RAHAB’S BEST KEPT SECRET: AN INQUIRY INTO THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF TELLING A LIE

Matthew Parks Old Testament Survey I October 8, 2013

1

RAHAB’S BEST KEPT SECRET: AN INQUIRY INTO THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF TELLING A LIE

“Where are the Jews?” “There aren’t any Jews here.” The man struck me hard across the face. “Where do you hide the ration cards?” “I don’t know what you’re—” Kapteyn hit me again. I staggered up against the astronomical clock. Before I could recover he slapped me again, then again, and again, stinging blows that jerked my head backward… I tasted blood in my mouth. My head spun, my ears rang—I was losing consciousness. “Lord Jesus,” I cried out, “protect me!”1

When the door busted open and an armed Gestapo soldier filed into the room, Dutch watchmaker,

Corrie ten Boom, had prepared for this moment. Corrie, along with her family, were instrumental in illegally hiding Jews in their home during the Nazi occupation of Holland during World War II. She did not use brute force nor intellectual advantage. Her weapon of choice? A lie. When asked frankly where she was harboring Jews, she boldly told the Gestapo officer, “There aren’t any Jews here.”2 She knew full well that she was telling a lie in order to save lives. Was this an act of altruistic heroism or moral deficiency? Was she taking a morally responsible action on behalf of her fellow human beings or failing to trust a sovereign God who has the power to make blind eyes see and seeing eyes blind?3

Corrie ten Boom is not alone in this issue. It even dates back to the Old Testament times. Rahab, the prostitute, has also been questioned as to her lie told to the enemy in order to save the lives of two

Israelite spies. Although both women have been regarded as heroines of the Christian faith, their stories beg the question: Can a lie be morally acceptable? The question of most importance is: Does the Bible condone lying in certain contexts? A biblical definition of a lie, a thorough examination of difficult biblical texts related to the lying, and a broad survey of ethical thought will reveal that the Bible never morally justifies telling a lie, even in the most desperate situations.

1 Corrie ten Boom, John Sherrill, and Elizabeth Sherrill, The Hiding Place (Washington Depot, CT: Chosen Books, 1971), 121. 2 Ibid. 3 John 9:39 (NIV 1984). Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture references will be the NIV 1984. 2

A Biblical Definition of a Lie

Did Rahab indeed tell a lie? Lying and deception need to be distinguished. Deception is a broad category covering all intention to lead the hearer away from the truth. Lying is simply one category of deception.4 Sissela Bok in her classic work on the subject of lying defines a lie as “an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement.”5 This is consistent with Saint Augustine of Hippo’s view, who indicates that speech and intent to deceive is involved in telling a lie.6 For the sake of clarity in this study, Bok’s definition will be used. Her definition involves two vital elements: 1) words and 2) intent to lead the hearer away from the truth. This begs the question: What is truth? Now that we have an adequate definition of a lie, what is the meaning of its counterpart?

The Biblical Concept of Truth

So how exactly does the Bible define truth? The Hebrew word for truth and its cognates is ‘emet.

One scholar says that ‘emet “denotes ‘faithfulness’ in the sense of fidelity and trustworthiness, honesty and moral rectitude. It implies absolute reliability and complete integrity.”7 Likewise, another scholar adds, “The root meaning of this group appears to connote ‘support’ or ‘stability,’ and it is not difficult to see how both ‘faithfulness’ and ‘truth’ would develop as the implications of this rootage.”8 Exodus 34:6 uses the same Hebrew word for truth as an attribute to describe God’s faithfulness and reliability.

The very existence of lying testifies that there is indeed truth. If God is truth, then it would be contrary to His nature to utter a lie because lying is opposed to the truth.9 This is not solely an Old

Testament idea. According to John 14:6 in the New Testament, truth is a person: Jesus Christ. To say that something is true does not merely mean that it conforms with fact but that it conforms to the very

4 Bok, Lying: Moral Choices in Public and Private Life (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1978), 13. 5 Bok, Lying, 13-14. 6 Augustine, “On Lying,”Moral Treatises, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), 459. 7 William D. Mounce, ed., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 234. 8 Roger Nicole, Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 288. 9 Numbers 23:19 and 1 John 1:5. 3

character of God. Truth is rooted in the very nature of God, so to try to define truth and lying apart from the character of God is to have a false representation of both terms. In a world without God as Truth, there would be no moral stability and we would face the same situation as the Israelites did in Judges 21:25, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they say fit.”

