“Jonathan asked his father, ‘Why should he be killed? What has he done?’ Saul raised his spear to strike him. Then Jonathan knew his father was determined to kill David… David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob. Ahimelech was trembling as he went to meet David. ‘Why are you alone?’ he asked David. ‘Why is no one with you?’ ‘The king ordered me to do something, ‘David answered the priest Ahimelech, ‘and he told me, ‘No one must know anything about this mission I’m sending you on and about the orders I’ve given you. I’ve stationed my young men at a certain place.’ David added, ‘Now, what do you have to eat? Give me five loaves of bread or whatever you can find’” (1 Sam. 20: ; 21:1-3; GW).1
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deut. 5:20; NASB).
Preface:
I add this preface for the readers of my blog. What follows is the manuscript of the final message I delivered to The Narrow Way Church in Southeastern Ohio (8/25/24). These sermons were polemical in nature, centered on a question raised in the study of Exodus 1:15-21 (a book that I have been working through as an expositor over the last several months). What’s missing is the dialogue that was shared during and after the messages were preached.
I have covered as much as I deemed necessary to offer my case as clearly as possible. I am sure that disagreements still exist. All that I ask—it is the same that I request of my congregation—is that we readily acknowledge our personal traditions and weigh them in light of what the Bible presents. My use of the Sabbath Law (4th commandment) as a point of reference for circumstantial allowances by God has correlated value to what I believe the Bible teaches as 9th commandment exceptions. My argument against using Romans 3:7-8 as a prohibition against all cases of deception—specifically, deception against an enemy that has violated the love principle which defines the Law-Word of God—is provided in a manner that some might find too short and choppy, but I believe sufficient enough to prove the case. Enjoy…
INTRODUCTION:
Over the last few weeks we have been looking at an ethical dilemma reported on in Scripture. The topic in question deals with deception, misleading, and or lying. Is it ever permissible for the Christian man or woman—the God-fearer—to fabricate a story in order to trick another? The knee jerk reaction is to say, “No. Can’t do it. Not ever. It’s just wrong and we all know that two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Can I tell you that when it comes to such simple computations of logic I agree? Just as 2 + 2 = 4 in God’s universe, so too do two wrongs never make a right. “But wait a minute,” you say. “Aren’t you the one who has been persuasively arguing here recently that there may be an occasion where lying (deception) is justified; the right thing to do?” you opine with an air of authority.
It is true that I have been declaring that I believe in some very limited circumstances the issue of lying (deception) is not as cut and dry as so many Christians want to believe. Please note the qualification of “very limited circumstances” as the grounds for my argumentation. I have never said that lying is justified in all cases. I have said that our understanding of the Law-Word of God is truncated. I have claimed that we spend too little time in the sections of the book (Holy Bible) that deal with these issues in detail, and yet we are quick to come to dogmatic conclusions when such issues arise. Case in point, the 9th commandment is not worded in the typical fashion that many Christians will recite it. The law is very specific, and the case laws in the Older Testament help carve out a clearer understanding of how and where this law applies. Moreover, we are faced with not a few passages of biblical revelation that shed further light on the issue at hand.
The Law as a teacher…
I think it is important to remember that Paul stated rather boldly that apart from God’s Law he wouldn’t have known what coveting was, let alone that it was wrong before God, thus needing repented of (cf. Rom. 7:7-8). In fact, it was the knowledge of God’s Law-Word that made it possible for the same apostle to positively argue that a pastor is worthy of his wages (as are all laborers), and this from an animal husbandry law:
“For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.’ God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it is written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, it is too much if we reap material things from you?” (1 Cor. 9:9-11; NASB; cf. Deut. 25:4).
Goodness of the Law missed by some…
He also taught that
“...some men, straying from these things [cf. v. 5], have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully...” (1 Tim. 1.6-8a).2
And the only way to make sure that one is using the Law-Word of God correctly is through careful study and attention. Allowing the Lord to speak in the manner that He has chosen, and not to limit His revelation in anyway that He did not intend (e.g., Deut. 4:12; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18).
Calling to memory…
A few weeks back I spoke on what was lawful versus unlawful, what is sin versus not sin (see recent post: Sin and Lawlessness: Biblical Insights and Examples). I did this because of our tendency to call something a sin, which God does not in fact condemn; and, to justify an action, which God does not in fact endorse. Our objective in such matters is to see what God has said, not what we think or might lean towards personally.
