Higher and Lower Laws - Part 2
Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 19 viewsNotes
Transcript
D) Lying
D) Lying
22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal faithfully are His delight.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.
Question: Is it ever right to tell a lie?
Question: Is it ever right to tell a lie?
6 Ethical views on lying (from Norman L. Geisler’s book Christian Ethics)
1. Lying is neither right nor wrong: there are no laws.
Antinomianism (doctrine according to which Christians are freed by grace from the necessity of obeying the Mosaic Law) asserts that lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. It affirms that there are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds. We are literally without a moral law to decide the issue.
2. Lying is generally wrong: there are no universal laws.
Generalism (there are universal and general norm) claims that lying is generally wrong. As a rule, lying is wrong, but in specific cases this general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are good, then the lie is right. Most generalists believe that lying to save a life is right because in this case the end justifies the means necessary to attain it. However, lying in general is wrong. But “if lying in a situation would be more useful or helpful, then one ought to lie.”
3. Lying is sometimes right: there is only one universal law.
Situationism (there is only one moral absolute, love) claims that there is only one absolute moral law, and telling the truth is not it. Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving thing to do. Hence, lying is sometimes right indeed, any moral rule except love can and should be broken for love's sake. Everything else is relative; only one thing is absolute. Thus the situationist believes that lying to save lives is morally justified.
4. Lying is always wrong: there are many nonconflicting laws.
Unqualified absolutism (there are many absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken, that they are never in conflict with one another, and that, should they ever appear to be in conflict, it is only because the one perceiving the supposed conflict is confused or misinformed of the situation.) believes that Truth is such a law. Therefore, one must always tell the truth, even if someone dies as a result of it. Truth is absolute, and absolutes cannot be broken. Therefore, there are no exceptions to telling the truth. Results are never used as a rationale to break rules, even if the results are desirable.
5. Lying is forgivable: there are many conflicting laws.
Conflicting absolutism (greater good position - moral dilemmas are unavoidable but we are responsible for breaking a lower law to do a higher law) recognizes that we live in an evil world, where absolute moral laws sometimes run into inevitable conflict. In such cases it is our moral duty to do the lesser evil. We must break the lesser law and plead mercy. For instance, we should lie to save the life and then ask for forgiveness for breaking God's absolute moral law. Our moral dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable, but we are culpable anyway. God cannot change his absolute moral prescriptions because of our moral predicaments.
6. Lying is sometimes right: there are higher laws.
Graded absolutism (also the greater good position - though in this view God does’t hold us responsible for breaking the lower law to do a higher law) holds that there are many moral absolutes, and they sometimes conflict. However, some laws are higher than others, so when there is an unavoidable conflict, it is our duty to follow the higher moral law. God does not blame us for what we could not avoid. Thus he exempts us from responsibility to follow the lower law in view of the overriding obligation to obey the higher law. Many graded absolutists believe that mercy to the innocent is a greater moral duty than telling truth to the guilty. Hence, they are convinced that it is right in such cases to lie in order to save a life.
Rahab - the prostitute
Rahab - the prostitute
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Rahab actions, “works” revealed her genuine and real faith.
31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
Geisler sights this story as a case that in lying Rahab broke a lower law to fulfill a higher law.
Joshua 2:1–7(NASB95)
1 Then Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim, saying, “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.” So they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there. 2 It was told the king of Jericho, saying, “Behold, men from the sons of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land.” 3 And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.” 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 “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.” 6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
17 “The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the Lord; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.
Wayne Grudem says, “it is sufficient to note that it is doubtful whether Scripture holds up Rahab's lie as an example for believers to imitate ? This is because the context shows clearly that she was hardly an example of moral excellence, for she was a Canaanite prostitute (Josh. 2:1), and she had no previous acquaintance with the moral standards that God had given to Israel. While her faith and her courage were remarkable (and the New Testament affirms her for these things later passages of Scripture conspicuously avoid mentioning her lie.”
Wayne’s observation here should not be understated. Rahab had not relationship with God’s standards?
Questions:
Was Rehab not personally held responsible for her lie because she did not know the standards of God?
Are we as believer who have a relationship with God Law (Word) held to a different (or greater standard) than Rahab?
Was God commending Rahab courages faith and not the lie?
In this example can you separate Rahab’s faith from Rahab’s lie?
“As to the falsehood, we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God. Therefore, although our purpose be to assist our brethren …it can never be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth.” John Calvin
“But the fact that she lied is not wisely proposed for imitation, even if something prophetic is thus intelligently exposed for interpretation, and even though God was mindful to reward those good deeds of hers and clement in pardoning this bad one.” St. Augustine
Pastor D’s thoughts: The beautiful of this story is God did not mention the lie in the New Testament, but the beautiful of her courage. He does not hold up her fault to be framed forever, but her faith.
Hebrew Midwives in Egypt
Hebrew Midwives in Egypt
Norman Geisler says, “In the story of the Hebrew midwives we have an even clearer case of divinely approved lying to save a life.”
15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; 16 and he said, “When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.” 20 So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. 21 Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them. 22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you are to cast into the Nile, and every daughter you are to keep alive.”
Question:
Did the Hebrew Midwives actually lie?
Wayne Grudem says, “the text does not establish that the midwives were actually lying. What is clear is that Pharaoh had commanded the midwives to kill all male Hebrew babies that were born, "but the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (V. 17). When challenged by Pharaoh, the midwives told him that the Hebrew women "give birth before the midwife comes to them' (Ex. 1:19), and there is no reason to doubt that this was true. In fact, it is entirely reasonable to think that when Pharaoh's plan became known to the Hebrew people, they delayed calling the midwives until after a child's birth, perhaps using other midwives or assisting one another in the birth process. God gave favor to the midwives for preserving the children's lives, but there is no proof that they lied in what they said to Pharaoh.
Another question:
If the midwives would have intended in their hearts to kill Egyptian babies if they would have arrived in time, do you think that God still would have been good to the midwives?
Pastor D’s thought:
“The midwives feared God” to me this points to the fact that the midwives did more than just miss the birth of Egyptian children. They seemed to valued life. I believe this distinction should not be understated. In doing so we minimizes the courage of these women who intentionally “did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live.”