An Examination of Rahab’s Lie

One issue of whether or not Rahab was justified in telling a lie comes down to a matter of semantics. Did she indeed lie? Since we have established that a lie is an intentionally false statement and that truth is rooted in the very character of God, let’s take a look at Joshua 2:1-6:

1Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. “Go, look over the land,” he said, “especially Jericho.” So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there. 2The king of Jericho was told, “Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land.” 3So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab, “Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land.” 4But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don’t know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them.” 6(But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them…

According to Bok’s definition, Rahab lied. Her words were clearly intended to deceive the king’s messengers. She did not simply try to bend the facts; she blatantly made a false statement with full knowledge of the truth with the intent to mislead. When the king’s messengers came and asked her to bring out the spies, she acknowledged that they were there but had left. It can be argued that Rahab did not lie in verse 4 by saying “I did not know where they had come from,” because that information may not have been told to her by the spies. Now, Rahab “knew” many men, since she was a prostitute.

However, it is possible that she did not know where they were from, but this is unlikely since she had hidden them and no doubt by divine providence.10 Also, in verse 9 she comes out and confesses to know who they are. She was not told by the king’s messengers beforehand that the men were spies from Israel, but that they were looking for some men who came to Rahab’s house. If verse 4 is not evidence enough that Rahab lied, the lie she tells in verse 5 cannot be refuted. She told the king’s messengers that the men

10 David M. Howard Jr., Joshua (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 100. 4

had left, knowing full well that they were in her house, and then proceeded to send the king’s messengers on a wild goose chase.

Some scholars have disputed over the definition of a lie in ancient Israel. Woudstra, in a footnote to his commentary on the book of Joshua, relies on another commentator’s view in saying, “B. Holwerda argues that ‘truth’ in Israel is something different from ‘agreement with fact.’ It means ‘loyalty toward the neighbor and the Lord.’ Thus viewed, Rahab’s words need not be called a lie.”11 This is consistent with the Old Testament understanding of the ninth commandment in the Decalogue, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor,”12 but it is incomplete. The focus of the ninth commandment is on the relationship with one’s neighbor.13 It stresses loyalty to one another. But neighbor is not restricted to just those of one’s own people group. Quite literally “neighbor” can mean the people next door, one’s closest friends, or even enemies.14 Even in the New Testament Jesus expands the meaning of “neighbor” to one’s enemy, as illustrated with the relationship between the Jew and the Samaritan in the Parable of the Good

Samaritan.15

Furthermore, there are three issues with Woudstra and Holwerta’s definition. The first is that

Rahab was not a Jew, at least at the time of telling her lie, so she would not have known nor cared about the morality of her lie. Given her line of work, her morale was lacking and lying probably came naturally to her. However, she knew that by hiding the spies, she was committing treason against her people. If she abided by Woudstra and Holwerta’s “loyalty” definition, then she would have sided with her people and given up the foreigners. An objection to this line of reasoning comes from John Rea in his commentary on

Joshua. He says, “In Oriental ethics, guarding one’s guest as an act of hospitality is one of the highest virtues.”16 This is consistent with Near Eastern cultural practices, but Rahab was a prostitute. Prostitutes

11 Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), 71. 12 Exodus 20:16. 13 Mark F. Rooker, The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the Twenty-First Century (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2010), 155. 14 Rooker, The Ten Commandments, 160. 15 Luke 10:25-37, especially 29 and 36-37. 16 John Rea, Joshua (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962), 208. 5

were not the models of virtue. It is highly unlikely that honor was the main motivation for her lying. If any motivation at all, it would have been to secure future business. Either way, she was still risking her life and the lives of her relatives by committing treason, a crime punishable by death.

