Is It Ever Right To Lie Like Rahab?
Recently, a question came in for me about the lie of Rahab in Joshua 2. Rahab lived in Jericho, the first city in line as Israel marched into the Promised Land. Israel sent two spies into Jericho. Rahab somehow met them and offered them lodging. When the thing became known, she hid them in the stalks of flax on her roof, her house forming part of the city wall (Josh 2.6). When questioned by the authorities about it, she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” (Josh 2.4-5)
Quite clearly this was a lie. Was she right to lie? What does that say to us about our own relationship with truth? Can we ever tell a similar lie?
There are other instances in the Bible where similar lies are told. For example, the Hebrew midwives deceived Pharaoh when the Hebrew mothers were giving birth to male children (Ex 1.15-21). During the rebellion of Absalom, two priests loyal to David carried intelligence out of the capital to David. In their flight, a woman hid them in a well, lied to Absalom’s men, and the two escaped to David (2 Sam 17.15-22). In an interesting twist, David’s wife Michal deceived her father with a lie when she helped David escape, then lies after it is found out, saying David threatened her life so she “had” to do it (1 Sam 19.11-17 — there are other oddities in this story, but we will just keep in mind the lying). There are other examples, but we these will suffice.
David M. Howard, in his commentary, Joshua, part of the New American Commentary series, has an “Excursus: On Rahab’s Lie” (pp. 106-112). This essay does a good job outlining the main ways Christian ethicists have attempted to answer the question.1 Howard says the question of lying — “Is it ever right to like Rahab?” — is answered by Christians in one of three ways.
- The “conflicting absolutes” view (or “lesser of two evils” view): When absolutes conflict, the only option is that a sin must be committed regardless which option you choose. If Rahab lies to hide the spies, she is wrong to tell a lie. If Rahab tells the truth, she is guilty of betraying innocents to death. The solution is to choose the lesser sin (tell a lie) and then repent of it later.
- The “hierarchicalism” view (or “graded absolutism” view): Norman Geisler is a proponent of this view. The situation Rahab found herself in involves a conflict of absolutes, but the preservation of life has higher value than the strict adherence to truth. There is a “greater good” to achieve, and one should choose the greater good and God will approve your choice.
- The “nonconflicting absolutes” view: Howard describes it this way, “In this view, God does not set aside or exempt certain absolutes in certain situations, but he holds to them absolutely. In situations where these may seem to conflict, there will always be some ‘third way’ that avoids sin.”2 Howard is trying to avoid an “end-justifies-the-means” position. In this view, if Rahab told the truth, God would provide a way for both Rahab and the spies to escape. This way of escape is unknown to us, since it isn’t what happened.
The first position seems somewhat ludicrous to me, especially since in the cases where Bible characters lie “for the greater good” there is no evidence they ever sought repentance for such lies. If this were a valid point, one would think that at least once it might show up in the Bible, but it never does. (Admittedly, this is an argument from silence.) It also seems to make God unjust, putting them in a position where they must sin regardless. How could he hold them accountable for that?
The second position has the disadvantage of the fact that there is never any revelation in the Bible about which absolutes are “higher” and which are “lower.” If it is a sin to tell a lie, is that really any less a sin than the sin to put someone’s life in jeopardy by the truth?
The third position seems to avoid the pitfalls of both other positions, but one major flaw is ensuing Biblical revelation. First, Rahab is preserved from Jericho’s fall (Josh 6.17-25), then we learn that she is not only preserved, but she marries into the Israelite nation and is named in the genealogy of the Messiah, wife of Salmon, mother of Boaz, becoming the great-great-grandmother of David (Mt 1.5). Hebrews says she acted in faith!
Heb 11.31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
It seems hard to suggest that God, who commends her faith, would condemn her lie!
Each of these views are held by sincere Christians. I suppose by my remarks, you can tell that I prefer the second view, the “graded absolutism” view, though I recognize its problems. Let’s apply this to a couple of other situations in the Bible.
Recall Michal’s lie in 1 Sam 19.11-17, mentioned earlier. When Michal lied the first time, she was lying in favour of preserving David’s life. This lie would not count against her under “graded absolutism.” The second lie, claiming that David threatened her, however, is of a different character. Here, she lied for herself, to save her own skin. What if she had said, “He is my husband and I lied to protect him because he is God’s anointed”? Obviously, we can’t know what would have happened, but clearly that would have been the right thing to do.
Another set of examples is the occasions when Abraham lied about Sarah. “She is my sister!” He said this twice, once to Pharaoh, and once to Abimelech. What higher principle led Abraham to tell this half lie? (Note, on the second occasion, Abraham says, “Well, she really is my half-sister, so it wasn’t a total lie.” — my paraphrase) Abraham lied on these occasions to protect his own skin. Both occasions display a lack of faith, even though Abraham is the father of the faithful, the man whose faith we follow. I can’t side with Abraham in either of these lies.
