Rahab's Lie
The remarks of Thomas Boston which I posted two days ago caused me to start thinking about the case of Rahab's lie (in Joshua 2) to the king's officers, and whether what she did was right or wrong. I tend to agree with Boston. I don't believe that one can ever do evil that good may come. Some say that if Rahab had not lied, then the Israelite spies would have been killed. But that's really just leaning on one's own understanding because there is no way to know what would have happened after that point. Men tend to forget that God is in control of all events and it would have been no great thing for him to deliver the spies in some other way.
But I took the time to look up some commentary from various writers and thought it might be beneficial to someone if I were to post that commentary here:
John Calvin:
"As to the falsehood, we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God. Therefore, although our purpose be to assist our brethren, to consult for their safety and relieve them, it never can be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth. And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path, they deviate into circuitous courses.
Rebecca (Genesis 28.) in procuring the blessing to her son Jacob, follows the prediction. In obedience of this description, a pious and praiseworthy zeal is perceived. But it cannot be doubted that in substituting her son Jacob in the place of Esau, she deviated from the path of duty. The crafty proceeding, therefore, so far taints an act which was laudable in itself. And yet the particular fault does not wholly deprive the deed of the merit of holy zeal; for by the kindness of God the fault is suppressed and not taken into account. Rahab also does wrong when she falsely declares that the messengers were gone, and yet the principal action was agreeable to God, because the bad mixed up with the good was not imputed. On the whole, it was the will of God that the spies should be delivered, but he did not approve of saving their life by falsehood."
Matthew Henry:
"It is plain that she deceived the officers that examined her with an untruth --That she knew not whence the men were, that they had gone out, that she knew not whither they had gone. What shall we say to this? If she had either told the truth or been silent, she would have betrayed the spies, and this would certainly have been a great sin; and it does not appear that she had any other way of concealing them that by this ironical direction to the officers to pursue them another way, which if they would suffer themselves to be deceived by, let them be deceived. None are bound to accuse themselves, or their friends, of that which, though enquired after as a crime, they know to be a virtue. This case was altogether extraordinary, and therefore cannot be drawn into a precedent; and that may be justified here which would be by no means lawful in a common case. Rahab knew, by what was already done on the other side Jordan, that no mercy was to be shown to the Canaanites, and thence inferred that, if mercy was not owing them, truth was not; those that might be destroyed might be deceived. Yet divines generally conceive that it was a sin, which however admitted of this extenuation, that being a Canaanite she was not better taught the evil of lying; but God accepted her faith and pardoned her infirmity. However it was in this case, we are sure it is our duty to speak every man the truth to his neighbour, to dread and detest lying, and never to do evil, that evil, that good may come of it, Rom. 3:8. But God accepts what is sincerely and honestly intended, though there be a mixture of frailty and folly in it, and is not extreme to mark what we do amiss. Some suggest that what she said might possibly be true of some other men."
Matthew Poole:
"I wist not whence they were" her answer, contained in these and the following words, was palpably false, and therefore unquestionably sinful; howsoever, her intention was good therein: see Rom. 3:8. But it is very probable, she being a heathen, might think, what some Christians have thought and said, that an officious lie is not unlawful. Or, at worst, this was her infirmity, which was graciously pardoned by God, and her faith was amply rewarded."
Robert Jamieson:
"This was a palpable deception. But, as lying is a common vice among heathen people, Rahab was probably unconscious of its moral guilt, especially as she resorted to it as a means for screening her guests; and she might deem herself bound to do it by the laws of Eastern hospitality, which make it a point of honor to preserve the greatest enemy, if he has once eaten one's salt. Judged by the divine law, her answer was a sinful expedient; but her infirmity being united with faith, she was graciously pardoned and her service accepted ( Jam 2:25)."
Fausset's Bible Dictionary:
"Her deceiving the king of Jericho and saying they had "gone she knew not where" is not commended in Scripture, but only the faith which was the mainspring of her conduct. Scripture forbids a lie, or any "evil doing, that good may come." (Ro 3:7-8)"
But I took the time to look up some commentary from various writers and thought it might be beneficial to someone if I were to post that commentary here:
John Calvin:
"As to the falsehood, we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God. Therefore, although our purpose be to assist our brethren, to consult for their safety and relieve them, it never can be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth. And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path, they deviate into circuitous courses.