The second problem is that even if Rahab were a Jew, loyalty to God would have been first and foremost, then loyalty to her neighbor.17 The third problem, as it has been stated before, is that truth cannot be separated from the character of God. Although they are right to say truth is different from

“agreement with fact,” Woudstra and Holwerta do not connect “truth” to the intrinsic character of God; therefore, their definition is incomplete. Based on this clarification of “neighbor,” commentator Mark

Rooker concludes, “Thus the context supports the argument that the [ninth] commandment prohibits any false statement that may bring harm to any neighbor.” This includes the enemy. So we can see that, by a thorough examination of Joshua 2:1-6, Rahab did indeed lie. But was her lie justified?

The Truth about Lies in the Bible

The Bible is strictly against the telling of lies.18 There are many instances in the Bible where people have lied and God has punished them or even the people around them. Not once, but twice

Abraham stated that Sarah was his sister, without emphasizing that she was also his wife, to intentionally deceive a king; first with Pharaoh and second with Abimelech. The consequences fell not on Abraham but on the king and his people until the lie was confessed.19 Like father, like son, Isaac also encountered

Abimelech years later and used the same lie as his father did about Rebekah, and it produced the same consequences.20 In the New Testament, Peter lied about knowing Jesus three times to the villagers during

Jesus’ trial, and then he left in shame when his lies were brought to the light, but he was later restored.21

Ananias and Sapphira sold some property and then intentionally deceived people by presenting it as

17 See Matthew 22:36-40, especially verse 37-38. Notice the order in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:1-17. Commandments 1-4 deal with man’s relationship to God, first and foremost. Commandments 5-10 deal with man’s relationship to man. 18 Exodus 20:16; Leviticus 19:11; Proverbs 6:17,19; 12:19,22; John 8:44; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9. 19 Genesis 12:10-20 and 20:1-18. 20 Genesis 26:1-11. 21 Matthew 26:69-75 and John 21:15-19. 6

though it were the full amount. They were both struck down at the feet of Peter.22 These are evidences that God takes lying very seriously, sometimes as seriously as putting someone to death for lying, as with

Ananias and Sapphira. However, we need to examine if the Bible justifies lying using the particular situations of Rahab and the Hebrew midwives.

The Faith and Righteousness of Rahab

There are two principle references to Rahab in the New Testament: Hebrews 11:31 and James

2:25. Both of these verses must be examined in their context in order to answer the question: Was Rahab justified in telling a lie? In the eleventh chapter of the book of Hebrews, we are given what can be called

“The Heroes of the Faith.” One name among the list is the famous prostitute from Jericho. Hebrews 11:31 says, “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” We see the same conclusion in James 2:25, “In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?” In both cases, Rahab was commended not for what she said, but for her faith in what she did—more specifically, by hiding the spies and sending them out in a different direction.23 John

MacArthur also concludes, “Rahab isn’t applauded for her ethics. Rahab is a positive example of faith.”24

Neither James nor the writer of Hebrews mention anything about Rahab’s lie being justified or rewarded.25 But we have seen that Rahab’s faith was rewarded, not by lying, but by hiding the spies. She kept the spies hidden by lying and, therefore, placed the trust in her own ability to lie rather than trusting

God to protect. If lying is not justified in Rahab’s case, it certainly cannot be justified in our case. But one question remains: Why did God commend Rahab for her faith instead of punishing her for her lie? We see the answer in Joshua 2:8-11:

22 Acts 5:1-11. 23 A. W. Pink, (Gleanings in Joshua. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964), 59. 24 John MacArthur, (Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 59. 25 Erwin Lutzer, The Morality Gap: An Evangelical Response to Situation Ethics (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1972), 102. 7

8Before the spies lay down for the night, she went up on the roof 9and said to them, “I know that the Lord has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11When we heard of it, our hearts sank and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.

When the people of Jericho heard about Israel’s miraculous escape from Egypt coupled with its victories against the neighboring cities, they were feared that they would be next—with good reason.

Rahab was convinced that these miracles and victories could only be from the hand of the one true God.

Living in a polytheistic culture, this was a bold statement to make. Rahab’s statement of faith also potentially sheds light on why she hid the spies. She knew who they were and, more importantly, Whom they served. She had come to a place where she was ready for deliverance from the life that she lived.