The religious leaders in Israel were highlighted in the gospel accounts for such struggles. The Living Word made flesh stood in their midst, and they could not help but seek to condemn Him on grounds that God’s Word does not articulate, and at the same time, offer justifications for their own behavior which demonstrated unfaithfulness on their part (cf. Rom. 3:7).
Reference to Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5…
Jesus’ disciples were condemned for eating grain on the sabbath, because picking from their neighbors field had been deemed work by the religious scholars of the period. Another time they were accused of not washing their hands before eating (cf. Matt. 15:2). The concern was in terms of holiness/baptism—separation from sin—not hygiene (e.g., Exod. 30:19-21; Lev. 15:11; Deut. 21:6).
In both instances (Matt. 12:1-8 & 15:1-11), they went too far with the Law of God revealed in Scripture. However, such laws were meant to highlight—among other things—the sacred nature of worshiping/living for God. But, as Jesus pointed out it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, rather it is what comes out of a man that defiles him (Matt. 15:11). Yet, those who opposed Him were convinced that what they were teaching was the correct interpretation of the Law-Word of God. They were wrong. Just as they were wrong about the intent of the Sabbath.
It is true that God declared a cease and desist order on the Sabbath from all labor for everyone; whether they be animal or man, male or female, free or slave, citizen or foreigner (Exod. 20:8-10). Six days were for work, the seventh for rest. The true intent of the Sabbath, as Jesus noted, was created for mankind (a blessing), not the other way around (a curse):
“The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27; NHEB)
“the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8; NASB).
Now this latter phrase has a specific application towards Christ Jesus who was always working as His Father in heaven was always working (John 5:17), but it applies generally to all the sons of Man. (Here I refer to the sons of Man found in the 2nd Man, Christ; cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). If the Sabbath was in fact made for mankind (i.e., the sons of God) and not the other way around, then mankind has a right to rule righteously on that day for the glory of God.
Sabbath qualifications…
In fact, Jesus lays out for the religious teachers in His day a few qualifications where the Sabbath was allowed to be set aside (temporarily). Each and every one an expression of love for one’s neighbor; acts of goodness and kindness.
Jesus said to those who opposed Him and His disciples for supposed Sabbath violations:
“Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?” (Matt. 12:3-4).
-Here is the law to which Jesus is referring-
“Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the Lord continually; it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel. It shall be or Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him from the Lord’s offerings by fire, his portion forever” (Lev. 24:8-9; cf. Exod. 25:30; 1 Sam. 21:1-6).3
The Lord then highlights the continual sabbath violations that the priests are guilty of in doing their ministerial duties (Matt. 12:5) as noted in passages like Numbers 28:9-10. After this encounter, Jesus is faced with a few other supposed Sabbath violations that He answers His opponents with. Before healing a man’s hand in the synagogue the Lord highlights their own teaching on helping man or beast who has fallen into danger on the Sabbath in reference to this law:
“You shall not see your countryman’s donkey or his ox fallen down on the way, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly help him to raise them up” (Deut. 22:4; cf. Matt. 12: ; Luke 14:5).
In John’s Gospel, Jesus counters His critics with the truth that if a son is born and the eighth day is a Sabbath they still circumcise that child, violating one law in order to uphold the other; which is, the sign of the covenant (John 7:22-23; cf. Gen. 17:10). All of these instances offer to the reader of Scripture extenuating circumstances where the Law of the Sabbath (4th commandment) might be temporarily set aside. To what end? To this end:
“But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion4, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent” (Matt. 12:7).
Trying to Ascertain Jesus’ meaning…
There are several passages of Scripture that we could look at pertaining to various Laws and the exceptions that we find given in the Word of God. Not all killing is a violation of the 6th commandment, but only that which God prescribes as not worthy of blood-guilt may be used to demonstrate those exceptions. Marriage is a binding covenantal institution, and yet there are extenuating circumstances due to the hardness of men’s hearts that allow for the breaking of such bonds, allowing remarriage without fear of committing adultery (cf. 7th commandment; Exod. 20:14). Making a carved idol to look towards in hope is a violation of the 2nd commandment (Exod. 20:4-5); and yet, the children of Israel were commanded to look at the bronze serpent that Moses had made according to God’s directive (Numb. 21:9). Later that same bronze serpent was broken in two because it had been made an idol that “the sons of Israel burned incense to” (2 Kgs. 18:4).