Well, what about us? Can we get away with lying for “higher principles?” What kind of situation has ever occurred in your life where a higher principle was at stake? I can readily see that those who hid Jews during the Second World War oppressions of the Germans is such an example. Have you ever been in a situation like that? I doubt it! Such situations are exceedingly rare.
I can summarize my thinking on this with a series of questions.
Who benefits if I tell the truth? Is it the oppressor or the oppressed?
Who benefits if I deceive? Is it someone I am protecting or my own precious skin?
- Rahab deceived anti-God authorities to protect others, thereby putting herself at immediate risk if her deception came to light.
- Abraham deceived potentially violent authorities to protect himself. He says as much, “They might kill me if I tell the truth.” (Gen 12.12, 20.11)
But there are situations I can imagine where you and I might be faced with a similar dilemma. Suppose we find ourselves caught in the middle of a dispute between two people, say a violent domestic dispute. We might find that we must hide one party to the dispute until the authorities can settle the issue. Would this be a Rahab situation? I think it might. We might need to “pull a Rahab” as my daughter said recently.
How often, though, do we really face such troubles? The Lord is clear to us about lying. We are to tell the truth. We are to be people of truth. And, all the time, we are to serve the Lord first, and his cause, which could involve the preservation of life in the face of violence. These duties do not conflict. May God keep us out of such situations, but may he also grant wisdom if they ever should arise.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Listen to the audio version here, at the Proclaim & Defend podcast, or search for it on Apple, Spotify or other providers.
- Note on the New American Commentary series: I have found a lot of help in these volumes. While I don’t agree with every conclusion or theological perspective of the authors, I have found them to be readable, informative and usually helpful as I study and prepare sermons and Bible lessons. [↩]
- David M. Howard, Joshua, The New American Commentary 5 (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 108. [↩]
Don, an excellent summary of the major views of this difficult passage. May I suggest that there is a fourth option: what is called the “Moral Obligation” argument. Was Rahab obligated to tell the governmental officials where the spies were hiding? If an intruder broke into my house to attack my wife, and she is hiding under the bed, am I morally obligated to disclose her location? When people go away for the evening, they may leave a porch light on. Actually, they are trying to “deceive” a potential robber that they are really at home so he won’t burglarize their house. Are they morally obligated to make it easier for a break in? Light timers inside a home are another form of “deception.” So, the question could be asked: Was Rahab morally obligated to tell the truth about the spies?
Hi Gary,
I think that is basically Geisler’s view, the “graded absolutism” view. Your language is a little easier to understand, though! I tend to obscure things with weird big words.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hi Don,
You mentioned that “It seems hard to suggest that God, who commends her faith, would condemn [Rahab’s] lie!.”
When I read this, the implication seemed to be that if God commends someone for their faith, then their actions are also commended (rather than condemned). However, aren’t there many examples recorded in Scripture of failure on the part of OT and NT believers that are clearly condemned when comparing the full revelation of God even if God did not explicitly condemn them?
For instance, God says in multiple places that He hates all lying (e.g. Prov. 6:16-19; 12:22; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Rev 21:8). I am not aware of a place where God states an exception to this. Yet as you mentioned, Rahab is commended for her faith specifically in welcoming the spies (Heb 11). When comparing these scriptures, my understanding would be that Rahab believed God and was therefore justified by faith, and though she sinned by lying, God graciously superintended over that situation to accomplish His purpose.
Another example would be David’s polygamy. To my knowledge, God does not specifically condemn David’s polygamy, though He does condemn Solomon’s polygamy while stating that Solomon’s heart was not true to the LORD like his father David (1 Kings 11:1-4). However, the scriptures are clear that polygamy is displeasing to God, especially for Israel’s king and for church leaders (Deut. 17:17; 1 Timothy 3:2). In spite of this, the Messiah was later born as a descendent of one of David’s many wives (and not his first wife). Was David simply the exception to the rule because he had faith in God concerning his polygamy? What about others with great sins who are recorded for their faith in Hebrews 11 (e.g. Gideon’s testing of God; Samson’s formication)?
[As an aside, I know David’s mindset was probably not one where “the preservation of life [had] higher value” than being polygamous, and thus it technically falls outside the narrow scope of position #2 on lying.]
My point is this – is it right to assume that a lack of specific condemnation for the specific actions of someone justified by faith equals commendation of such actions? And if those actions are still condemned, then why would the proposition that “life has a higher value than committing condemned action X” make condemned action X (aka sin X) right or desirable in God’s eyes? Does Almighty God really need us to (and commend us for) committing a transgression contrary to His nature (e.g. God is Truth) because of the “good consequences” of such transgression?
Thanks for the comment, Evan.
There is strength in your argument, though I would say that part and parcel of her faith and welcoming the spies was the deception that protected them. If she had told the truth, or made some such statement that didn’t reveal where the spies were, would she have shown her new allegiance to God? Would she have been rescued from the sack of Jericho, where everyone else was destroyed? We can’t know, of course. Since the Hebrews reference refers to her welcome of the spies, I think one can reason that pretty well the whole episode is approved of God. We also have to take note that God highly honoured her, putting her in the Messianic line and specifically pointing it out in Mt 1.