Otherwise, why would she profess an exclusive claim about God being the God of heaven and earth? That was the moment of her decision. As John MacArthur eloquently puts it:

At this moment, her faith was newborn, weak, and in need of nurture and growth. Her knowledge of YHWH was meager…she was a product of a corrupt culture where ethics were virtually nonexistent. Lying was a way of life in her society—and especially in her profession. The way she responded is just what we might expect from a brand-new believer under those circumstances.26

This also helps us to understand a little better why she was so quick to lie to her people about the spies. In her ignorance, she simply did not know any better way to protect them. This is not a justification for her actions, but rather a clarification. Even through Rahab’s ignorance of the Law, her sins were forgiven because she feared the God of heaven above and the earth below rather than the king of Jericho.

God did indeed forgive her sins, but that does necessarily mean that she was right to tell a lie.27 If sinless perfection were a prerequisite for salvation, no one would ever achieve it. But God in His infinite mercy yet holy justice pardons our sins in order for us to be made right with Him. Sin is never justified, sinners are. Likewise, Rahab’s lie was not justified nor condoned; Rahab herself was justified because of her faith in God Almighty.

26 Ibid. 27 Pink, Gleanings in Joshua, 59. 8

The Fear of the Hebrew Midwives

We have already established that God is truth and cannot lie and, therefore, cannot condone lying.28 Nevertheless, there is another instance of lying in the Bible that, at a superficial reading, seems to be justified, but upon closer examination, is not. This commonly misinterpreted passage is found in

Exodus 1:15-21. Upon being asked by Pharaoh why they have not carried out the orders to kill every boy born to the Israelites, the Hebrew midwives lie to him in verse 19 by telling a half-truth, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.” This is indeed a lie, but in verses 20-21 God shows kindness to the midwives and because they feared Him, God gave them families of their own.

Norman Geisler maintains that “Nowhere in the text does God ever say they were blessed only for their mercy and in spite of their lie. Indeed, the lie was part of the mercy shown.”29 He believes that the lie and the act cannot be separated. Geisler also maintains that the lie of the Hebrew midwives was committed to save lives.30 Actually, by lying, the midwives would only be saving their own lives. If they would have told Pharaoh the truth, that they had deliberately kept the boys alive because they feared God more than him, their own lives would have been on the line. God indeed spared the midwives, not because they lied, which they should not have done, but because they feared His commandment to not murder above Pharaoh’s edict. Simply put, they obeyed God rather than man.31

Geisler couples together the midwives’ lie with God’s blessing when really God did not bless them for their lie to save Israelite lives, but rather He blessed them because of their disobedience to

Pharaoh when commanded to do something contrary to God’s law. As with the case of Rahab, the lie told by the Hebrew midwives was not justified nor condoned, but the midwives were justified because of their faith in God Almighty by not carrying out the command to murder, and God blessed them for that.

28 See Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19, and MacArthur, Twelve Extraordinary Women, 59. 29 Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 105-106. 30 Ibid, 75, 102, and 105. 31 Acts 5:29 9

The Christian Ethics of Telling a Lie

In his book on Christian ethics, Norman Geisler identifies two basic ethical systems, relativism and absolutism, which can be divided into six major ethical worldviews:32

Antinomianism says there are no moral laws. Situationism affirms there is one absolute law. Generalism claims there are some general laws but no absolute ones. Unqualified absolutism believes in many absolute laws that never conflict. Conflicting absolutism contends there are many absolute norms that sometimes conflict, and we are obligated to do the lesser evil. Graded absolutism holds that many absolute laws sometimes conflict, and we are responsible for obeying the higher law.33

Antinomianism and generalism are classified as relativism, meaning there are no moral absolutes, but only those relative to a person or culture. Since the Bible is the absolute authority of God, these worldviews will not be considered in the survey of Christian ethical thought. The four remaining ethical worldviews are categorized under absolutism. This is the belief that there is a fixed standard of morals that cannot be changed. One author’s way of distinguishing absolutism from relativism is that absolutism

“emphasizes the fact that we discover moral values, we do not merely invent moral beliefs.”34 Using these four ethical worldviews, we will examine the dilemma of Rahab’s lie.