Rebecca (Genesis 28.) in procuring the blessing to her son Jacob, follows the prediction. In obedience of this description, a pious and praiseworthy zeal is perceived. But it cannot be doubted that in substituting her son Jacob in the place of Esau, she deviated from the path of duty. The crafty proceeding, therefore, so far taints an act which was laudable in itself. And yet the particular fault does not wholly deprive the deed of the merit of holy zeal; for by the kindness of God the fault is suppressed and not taken into account. Rahab also does wrong when she falsely declares that the messengers were gone, and yet the principal action was agreeable to God, because the bad mixed up with the good was not imputed. On the whole, it was the will of God that the spies should be delivered, but he did not approve of saving their life by falsehood."
Matthew Henry:
"It is plain that she deceived the officers that examined her with an untruth --That she knew not whence the men were, that they had gone out, that she knew not whither they had gone. What shall we say to this? If she had either told the truth or been silent, she would have betrayed the spies, and this would certainly have been a great sin; and it does not appear that she had any other way of concealing them that by this ironical direction to the officers to pursue them another way, which if they would suffer themselves to be deceived by, let them be deceived. None are bound to accuse themselves, or their friends, of that which, though enquired after as a crime, they know to be a virtue. This case was altogether extraordinary, and therefore cannot be drawn into a precedent; and that may be justified here which would be by no means lawful in a common case. Rahab knew, by what was already done on the other side Jordan, that no mercy was to be shown to the Canaanites, and thence inferred that, if mercy was not owing them, truth was not; those that might be destroyed might be deceived. Yet divines generally conceive that it was a sin, which however admitted of this extenuation, that being a Canaanite she was not better taught the evil of lying; but God accepted her faith and pardoned her infirmity. However it was in this case, we are sure it is our duty to speak every man the truth to his neighbour, to dread and detest lying, and never to do evil, that evil, that good may come of it, Rom. 3:8. But God accepts what is sincerely and honestly intended, though there be a mixture of frailty and folly in it, and is not extreme to mark what we do amiss. Some suggest that what she said might possibly be true of some other men."
Matthew Poole:
"I wist not whence they were" her answer, contained in these and the following words, was palpably false, and therefore unquestionably sinful; howsoever, her intention was good therein: see Rom. 3:8. But it is very probable, she being a heathen, might think, what some Christians have thought and said, that an officious lie is not unlawful. Or, at worst, this was her infirmity, which was graciously pardoned by God, and her faith was amply rewarded."
Robert Jamieson:
"This was a palpable deception. But, as lying is a common vice among heathen people, Rahab was probably unconscious of its moral guilt, especially as she resorted to it as a means for screening her guests; and she might deem herself bound to do it by the laws of Eastern hospitality, which make it a point of honor to preserve the greatest enemy, if he has once eaten one's salt. Judged by the divine law, her answer was a sinful expedient; but her infirmity being united with faith, she was graciously pardoned and her service accepted ( Jam 2:25)."
Fausset's Bible Dictionary:
"Her deceiving the king of Jericho and saying they had "gone she knew not where" is not commended in Scripture, but only the faith which was the mainspring of her conduct. Scripture forbids a lie, or any "evil doing, that good may come." (Ro 3:7-8)"
posted by Stuart DiNenno at 11/19/2004 07:24:00 PM
1 Comments:
You could add as a contemporary theologian, R.C. Sproul. In his lectures on the ethic of lying, he used Corey Tin Boom's hiding of the Jews from the Nazis, and ask was it right for her to lie, or should she have turned them over to them.
His conclusion, for what it is worth, was that the truth sould be rendered to those to whom it is due. And in the case of Ms. Tin Boom, that she wasn't obligated to be truthful with the Nazis and turn over the Jews.
Post a Comment
<< Home