My Thoughts on Rahab’s Lie
I was in Sunday School this morning and a question was raised about 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 lives;
she has no alternative but to lie. If she had told the truth and revealed the
spies position 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 sins,
and then repent of it. So for
Rahab, the lesser sin was to lie thus sparing the spies 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 is 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, or 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, and they sight 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 instead He holds to them absolutely.
In situations where a these may seem to conflict, there is
always some “third way” that avoids sin.
They point to passages such as 1 Corinthians 10:13. In that of Rahab’s
case, she should not have lied, instead she should have 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 first 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 sins 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 sins regardless of any “greater” or “lesser” value we give to them. In my
argument they are still sin. Furthermore, God never laid out an order of
hierarchy. He never prioritizes sin.
Furthermore, human judgment is not reliable in establishing this
system. How are we to categorize sin?
The third position is
often criticized as naïve. Especially
so, in the case of Rahab. Why?
It is because to our human eyes 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. Keep in mind she was in the heart of very
real, stressful, and life-threatening situations. It is often easy to condemn her unjustly. {Just as it is easy to often excuse her
actions abruptly.}
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 must
not condemn her life for a momentary lacquer trust in God. Rather, one must commends her faith both in deed and
word. What this show me is this: Even in our greatest moments of faith we are
still flawed humans imperfect at best!
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. Most of us probably would have, yet was it
all she could have done? IS there
something in my life that I am missing today as I face my circumstances?
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. James chapter 2 verse 25 commends
her faith.
When you examine the text of James a careful reading shows
us that Rahab’s lie is never
commended. It is her faith 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 that James 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment