an enemy, she has no choice but to fight against Israel and be killed by them.

And by further analogy, those who are born into the kingdoms of this world are also under the jurisdiction of the prince of this world, and would not be accepted by Christ if they were to "betray" Satan.

3) Do you believe that we should support our governments, right or wrong, simply by virtue that we were born within that land? When the Christian must act according to conscience, and obey God rather than men, the Roman rules of ethics would call treason.

[Rushing Jaws]

Rushing Jaws,

1) What is your take on when God sent a "lying spirit" in the mouths of Ahab's prophets, or when he says that he shall "send them a strong delusion?" (citations given in the posts above).

## I would understand that, & Psalm 45.7, & comparable places in the Bible, as reflecting the kind of theology that attributes all effects to God. God tempts to hold a census in 2 Samuel - but by the time of the composition of 1 Chronicles, the tempter is Satan. There has been a theological shift, from emphasis on God's causality to emphasis on God's moral character.

The passage containing Micaiah's message is highly stylised - Micaiah is describing a version of the Divine Assembly. This is found in other OT books, & in a variety of non-Biblical texts, from the Sumerian "Death of Gilgamesh" to the Babylonian Flood narrative in Gilgamesh Epic Tablet 11, as well as in political texts nearer the time of Ahab's reign. So there is no reason to regard the vision as a direct transcript of experience.

As for the morals - IMO, the result of the battle is being given a cause in God's dealings. Historically, the result is first; if it is bad, that must be because God, the only causal agent in the author's theology, had decreed that it would be that way. The Books of Kings are full of this way of thinking, which in order of causality is "back-to-front". Other texts are written like this - Ur falls, so the gods must have decided upon it. The Lament for [the city of] Agade presents the fall of that city as happening because of Divine wrath at royal sin: both Sumerian texts are theologically-informed presentations of why those cities fell. The results (historical) are accounted for by decisions of a meeting of the Divine Assembly (supra-historical).

Stated in the form of a meeting of the Divine Assembly as seen in a prophetic vision, the theologically-constructed chain of causality is set out in 1 Kings 22 in a way that presents the Divine Assembly as taking place before the contention between the prophets, which is itself before the battle. In fact, the seeming priority is an illusion - events in Heaven are not continuous with those on earth, as though they were both stages in the sequence of historical events; the way they are presented, makes them seem to be, because a written text has fewer dimensions than reality - it is a mode of presenting reality, and one which of its nature is inadequate, because it is human, which God is not. Her again, the supra-historical God is represented as though historical.

2) I would not use Roman ethics as our guideline. By that standard, one's loyalties are fixed and set by circumstance beyond our control.

## I wouldn't use any ethical system, except as a guideline; including Christian ethics.

That is, according to your Roman perspective Rahab was born an enemy, and will always be an enemy, and as an enemy, she has no choice but to fight against Israel and be killed by them.

## Not at all. She should have supported her own people, or at the very least not helped those who intended to kill them. (I'm assuming the incident happened, & did so much as related - two very large assumptions, which may be groundless).

And by further analogy, those who are born into the kingdoms of this world are also under the jurisdiction of the prince of this world, and would not be accepted by Christ if they were to "betray" Satan.

## Satan is no more a politician or ruler in real life than Bilbo Baggins. Or indeed Captain Ahab in "Moby Dick". Characters who are not historical figures cannot be betrayed. Satan may be real in its own way - but certainly not historically real; so can no more be wronged than purely imaginary characters. Historical characters can be wronged, betrayed, slandered; their descendants can demand compensation for wrong done; but the descendants of Captyain Ahab are not going to seek compensation from Herman Melville's estate for wronging their ancestor, because fictitious characters cannot be wronged, or have descendants to avenge them. And fictitious characters cannot complain to their authors, because they are fictitious and their authors are not. Only historical characters can - that is, characters existing in history, in human society. We can worry about the rights of Vulcans if and when we find them to be really existing in human society. But if you accept the chronology of Star Trek, we shan't encounter Vulcans until 2160 or so Angelic beings do not count.

