Thoughts on Rahab’s Lie
For many people, the
troublesome aspect of the story of Rahab is it she apparently uttered a
boldface lie by telling the king of Jericho’s messengers that the Israelite
spies had fled when in fact they were hiding in her house. (See Joshua 2:4)
The Bible never tells us that she was censured for it. In
fact, she and her family were spared by the Israelites in Joshua chapter 6:25.
Twice in the New Testament to Scripture commends her for glowing faith, see Hebrews Chapter 11: 31 and
James 2:25. The question that we need
to ask is how the world could she receive such positive treatment in the face
of this lie that she has told?
Generations of
Christian ethics have considered Rahab’s case carefully. In her case, too
absolute principles of moral behavior seem to collide. First, there is the
principal that it is wrong to tell a
lie. Second, there is the principal that
one must protect human life.
In Rahab’s case, it appears, in order to save the spies
live, she has no alternative but to lie. If she had told the truth and refilled
the spies physician their lives would have most likely been forfeited and who
knows if Israel would have inherited
their inheritance.
Generally speaking
there are three positions that many biblical insights have suggested. The first
position involves what we call “conflicting absolutes” sometimes this is
referred to as “the lesser of two evils.”
Those who hold this position argue that in a fallen world, sometimes two
or more absolute principles of moral behavior will conflict absolutely. This
position leaves us with no recourse,
at the end of the day one has to sin.
In such a case the Christian’s obligation is to commit the lesser of the
two sin, and then repent of it. So for Rahab, the lesser sin was to lie thus
sparing the spy’s life, but she was wrong to lie. She would’ve also been wrong
if she told the truth, resulting in the lies exposure and death.
The second position
is often labeled, “graded absolutism”.
It is here that many argue there’s an ordered hierarchy of absolutes, so that there are
some values that have priority over others. In the cases of conflict, where it
is impossible to obey both commands, one
should act according to the greater good,
for the higher command. In doing
so one is “exempt” from the lower command. In Rahab’s case the greater good was
to save the spies life rather than to tell the truth and us she did not send in
telling a lie because she was exempt from it by the higher good of saving
lives. People who hold this position
look into Exodus chapter 1:15–21, insights the Hebrew midwives lying to the
Pharaoh in order to save the Israelite boy.
Sometimes they point to Luke 14:26 when Jesus said we should hate our
fathers and mothers and wives and children brothers and sisters in order to
follow him. { in that case I think they’ve misunderstood
the word hate, see my recent comments in
the sermon that I preached on January 13, 2013.}
The Third position
speaks of “nonconflicting absolutes.”
Here, in any given situation, seemingly opposed absolute norms do not
conflict in reality. In this view, God does not set aside or exempt certain
absolutes inserted to a and, but he holds them absolutely. In situation where a
these may seem to conflict, there is always some “third way” that avoids
sin. They point to passages such as 1st
Corinthians 10:13. In that Rahab’s case, she should not applied, the trusted
God to provide for her another way to protect the spies that did not
necessitate sinning.
I think each of these
positions take the Bible seriously. Each of these positions attempt to do
justice with biblical principles. And still each position possesses some
unsatisfactory conclusions. In the 1st position it is difficult to
conceive of God holding people responsible for sinning when their only choice
was to sin. The 1st position
really complicates the passage in Hebrews chapter 4:15 that tells us Jesus and
always was tempted as we were and yet remained sinless.
Many Christians adopt
a Second position, that allows for the idea of God to exempt people from certain sands in certain situations. This is an attractive viewpoint and it does
indeed appear to have some biblical value especially in light of Matthew 23:23.
However whether sins are greater or lesser my argument is there still sin.
Furthermore God never laid out an order of hierarchy. He never prioritize
sin. Furthermore, human judgment is not
reliable in establishing this system.
The third position is
often criticized as naïve. Especially
in the case of Rahab, because it appears as if she had no third choice. It is easy for us with our cool lit
lights, in nice warm and comfortable
homes, offices, or churches to condemn Rahab for lying in the heart of very real, stressful, and
life-threatening situations. They be easy to condemn her unjustly.
Personally, I find
this to be a very difficult issue. However, I tend to favor the third
position. If you know me then you know
I do not tend to be legalistic. I do believe that despite the apparent problems
this position best fits the scriptural data as a whole and contains the fewest
difficulties. The ends do not justify the means. In evaluating Rahab, we must
render a mixed verdict. One that does
not condemn her life and momentary lacquer trust in God, but one that commends
her faith both in deed and word. It is never nor can it be lawful to lie. Telling a lie is contrary to the nature of
God, and therefore it is never
right. However, given the information I
have in Scripture I think I would’ve done the same thing. At the same time Rahab was not devoid of
praise and virtue. Although it is not spotlessly pure her faith is monumental.
It was to Rahab’s credit that she trusted God. That is why the New Testament
commends her so highly. Hebrews 11:31
commends her faith. Jane chapter 2 verse 25
commends her faith. when you examine the texting James a careful reading
shows us that Rahab’s lie is never
commended. It is her fate that is
rightfully upheld as an example to follow. It is her actions in helping the
spies that are shown as an example to pattern.
The passage in James is clear: there are 2 actions commended, giving lodging
to the spies and sending them out to a safer route. It does not mention the lie
for her protection. In my mind it is
possible to change very well might have omitted mentioning the deception
deliberately to avoid the appearance of condoning it.
I’d be interested to
hear your thoughts on this issue you can e-mail them to me at encountergod@me.com.