Situationism and Conflicting Absolutism

Situationism affirms that there is only one moral absolute, the law of love. According to situationism, Rahab’s lie would have been justified because it was told out of love for God and the end result was that the spies escaped. The problem with this is that the end justified the means, which is a situationist proposition.35 Nearly any act can be moral as long as the end is for love. So a man could cheat on his wife with another woman and then lie to his wife for love of her. If the end result is love and no

32 Ibid, 66. 33 Ibid, 18-19. 34 J. P. Moreland. and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 416. 35 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press, 1966), 120-133, 164-165. 10

harm is done, the means will be justified. Without an accurate definition of love, morality is defined by the situation, the consequences, and really the person in the situation.36

The second ethical worldview is conflicting absolutism (also called “the lesser of two evils”).37

According to this view, Rahab’s lie was not justified but still forgivable. While in solitary confinement in a Romanian prison, Pastor Richard Wurmbrand struggled with betraying his friends for freedom or lie to protect them. He summarizes, “I lie to my oppressors to protect others”38 then expounds, “It is wrong to prefer your personal purity to responsibility for your neighbor.”39 But should not our responsibility to God trump our responsibility to our neighbor? He continues, “We cannot assume the responsibility of telling the truth to tyrants, because it will help them torture and kill Christians. I will not justify lying either, but I will gladly accept its responsibility before God. Here we have a case in which one doesn’t have a choice between good and evil, but only between two evils.”40 Though Christians can learn much from

Wurmbrand, it can never be right to lie. This theory proposes that since there is no way out of certain situations without sinning, it is one’s moral duty to choose the lesser sin and then ask forgiveness later.41

Though it places a high view of God and His law, it cheapens forgiveness by inducing sin. Quoting

Augustine, author Alain Epp Weaver wisely concludes, “In crisis situations that seemingly demand a lie in order to prevent harm to others, silence is preferable to lying.”42

Graded and Unqualified Absolutism

The third view is graded absolutism (formerly “hierarchicalism;” also called “the greater of two goods”).43 In this view, lying in general is wrong unless there is a higher law to which it must yield. When

Rahab was faced with a moral conflict, she chose to suspend the truth (lower law) in favor of saving a life

36 Lutzer, The Morality Gap, 23-36. 37 Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 420. 38 Richard Wurmbrand, Alone with God: God & Suffering; New Sermons from Solitary Confinement (Bartlesville, OK: Living Sacrifice Book, 1999), 23. 39 Ibid, 26. 40 Ibid, 26-27. 41 Geisler, Christian Ethics, 89. 42 Alain Epp Weaver, “Unjust Lies, Just Wars: A Christian Pacifist Conversation with Augustine,” Journal of Religious Ethics 29, no. 1 (2001): 67. 43 Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 420. 11

(higher law).44 Thus, Rahab was not guilty of sin. Geisler upholds that there are higher and lower moral laws, but he neglects to explain which laws are higher or lower than other laws, only that the Bible makes references to the least, greatest, and weightier laws.45 Since this hierarchy of values is yet to be determined, we are left to use our own judgment based on what we think God will deem higher or lower laws.46 Another issue with the graded absolutist position is with it being absolute.47 For something to be absolute also implies that something else of equal status cannot be above or below it. For example, the love and justice of God are equal. For Geisler to say that these laws form an “ethical right-of-way” in that

“the law declares that when two cars simultaneously reach an intersection…Common sense dictates that both cars cannot go through the intersection at the same time; one car must yield.”48 But how can absolutes conflict? They are not absolutes if one yields to the other. In this view, there would be no reason for a Christian to be martyred, because they could easily lie to save their life.49 Ultimately, all the ethical views up to now place more responsibility in extreme circumstances on the person rather than God. In everyday life we do have to be responsible to do what is right and not throw our hands up and let God do everything, but in situations beyond our control we should default to giving God the reigns and let him control.