Besides (if we must pursue this unhelpful metaphor) Satan has no rights over us, since satan is not a legitimate ruler, but a rebel. Rebels have no right to loyalty - humans are the satan's victims, not his subjects. But it's an absurd metaphor, becauses it confuses two different kinds of reality. Which is asking for trouble.

3) Do you believe that we should support our governments, right or wrong, simply by virtue that we were born within that land? When the Christian must act according to conscience, and obey God rather than men, the Roman rules of ethics would call treason.

## Of course not - that 's not the issue.

As for your second sentence - huh ? On the point in question, the Biblical ethics implied are hideously immoral, as is also the case elsewhere. The Roman pagan instances OTOH reflect a very exalted and noble morality, superior to that of many Christians. Bad morality stinks, whether it is in or is commanded by a Biblical text, or not. Conversely, if a Gentile behaves nobly, that is worthy of emulation, no matter where it appears. Virtues remain virtuous, even when practiced by idolaters - and lies are revolting, even, & most of all, in the mouths of God's servants.

We have no right to betray our fellow-countrymen - enemies are not fellow-countrymen. The treachery of Rahab is as despicable as can well be imagined, because she helps the enemies of her town, and helps to bring about the death of the very people whom every tie of nature & conscience required her to protect. She is definitely in the running for Wickedest Character in the Bible. Sorry, but IMO anybody capable of such an unnatural act as betrayal of country or people should be outlawed, and executed with every refinement of cruelty. Traitors are the lowest form of life, and should be exterminated without pity.

[Jedidiah]

I wouldn't use any ethical system, except as a guideline; including Christian ethics.

It is important to recognize that Biblical ethics are not a matter of following a list of do or do not matters. It would be best to recognize all, or virtually all, scriptural ethical guidance as examples to be used as guidelines. It seems to me that my personal favorite verse supports this. Micah 6:8 and its context.

[AlphaBravo]

For a while, I had been convinced that the Bible condoned lying in certain instances, such as in the case of Rahab.

That is a very tricky question, and it's one that I've had to think about for a while (before this). Looking at the original commandment from the Law of Moses:

Exo 20:16 KJV
(16) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

The important part here is "against thy neighbor." That is, when you lie to harm your neighbor, that is breaking the commandment.

Ditto. I have been thinking about this too and my thinking also started with Rahab and the wording of the 9th commandment.

First: The wording of the commandment is pretty clearly about false testimony against a neighbor. Such as might get a neighbor falsely accused of a crime or deprive a neighbor of some liberty or possession. I would be interested if any example of the strict use of "lying" such as we commonly understand it today can be raised in the OT.

Second: The Jewish nation was basically in an open state of war with the surrounding nations for the entire course of its history. If David was justified in waging war and killing philistines and taking 200 foreskins than he could hardly be faulted for lying to them about his "insanity". I think this is consistent with the Jewish concept of the 9th commandment and even their more modern philosophy on deception in the military and political arena.

Third: With regard to Rahab, why do we judge her so harshly? If sin is the transgression of the law then what law was she under? Certainly not the 9th commandment. She did the best she could in the situation and was forever blessed for it. Again, is she faulted only for simply lying to the citizens of her country about the whereabouts of the spies? How about her witholding from them the information that the Jewish army was coming to kill them all? Wouldn't that be the greater injury to her people and yet that was fine as long as she didn't technically lie about it???

[Andrew Patrick]

Rahab was not withholding any information that the Jewish army was on the approach. Everyone already knew that the God of Israel had destroyed Egypt (the world superpower) and they were on their way.

Jos 2:9-11 KJV
(9) And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.
(10) For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.
(11) And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

Rahab already knew that Jericho was doomed, but by her faith she was able to save the lives of herself and her family, including her parents and brethren. Jericho was going to fall regardless of the intelligence report.