*This blog will be slightly longer than most due to the nature of the question
In a fallen and sinful world, there are times where we are confronted with conflicting ethical obligations. There can even be times where it seems as if we are stuck between two sinful choices.
Scripture bears witness to many examples of this. In Acts 5, Peter and the other apostles were put in a situation in which the civil authorities commanded the men to stop preaching. Both Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 teach that Christians are to be subject to the civil magistrates. Yet, on this occasion the apostles ignored the civil magistrates and proceeded to preach in the temple. They were then detained and brought before the Jewish council. When the high priest condemned them, Peter and the apostles declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This response outlines a fundamental principle for us for when we are put in a conflicting situation. When the law of God conflicts with the law of men, human laws must yield to the higher authority of God.
But not every situation is as clear as the situation with Peter and the apostles. What if we are put into a situation where someone’s life is at stake if we tell the truth? In other words, what if we have to choose between two moral absolutes, namely the 6th commandment and the 9th commandment?
Such was the case for Corrie Ten Boom as she hid Jews in her home during WWII. This was also the case with the Hebrew midwives (Ex: 1:15-20) and Rahab and the Hebrew spies (Josh. 2:1-14). Our present question is this: Are we permitted to lie if someone’s life hangs in the balances? To answer that, we first need to look at the 9th commandment.
9th Commandment
The 9th commandment states, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Ex. 20:16). Each commandment is written to encompass a whole category of sins. Though one particular sin is mentioned (the most extreme), all sin that leads up to the one stated is also forbidden. Jesus taught this in the sermon on the mount when he says that one who lusts after a woman is guilty of adultery. In Hosea 4:2, the prophet helps us to see how this is connected to the 9th commandment. Hosea teaches us that any form of lying is forbidden by the 9th commandment.
We must also understand that each commandment that is written as “thou shalt not” also implies a positive action – “Thou shalt” do something. If the 9th commandment forbids us from lying, then the duty required for this commandment is to protect the sanctity of truth.
Truth is one of the essential attributes of who God is. Therefore, a lie is in direct opposition to the very nature of God. The commandments are a transcript of God’s moral perfection. The 9th commandment calls us to be truthful and to reflect the one true God whom we serve.
What is a lie?
Now, we need to define what a lie is. The most exaggerated offense of the 9th commandment occurs when someone “bears false witness against their neighbor.” The command does not say, “Always tell the truth” and it does not say, “Never say anything that is untrue.” Instead, the 9th commandment prohibits lying with either the intent of personal benefit or with the intent to harm others. It means to tell a non-truth with a malicious intent. This is important.
John Frame writes that the sin of the 9th commandment “is that of distorting the facts in such a way as to harm one’s neighbor” (Doctrine of the Christian Life 830-834). Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge adds that with a lie, “there must be an intention to deceive when we are expected to speak the truth” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, 443).
In many ways, the ninth commandment is directed as much towards caring for one’s neighbor as it is towards the problem of truth verses lying. To summarize, we violate the ninth commandment and lie when we use a non-truth with the intent to glorify ourself or to harm our neighbor.
Categories of Non-truth
Most theologians distinguish between three categories of non-truth. First, they speak of the malicious lie. These are lies that are told with the intent to harm. These types of lies can include slander, gossip, twisting someone’s words, lying in court, etc. These types of lies are clearly forbidden by the 9th commandment.
The category of non-truth is what is called a jocular non-truth. Martin Luther calls these “humorous” lies. This type of non-truth telling occurs when we stretch the truth to amuse our friends. We do this when we tell a tall tale, tell a joke that is untrue, or speak in jest. Since this type of non-truth is done in a joking manner, as long as the intent is humor and not with the intent to harm, there is no sin involved in this. There is no intent to harm one’s neighbor.
The third category of non-truth has been called the “lie of necessity” or helpful lie. These are lies that are intentionally told but with the intent to help one’s neighbor. This is the kind of lie that occurred during WWII with Corrie Ten Boom or with Rahab the harlot and the spies. If they told the truth then lives would have been lost (unless God intervened).
How should we think about the “lie of necessity?”
Thinking Through Lies of Necessity
Admittedly, there are many Christians on both sides of the fence with this particular issue. Augustine rejected lies of necessity. Augustine’s solution to this problem is to be silent. Since we must always tell the truth (9th Commandment) and since we should always look out for the good of our neighbor (the second great command), Augustine thinks that we avoid both by “being silent.”
This sounds good in theory, but sometimes silence speaks louder than words. By answering, “I’m not telling” or by saying nothing at all, you can figure on your house being searched with double thoroughness since you are apparently hiding someone.
On the other side of the fence is Martin Luther. In reference to Rahab’s lie, Martin Luther once said, “Therefore, it is improperly called a lie. It is rather a virtue and remarkable prudence by which the fury of Satan is hindered, and the honor, life, and interests of others are served well.”
So, you can see that even amongst two of the great thinkers of Christian history, the issue is divided.
My Thoughts
I will now offer my thoughts, but wish to encourage you to be a Berean and “search the Scriptures to prove whether these things are so” (Acts. 17:11).
1st Principle
I do believe that in each and every ethical situation that we find ourselves in, no matter how extreme, there is a course of action that is morally right and free from sin. The promise of Scripture is that “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13). I also believe that Jesus Christ was made in every way as we were, yet without sin. I believe that this demonstrates that there is always an action that is morally right and free from sin.
2nd Principle
I believe that Scripture provides other “borderline” examples involving other commandments that help us to think about this situation. David violated the law when he ate the consecrated bread given to him by the priest Abimelech (Lev. 24:9, 1 Sam. 21:3-6). Murder is forbidden in the sixth commandment, and yet the Israelite was free from bloodguilt if he caught an intruder and fatally wounds him (Ex.22:2). The eighth commandment forbids stealing, yet God permitted the Israelites to rob the Egyptians just before the Exodus (Ex. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35-36). The fourth commandment commands rest and worship on the Sabbath day, yet the priest in the temple would work every Sabbath.
In Matt. 12:5, when Jesus speaks of this, he lays down a principle that I believe is applicable to our topic. He says, “Have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?” In each of these examples, the principle holds true: There are situations in which a law is broken, but without guilt.
Final Conclusion
I believe that the “lie of necessity” may be used only in dire circumstances. Circumstances in which the great majority of us will never face. I believe that when there is a situation in which our neighbor’s life is at stake, there will be no blood-guilt on the one who misdirects authorities.
Using the definition of a lie above by Hodge and Frame, I also don’t believe this is technically a lie. Hodge defined a lie as “the intention to deceive when we are expected to tell the truth.” If soldiers showed up to Corrie Ten Boom’s house looking for Jews, many Christian ethicists would say that the law of self-disclosure applies. In other words, the soldiers have no lawful right to that information, therefore she was not legally bound to disclose the information that she was asked.
Since Ten Boom was loving her neighbor, and since the soldiers had no right to the information that they were asking, I do not believe that she told a lie, and I believe that she was guiltless in the situation.
Comments