The 4th commandment was just as serious as the other commandments of God, and it was to be honored in the same way. To violate it was to invite the death penalty. Something we are taught in Numbers 15:32-35 (cf. Numb. 15:30-31). And yet, it is obvious based upon the Word of God that not all violations of the Sabbath are condemned.
By offering various objections to the religious leaders of His day, Jesus is not minimizing the authority of the 4th commandment. He is not brushing it aside. But, He is challenging His hearers to think through the situation in light of all that God has said. We see no commendation of God for David’s actions in deceiving the high priest of his mission in order to get food to eat, and a weapon for protection in 1 Samuel 21. He was on the run for his life and the men who went with him, who stood by his side, their lives were likewise endangered. They were on the run and they had nothing to eat. They ate that which was unlawful for them to do. Yet, Jesus did not call it sin. Rather, He used it as an instance of disproving the stance of His enemies.
Read through the Older Testament laws regarding the Sabbath and see where it lays out for you exactly what you may and may not do on that day. There are restrictions for working. For example, the sons of Israel were not allowed to gather manna on that day, they were provided with the ability to gather extra the day before the Sabbath (Exod 16.5; cf. vv. 25-30). Nothing is said about why it was that the Levites were allowed to violate the Sabbath. Nothing was laid out that said you can’t work on the Sabbath except to help your neighbor with his farm animal. Nothing was said about giving medicine to a sick brother on the Sabbath. How do you suppose they knew what could and could not be done? Wisdom is having all of God’s Word at your disposal and studying it, so that, you keep from going to the right or the left (cf. Deut. 4:6).
As Greg Bahnsen states,
“God’s word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself reveals otherwise… [a little later he adds,] everything the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation has an ethical quality about it and carries ethical implications with it. There is no word from God which fails to tell us in some way what we are to believe about Him and what duty He requires of us…If we disregard any portion of the Bible we will—to that extent—fail to be thoroughly furnished for every good work. If we ignore certain requirements laid down by the Lord in the Bible our instruction in righteousness will be incomplete. Paul says that every single scripture is profitable for ethical living [cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17]; every verse give us direction for how we should live.”5
Dealing with Objections…
“But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still be judged as a sinner? And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come?’ Their condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:7-8).
What do we do with verses like this? Doesn’t this throw a terrible monkey wrench into what I have been arguing over the last few weeks? At first glance, I can see why a person might hesitate here. I can understand how one might think that this refutes all of what I’ve been saying.
A couple of things that we ought to attend to first. What is the role of interpretation when studying God’s Word? We are to observe the text before us. This means we pay close attention to the flow of thought (context), identifying key words and phrases along the way. After that we ask some questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How, etc.? And, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Flow of Thought…
The reason why we consider the context of a passage is because we are trying to avoid eisegesis (reading into the text). Considering the whole prohibits lifting a verse or treating a verse as if it is an island (aka., a pretext). So, what is Paul talking about in Romans 3:7-8?
If we read it in isolation from the rest of what he’s been saying, it appears that he is condemning the one who claims his “lying” has brought about “the truth of God” being glorified (Rom. 3:7). Immediately, this is answered by Paul saying, “And why not say… ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?” (Rom. 3:8).
Is this “lying” (ψεύσματι [pseusmati]) what we would consider a common slip of the lip? Not only is this the only time in the New Testament that we see this particular Greek word used, but its primary meaning is “falsehood.”
What is false about the Jew in question here (cf. Rom. 3:1)? Their fealty to God. Their commitment to the covenant that they were cut into (i.e., “What is the value or benefit of circumcision?” v. 1b; AMP). It is the falsehood of hypocrisy.6
The entire context of Romans 3:1-9 is centered around the Jew who claims a special status with God. The initial thrust of this argument is seen in verse 1 where Paul asks, “Then what advantage remains to the Jew?” (Rom. 3:1a). This opening question is in light of what Paul concluded at the end of Romans 2:29 that a true “Jew…is one inwardly, and [true] circumcision is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal [matter]. His praise is not from men but from God.”
If their commendation comes from being spiritual, then what is their value as a physical Jew; the covenant people of God through Abraham? To this Paul says, “Much in every way” (Rom. 3:2a). For starters, “…the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom. 3:2b; NIV). To be sure, this is no small thing. The Jewish nation was given the oracles of God and were thus in a better place than the rest of the world. They had the Law and the Prophets to guide them towards their Creator and Redeemer.