There are others mentioned in Heb 11 where the specific faith instance isn’t mentioned: Jephthah, Samson, etc. We are on shakier ground in trying to see why they are included as examples, but that takes us far afield from the subject of lying.
I suppose we could also say that the OT saints are proceeding without much revelation. Rahab would have no knowledge at this point of any Scriptures. She is relying only on natural revelation and the witness of what the Canaanites in Jericho had heard of the Exodus deliverance. She concluded, rightly, that her only hope was in the God of Israel. I think her faith gives insight for our ethics. (There are other similar stories, where OT saints deceived for the greater good of God’s will. One example I didn’t mention was Samuel, when God told him to anoint David. Samuel was concerned that Saul would kill him. God told him to just tell Saul he was going to Bethlehem to offer a sacrifice. In that case, God gave the excuse that covered up the action. The statement was true, but it wasn’t the whole truth, either.)
Finally, again I point out that all the views I mention are held by sincere believers. I am quite willing to hear their arguments and acknowledge that there are issues with my own view. I do appreciate writers like David Howard (and your own comment above) even though I don’t come to the same conclusion. It is worth hearing the different views and thinking them through.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks for the response, Don.
My understanding of God’s directive to Samuel is that He did not command Samuel to lie nor intend to deceive anyone. God simply did not reveal some of the truth to someone not privy to that information. This is no different than when someone does not reveal his personal bank account number when asked by a thief. Perhaps a similar case is how Christ told people whom He had healed not to tell anyone what had happened (e.g. Luke 8:55-56). Christ was not commanding them to lie but rather He was commanding them to safeguard concealed truth that ought not be shared freely as pearls ought not be cast before swine. As such, Samuel’s case seems to be categorically different from Rahab’s lying.*
Since morality is defined by God’s very nature (and subsequently communicated to us through His revelation), I still find it difficult to accept the proposition that any act contradictory to God’s nature could be commended / morally permissible. Thus, when I read multiple blanket statements in God’s Word condemning a sin (e.g. Lev. 19:11; Prov. 12:22; Matt. 5:37; John 8:44; Eph. 4:25), I find it contradictory for God to make an exception, even if such sin was perhaps performed “with right intent.” I might also mention that God says not to be overcome by evil, but rather to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). I think I am safe in assuming that this maxim carries forward regarding lying or any other such sin I may be tempted to perform “for the greater good.”
Certainly God does pass over the sins previously committed by one who is justified by faith in Christ (Romans 3:25-25), but I would think that God’s commendation of Rahab’s faith does not make sins for “unselfish purposes” morally permissible. Instead, it illustrates the immeasurable depth of God’s mercy toward sinners saved by grace alone.
*I find Dr. Brian Collins’ perspective in contrast to Newkirk’s thesis helpful regarding this (found here: https://exegesisandtheology.com/2021/12/28/ethics-books-read-in-2021/).
I think I Kings 22:19-23 has to be considered here as well. God clearly uses lies (I didn’t say He tells them, He cannot lie, but He does use them). And this was a case where there was no imminent “greater evil”, either. Obviously, God is God and we are not, but God does not sin, so the use of a lie is not necessarily a sin.
I believe that Psalm 18:26 is part of the answer. Those who are set on a twisted/perverse course such that it can be said that frowardness/twistedness is their very nature, God deals with them accordingly. It seems to me that if a lie is used solely to thwart evil, twisted people in their pursuit of evil, twisted actions, rather than to benefit the person who is using it, that it is not inconsistent with God’s character as revealed in Psalm 18:26 and is not sin.
I believe that explanation is consistent with the I Kings 22 example, as well. The prior chapter revealed just how evil and twisted Ahab’s rule had become, even after Mt. Carmel, and it needed to end.
I believe the “who benefits” questions you’ve asked are useful / important in helping evaluate whether it is indeed just to thwart twisted and evil acts, or whether it’s self-interested and thus becomes sin.
I agree that self-interest is a determining factor. In the examples I can think of in the Scriptures, the lie was against one’s self-interest.
I just read the Hebrew mid-wives passage again this morning. It is quite clear that the Lord rewarded them directly for their deception:
Notice the “therefore”
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I might share this article I recently read on 1 Kings 22 by Dr. Brian Collins, reviewing an essay by PJ Williams (https://exegesisandtheology.com/2024/01/13/p-j-williams-lying-spirits-sent-by-god-the-case-of-micaiahs-prophecy/). I find it a compelling argument that Micaiah’s God-directed “lie” was not intended to deceive Ahab but was intended to illustrate God in His Truth.
Thanks for the links Evan. I will check them out. Brian is a friend, and his blog is in my feedreader… but I don’t see all of them!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3