The final view is unqualified absolutism. This view would say that Rahab was responsible to God first and foremost, and then to her neighbors. She did lie and did not need to do so. But it is futile to wonder about the what-ifs. She could have done many things to still save the lives of the spies yet be truthful before God. Now, there are concerns about the unqualified absolutist position (such as the tendency towards legalism and the sins of omission),50 but, on a personal note, I err in favor of the

44 Geisler, Christian Ethics, 110-111. 45 Ibid, 100-101. 46 Lutzer, The Morality Gap, 102. 47 Ibid, 102-103. 48 Geisler, Christian Ethics, 104. 49 Lutzer, The Morality Gap, 110. 50 Geisler, Christian Ethics, 80-81. 12

unqualified absolutist position on the issue of lying for the reasons and evidences stated above. I whole- heartedly agree with Walter Kaiser’s words, “God is not reduced to unholy acts to fulfill his will.”51

Concluding Remarks

Though her efforts are highly regarded as heroic in impossible times, Corrie ten Boom still lied in order to save lives. Some might say that the lie was worth it to save a life. But at what point does the

“greater good” replace the “greatest good,”—that is, Jesus Christ? Did God need the help of a lie in order to save Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Did God depend on Rahab’s lie in order to secure His people’s land? Absolutely not! Corrie ten Boom’s niece, Cocky, remained truthful when soldiers asked where her brothers were. The young women replied matter-of-factly, “Why, they’re under the table.”52

The young men were under the floor of the table, nevertheless, Cocky was truthful, even if the soldiers did not believe her. But God does not always guarantee a positive outcome. Though the three Hebrew teens in Daniel 3 knew that God was indeed able to save them, He was not obligated to do so.

The Bible never justifies telling a lie, even if good may come of it. Truth is rooted in the very nature of God and, therefore, has intrinsic value.53 Every Christian should seek to uphold it at all costs.

When the truth is suspended in certain situations, an avalanche of subjectivism begins to erode the very foundations of our faith and threatens the integrity of God. Therefore, the Bible maintains that Rahab was not justified in lying but for having faith in a merciful God. One limitation of this study is that it seeks to examine specific cases of lying in the Bible and not an exhaustive list of hypothetical situations.

However, when we are faced with difficult moral situations, we must have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. That being said, the Holy Spirit will not bring to mind something that is not there.

That is why this study is important, to know how to respond when faced with a seemingly impossible moral situation, so that we can be better prepared to do what would bring God the most glory.

51 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 96. 52 ten Boom, Sherrill, and Sherrill, The Hiding Place, 88. 53 Lutzer, The Morality Gap, 106. 13

APPENDIX

Summary: This research paper has stirred up interest in my youth group in that they requested we do a study about what is right or wrong for a Christian to do. Below is an adapted first lesson that was delivered during Sunday School on September 1, 2013.

Is This Ethical? A Study on Christian Ethics Session 1: What is Ethics and Why Does It Matter? Romans 1:18-20

Introduction  Is it ever not a sin to tell a lie? Are there certain situations where lying is okay?  Read Romans 1:18-20 and explain what God has revealed to all humankind.  How is it that people instinctively know that something is either right or wrong? o C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity “These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that humans beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”

What is Ethics and Why Does It Matter?  Ethics deals with what is morally right or wrong. Christian ethics deals with what is morally right or wrong for a Christian.  Ethics deals with what ought to be practiced while morality deals with what is actually practiced. What people actually do is not the basis for what they ought to do. Instead, a person’s ethics should guide his or her moral actions. What we believe better determines what we will do. o Example: Ethics would say that we should not lie, cheat, or steal. Morality would say that people lie, cheat, and steal all the time so it must be ethical.  List some universal moral laws and taboos.  We have been created to know right and wrong. We have been created to know God. Ethics and morality are rooted in God’s very nature. That’s how we know what is right and what is wrong.

The Need for a Standard  What are some standards of measurement? Why is it important to use the same standard of measurement when measuring to separate things?  Can we use culture to measure moral standards? Why not?  Without an absolute standard to measure our ethical ideas or moral choices, anything will be ethical or moral. There must be an absolute standard. A Christian’s absolute standard is God.