However, not all were faithful to the covenant that they were grafted into. This is why Paul entertains various rhetorical questions in anticipation of his audience. Remember that the Roman epistle was written to a Jewish and Gentile audience.
“What if some did not believe and were without faith? Does their lack of faith and their faithlessness nullify and make ineffective and void the faithfulness oof God and His fidelity [to His Word]?” (Rom. 3:3; AMP).
Paul answers with an exclamatory “By no means!” (Rom 3:4a). In other words, “Are you crazy!” “May it never be!” “Do not even begin to think such a thing!” No, just because some Jews were unfaithful to the Lord and His Word that He gave them, this does not mean that He is at fault, that He or His Word has failed (cf. Isa. 55:11). Rather, the opposite is the case:
“Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge’” (Rom. 3:4b; NIV).
This raises the question of whether or not God is in fact just in the mind of the unbelieving Jew.
“But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)” (Rom. 3:5).
The arguer is making the claim that even in their unfaithfulness (i.e., hypocrisy) God is being glorified. His righteousness shines all the brighter, so then, why are they being judged? Doesn’t that insinuate that God is really unjust? As Paul notes, such thinking is absurd. Eventually, such thinking leads to the axiom that they—the apostles—were accused of, because they taught the free grace of God in Christ Jesus (the gospel) to the surrounding world, “And why should we not do evil that good may come?” (Rom 3:8; AMP).
The lie that Paul refers to in Romans 3:7 is not a spoken falsehood, but a falsehood that is lived out.7 They are claiming to be Jews (i.e., worshipers of God), but they have denied what God has taught in His Word. They have given little thought to the covenant that they were grafted into via circumcision, and the namesake that they bore. Their falsehood was that they were guilty of taking the Lord’s Name in vain. They were unfaithful and unrighteous, because they sought a righteousness that did not come from God but from their own efforts (Rom 10:3). They wanted to be vindicated. They looked for every reason to justify themselves. But, in the end they were lying to themselves; their hope was built on shoddy ground.
Flattening it all out…
Is all deception to be avoided? That’s really the key question to be answered. Obviously, we don’t want to be aligned with the great deceiver, the Devil (cf. Rev. 12:9). The one whose namesake means “adversary” of the brethren (i.e., Satan, cf. Job 1:6; 6:23). What we desire as God’s people is to be faithful to God. We bear His namesake, and thus we want to represent Him well. The best way to do this is to live in accordance with His Law-Word.
I think one of our key struggles in understanding how to be covenantally faithful is tied our inability at times to separate categories of thought. The pacifist knows in his or her heart that violence is something that ought to be avoided. But what the pacifist fails to recognize is that there are times when violence is not only unavoidable, but warranted. Meaning, there is a time when warring with another is justified; a just, and therefore, righteous act. I noted last week, that when we take to heart the commandment to “love our neighbor as ourself; which, includes even our enemies” there are certain situations when this truth has been or ought to be set aside. Jesus taught we are to be sowers of the Word of God, and at the same time warned not to throw pearls at swine. We are to be declare peace, but also dust off our feet in judgment against those who are hardhearted and refuse to listen. We are to obey all authorities over us for there is no authority that is not ordained by God, and yet, we are to know when obeying God over mankind—regardless of the office they hold—is preferable.
Is all deception wrong? Is lying always something to be avoided? Does God ever bless such activity? Is it true that every good gift comes from God, the giver of all perfect gifts, even to those who do not know Him when He sends the rain?
Not just bits and pieces…
The entire Bible is our yardstick, not just bits and pieces of it. There are numerous places where God has blessed the deception of His people in thwarting enemies of the truth. The devil seeks to use the Law-Word of God in an unlawful fashion in order to bind the hearts of Christian men and women who seek to honor God with their whole heart and love their neighbor as themselves. If all forms of deception are invalid, then the logical conclusion is that we shouldn’t be smuggling Bibles into areas of the world where they are forbidden. When missionaries are caught in those situations, they ought to give up those who they’ve witnessed to, preached to, and taught because the question is being asked of them by those in the seat of authority that God has ordained. Which is the greater evil in those cases? Is it evil for Christians to sneak through the obstacles that wicked men use to ensnare them? I mentioned falsifying vaccine passports, would it have been wrong for Christians to do that to buy and sell and to take care of the necessities of life?
