Components of Law

[Guest]

Hello, Paidion,

Thank you for your posting.

How do you define "lie"? Is it simply making a statement which is false? Or is deceit the essense of lying? I think the latter!

I might make a statement which is literally true, while saying it in such a tone of voice as to deceive a person. ...

If I make a false statement unintentionally, believing it to be true, I am not lying. For I am not deceiving anyone. So the essence of lying, appears to be deceit.

Unintentional falsehood is not lying (but it is still falsehood). Deceit is intentional falsity, even if accomplished with truths. Of course, communication is more than mere words, so if tone is false, then a statement is false.

What Menno said was literally true, but yet he lied in that he deceived the soldier into thinking that Menno Simons was not on the coach.

Menno should have done better.

But even cases of lying in which the words are false are upheld in Scripture. Rahab the Harlot lied to those who wished to kill the Hebrew spies, by saying they had been at her place, but that they had already left, when, in fact, she was hiding them.

The New Testament writer to the Hebrews includes her in the role of the heroes of faith in chapter 11.

By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies

This "friendly welcome" included lying to those seeking the lives of the spies, and thus saving them from death.

Giving "friendly welcome," though, as an expression of Rahab's faith, does not necessarily equate to approval of her every specific action in responding out of faith.

Both Rahab and Menno had other options, and could have trusted in the providence of the God of truth, without embracing falsity. But God is merciful toward the weakness of people who may turn to him.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Thank you for your response.

Please consider this scenario and give your assassment of what a righteous person should do:

Suppose you know of a family with a violent husband, known for abusing his family. One night you hear a knock at your door and opening it you find the the mother, beaten and bloody, pleading for shelter, with two small children. You escort them in and take them to a back room to attend to her wounds. She informs you her husband is threatening to kill them all. Then a knock at the door. You open it to find an angry husband and notice a gun protruding from the waist of his pants! He angrily demands to know if you have seen his wife and kids. Any hesitation may give them away.

(1) Why did the righteous person open the door?
(2) Why did the righteous person not call the police?
(3) Why had the righteous person not taken action before this time to prevent this scenario, if the husband was "known for abusing his family"?

A righteous person, mature in the wisdom of God and in intimate communion with his heart, might never have made the missteps to wind up in your situation.

But as it stands, the righteous person could:
(1) trust in God and be sensitive to his imminent leading;
(2) withhold from answering the question;
(3) seek to talk the husband down from his emotional state;
(4) insist that the husband leave the premises; and/or
(5) if utterly necessary, resist the husband through force.

I should hope that you did not feel deceit was the only option for this problem. I should hope that it was not the first option to enter your mind.

The law of love for your neighbor trumps the law of truth telling in this case. No exception is made to the norm of truth telling: it is not made void but there is an exemption in order to fulfill the higer obligation to save the lives of the mother and children.

It is not necessary to place the two into opposition or contest. Both may be fulfilled.

And what would you say in a case where a parents demand that their children (say, teenagers) live as athiests. Do they love God or honor their parents?

Another false controversy. The children are to both love God and honor their parents. Honor does not require utter obedience. The children should seek to honor their parents for those aspects in which they are honorable. And, they should seek to live out their love for God in a way that preserves the emotional and psychological integrity of their having respect for their parents, along with serious consideration for their parents' thoughts and feelings.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Brody,

Thank you for your reply.

Does this God have a name and a revealed will/plan that is written down? Believe me, I am not being sarcastic in the statement that follows, but it sounds to me like you are "shooting from the hip" or in other words, you are making this stuff up as you go.

I imagine that my response was too vague to satisfy you, but it was important to me to respond in a holistic way. I believe that God has sought relationship with human beings in many places and times. Although you might link a satisfactory relationship to a particular name and/or a written design, the mere fact that most human beings appear to have had no acquaintance with the one(s) you prefer suggests that God is not so fundamentally wedded to those forms. Either that, or he is content to let many millions of people expire without their benefit.

I believe that God requires both much less and much more of people than engagement of a name and a written design.

Also, what does a man have to do to be just in the sight of God?

How is this question different from your previous one?


Shalom,
Emmet