Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Max Master]

To what extent is a follower of Christ able to justify lying without it being a sin? I understand that lying is part of the 10 Commandments and is a sin. However, I'm thinking about instances in the Bible where lying is used to fulfill God's will. Even though lying is a sin, Abraham and Ehud both lied and this lie was used to accomplish God's will.

[jimwalton]

In real life, where real-time values can sometimes clash, some kind of such sin may be unavoidable. For instance, if the Gestapo suddenly turns up at your house to falsely arrest someone there to wrongly execute them, your immediate choice is to lie or to be complicit in murder. This doesn't really justify the lie, but it does admit that we live in a harsh and violent world corrupted by sin where values battle.

Abraham's lies, along with Rahab's, for instance, are never justified by the Bible. They are stated as mere fact, chosen by those perpetrators as an act of sin (since lying is a sin), and yet God found a way to bring blessing despite their sin. It doesn't justify the lie, but it does show how God is able to use even sin to accomplish His purposes—a point that is made repeatedly and often in the Bible (the crucifixion is an example).

[Zealous]

I think that there is strong New Testament teaching to indicate that when moral values clash, there is a hierarchy to such values and that in choosing the higher value present, the agent does not sin. Would you agree with that analysis, or no?

[jimwalton]

It's obvious in the NT that some sins are greater than other sins (Jn. 19.11; 1 Jn. 5.16; cf. Ex. 32.30; Ezk. 23.11), but I'm not aware that we are ever shown, let alone given, what that hierarchy is. I would would love to that "strong New Testament teaching." Would you be kind enough to share it with me?

I'm also curious which verses in the NT teach us that "in choosing the higher value present, the agent does not sin." I've love to see this and talk with you about it.

After I see the substance behind your argument I'll be better able to evaluate whether I agree with that analysis or not.

[Zealous]

Scripture teaches and Christ affirms that sometimes the direct “rules” of God’s commandments conflict, and that there is a hierarchy of values that needs to be recognized in such cases. Saving lives is more important than telling the truth, particularly to those who would take lives. Protecting innocents or one’s family is (I would argue) more important than nonviolence. So on and so forth.

This is the principle Jesus laid out (like other rabbis of His time and before Him) when he talked about the livestock that falls in a hole on Shebat. Caring for things in your charge and God’s creation was of higher priority than the Sabbath Rest, particularly where there is an immediate exigency involved.

In a word, though, l think that this is a principle that can be drawn from Jesus' argument in Luke 14: if a higher value conflicts with the celebration of Shebat, the right thing to do is pursue the higher value. Now I will admit that there is an element of this which comes more from my understanding of the spirit of Scripture than from a particular passage that I can think of. Namely, I do not think that a person doing the right thing for the right reason can be in sin, as that person is literally acting in consistency with God's moral will.

Given this understanding, paired with the argument of the ox in the well from Luke 14, is where I get my belief that "in choosing the higher value present, the agent does not sin." I agree with you that Scripture does not clearly/explicitly lay out the hierarchy this implies, but this is where I'm at in my understanding of the Scriptures currently.

[jimwalton]

I agreed that some sins are worse than others, and therefore it makes sense there is a hierarchy. But your argument doesn't take me anywhere.

> I think that there is strong New Testament teaching to indicate that when moral values clash, there is a hierarchy to such values and that in choosing the higher value present, the agent does not sin.

You said there's a "strong" NT teaching, but then you give but one example, and even admitted that "Scripture does not clearly/explicitly lay out the hierarchy this implies," which tells me it's NOT a strong argument, but rather a subtle and only implied one that appears only in one place. It's not what I'd call "strong."

I agree with you that Luke 14.5 teaches that when commands or values clash, there can be humanitarian exceptions. It agrees with what I also said. What I did claim, though, is sin is never justified and that we are never shown what the hierarchy is. So though Luke 14.5 implies a clash and a hierarchy, the hierarchy is never defined. My problem is that humans are inclined to set the hierarchy to their perspective, which is often, if not always, bound to be wrong. In other words, we have no clue what that hierarchy is, and I wouldn't trust any person to set it. Would you agree with that analysis or no?