Would it be better if such things arise again that we condemn not only ourselves but others in the process of avoiding lying to our enemies? Better that than be guilty of what Paul says in Romans 3:8,
“Let us do evil that good may come” (NASB).
Is that what I am saying? No, I don’t believe it is. You have to assume that what Rahab, Jael, Ehud, the Hebrew midwives, Abraham, Jacob, David, and even the Lord of Hosts has done according to Holy Writ is wrong. I don’t buy that. The reason why I have spent such a lengthy amount of time on this subject is because of what is coming down the pike in our country. For far too long we have been on the other end of things, soon we are—if things do not radically change—going to be in a similar situation as those in China, Iraq, parts of Africa, etc. are in. If you do not learn to camouflage your activities before your enemies, you will fail in protecting not only the life that was entrusted to you, but perhaps others under your care.
What of persecution? When the time comes to stand for the Lord you will know it. But it is not for you to decide the fate of others because of a sanctimonious spirit. You are charged with guarding life, not giving it up. You may not like the ethical dilemma that you might face, but it won’t change reality. I think I’ve said enough, let us pray.
ENDNOTES:
1All Scripture references are noted throughout the document. This particular English translation is God’s Word (GW). I cite this passage for a variety of reasons, some of which are explained in the article below. I find it interesting that a commentator would pit the death of Ahimelech and the 84 other priests who served that day David and his men arrived seeking aid on David himself. The blame is said to be his because he “lied” to the priest of the Lord (e.g., Treasure of Scripture Knowledge); not Saul who was at that time acting as an enemy of the Lord, and in fact gave the order? Do we read so little of God’s Word that we miss—because of our traditions—that Ahimelech first sought out the Lord’s will in the matter before giving said aid to David? See: 1 Samuel 22:10, 13, 15.
2H. B. Clark writes, “But [Paul] also saw that the law, however good of itself, might be misused, remarking that ‘the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.’ And while the meaning of the word ‘use’ is not altogether clear, it is plain that the law should never be permitted to become an instrument of tyranny or ‘a weapon of offense by law-breakers.’” H. B. Clark, Biblical Law: A Text of the Statutes, Ordinances, and Judgments of the Bible, Facsimile Reprint 1944 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2010), 68, PDF E-book.
3The reader ought to note that David fabricated a tale in order to protect him and his men from death (by giving false details of the reason he was where he was and what he was doing), for at this time Saul, the king, was seeking the life of young David (1 Sam. 20:33; 21:1-2). Was what David did wrong or was this deception necessary in order to preserve the life of himself and his men? Was it a violation of the 9th commandment, or an act of wisdom given the circumstances? The Lord cites this incident without a comment on this verbal action, but what the Lord does refer to shows that the Law of God has, at certain times in extreme situations, an application that goes beyond the norm. In such instances, I would tread with caution and let the Lord judge the utility of my actions before I would allow a man—who acts like Job’s friends (good theology/bad application)—be the determiner of the proper course of action.
4The Hebrew term is “chesed” and it refers to “goodness and kindness” and is often translated as compassion, mercy, loyalty, steadfastness, etc. The concept from Hosea 6:6 from which Jesus cites seems to be that there are weightier elements to the law that the Jews had not considered. The Law of God is not meant to be a shackle worn around the neck of the covenant-keeper, weighing them down with obligations too heavy to carry. Nor, is the Law something that can be easily dismissed because of the wanton nature of man’s will and propensity towards sinning. What is important about the Law is that it reminds us of our duty to God and our fellow man. Christ’s examples spoken to the religious leaders, taken from His Law-Word, are exceptions to the typical enforcement of the Law of God; lawful exceptions based on certain mitigating circumstances. It is important to note that the author is not advocating for this in a manner that is foreign to what we’ve been provided in holy writ; human subjectivity that seeks justifications outside what God has revealed does not fall within the parameters outline here.
5Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), 3, 23, 24, PDF E-book. Emphasis mine.
6“The expression [cf. Rom. 3:7] carries us back to ver. 4, and is general for moral falsehood, unfaithfulness to the claims of conscience and of God, especially with reference to the proffer of salvation through Christ.” Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III: The Epistles of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.) 84. ISBN 0-917006-30-5.
7John Calvin offers some helpful commentary on this verse: “The meaning of the objection is—‘If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory rebounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display God’s glory, should be punished as a sinner.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Epistle to the Romans, vv. Romans 3:7.
Kristafal's Musings 