God’s Role in Ethics54  God’s Ethics are… o Based on God’s character. (John 10:10; Matthew 5:48; Leviticus 19:2) o Based on God’s revelation, both general and specific. (Romans 1:19-20; 3:2)

54 Adapted from Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010) 14

o Absolute. (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) o Written down to be put to practice. (James 1:22) o Centered on obedience rather than the end result or good intentions. (1 Samuel 15:22)

Two Theories of Ethical Thought  Teleological View of Ethics – an act is morally good or bad based on the result of the act  Deontological View of Ethics – some acts are intrinsically good or bad regardless of the result

The Six Major Ethical Worldviews55  Antinomianism – There are no moral laws. o Ex: Lying is neither right nor wrong.  Situationism – There is one absolute moral law, the law of love. o Ex: Lying is morally right as long as it is done in love.  Generalism – There are some general moral laws but no absolute ones. o Ex: Lying is generally wrong, but not always.  Unqualified Absolutism – There are many absolute moral laws that never conflict. o Ex: Lying is always wrong, regardless of the situation.  Conflicting Absolutism – There are many absolute moral norms that sometimes conflict, and we are obligated to do the lesser evil. o Ex: Lying is always wrong, but it is forgivable.  Graded Absolutism – There are many absolute moral laws that sometimes conflict, and we are responsible for obeying the higher law. o Ex: Lying is not wrong if it yields to a higher law.

Conclusion  God has created humans with a basic knowledge of right and wrong based on His general revelation (Romans 1) and has given us His specific revelation (the Bible) in order to instruct us further as to what is right and wrong.  Ethics deals with how we ought to behave and morality deals with how we actually behave.  For a Christian, ethics is rooted in the very nature of God, thus, some moral acts are intrinsically good or bad (i.e. lying is always wrong because it is contrary to God’s truth).  The six major ethical worldviews are: antinomianism, situationism, generalism, unqualified absolutism, conflicting absolutism, and graded absolutism.

55 Adapted from Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010) 15

SOURCES CITED

Augustine, “On Lying,” In Moral Treatises, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, edited by Philip Schaff. 455-477. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956.

Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choices in Public and Private Life. New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1978.

Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press, 1966. Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Howard, David M., Jr. Joshua. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Morality Gap: An Evangelical Response to Situation Ethics. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1972.

MacArthur, John. Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Mounce, William D. (Ed.) Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Nicole, Roger. “The Biblical Concept of Truth.” In Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 2nd ed. 287-298. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.

Pink, A. W. Gleanings in Joshua. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964.

Rea, John. Joshua. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962.

Rooker, Mark F. The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the Twenty-First Century. NAC Studies in Bible & Theology, edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2010. ten Boom, Corrie, John Sherrill, and Elizabeth Sherrill. The Hiding Place. Washington Depot, CT: Chosen Books, 1971.

Weaver, Alain Epp. “Unjust Lies, Just Wars: A Christian Pacifist Conversation with Augustine.” Journal of Religious Ethics 29, no. 1 (2001): 51-78.

Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, edited by R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981.

16

Wurmbrand, Richard. Alone with God: God & Suffering; New Sermons from Solitary Confinement. Bartlesville, OK: Living Sacrifice Book, 1999.

SOURCES CONSULTED

Blacketer, Raymond A. “No Escape by Deception: Calvin’s Exegesis of Lies and Liars in the Old Testament.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 10, no. 3 (2008): 267-289.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Translated by R. H. Fuller and Irmgard Booth. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Edited by Eberhard Bethge. Translated by Neville Horton Smith. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995.

Carson, Thomas L. “The Definition of Lying.” NOUS 40, no. 2 (2006): 284-306.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. Ethics for a Brave New World, 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010.

Geisler, Norman L. and Ryan P. Snuffer. Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely about Right and Wrong. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.

Johnson, Eric L. and Christina Sellers Burroughs. “Protecting One’s Soul: A Christian Inquiry into Defense Activity.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 28, no. 3 (2000): 175-189.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957.

Smedes, Lewis B. Mere Morality. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1983.

Stassen, Glen H. and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.