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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

1. 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. [↩]
2. David M. Howard, Joshua, The New American Commentary 5 (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 108. [↩]