1) Rahab didn't give false testimony against her neighbor (even in th broadest context of neighbor) as you point out.
2) Rahab wasn't a Jew as wasn't under the law.

However, going further:

She was saved by faith (like everybody else). She placed her life in jeopardy by believing God would deliver the land into the hands of the Jews and acting on that belief.

There is no controversy there under Biblical law, or a correct understanding of it anyway; for a moralist though it is a contradiction because they are their own yardstick.

As a general rule, though, a lying tongue is not good and it's not as easy as some may wish to portray, as we are often subject to circumstance we can't control, to know the difference between lying and justified deception. The latter, as in the example of Rahab, is an element of refusing to become an accomplice, she was justified in that deception because she made a decision to defect. She was still condemned under her political order, though.

Lying overall is condemned in Scripture, though, especially slander and libel because it is a form of theft that has lasting damage and often takes on a life of its own. When a man's reputation is marred through slander it can live a long time and have disastrous consequences.

There is also an aspect, and this is very important in respect to many Christians who are moralists, is that the "truth" of facts itself can be slanderous and be a lie if it i used in a way to give a partial or distorted picture. We call them "half-truths," but a moralist will often resort to them absolving himself of the sin of a lie when his hearts intentions and the actions he carries out are of the most vicious and harmful kind.

Because lying can be so very sophisticated it is dangerous to read the Scripture through a moralists lens, as that lens will work a lie with Revealed Truth itself and a man will deceive and lie to himself, a very dangerous place to be.

I'd say that's very correct. The examples of the Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, are another example. They refused to carry out Pharaoh's order to kill the male Hebrew newborns and, when confronted about it, they gave a false reason––they lied. But, as in the example of Rahab, they did so in order to avoid cooperating with evil. When we lie for other reasons, that is generally a bad thing, and that includes the other examples you gave. When we tell half-truths or when we slander others, we are doing so either for self gain or in order to harm others, both of which are no-no's.

I guess one could draw a comparison between Al-taqiya and this idea, but I don't think it holds. If I understand Al-taqiya correctly (and I might not), it's fine to deceive anyone who is not of the faith pretty much for any reason. Christians are expected to deal honestly with all people except, if we are to use the previous examples as a guide, in the case that we are refusing to cooperate with evil. I'd also point out that neither Rahab nor the midwives practiced deception to help themselves––both did it in order to save others, and I'd imagine that they knew that the consequences of getting caught in that lie would no doubt be very dire. In other words, they risked themselves to save others. Deceiving another for any sort of personal gain, even lying to save one's own life, is not a good thing. Christ himself presents a fine example of that as he refuses to change his tune to get himself out of trouble with the Pharisees, Sanhedrin and Romans.

And that brings us to the threat of condemnation under a political order, which is pretty much irrelevant when one is a Christian whose ultimate goal is avoiding condemnation under God (at least, that should be the case). Here in the US, we've been lucky (so far) in that we don't have to worry about our religious beliefs, whatever they may be, being cause for condemnation by the government (I'm talking about condemnation under the law). In other places, people aren't so fortunate, but to a true Christian, condemnation by a political order is not something to be feared when it comes to practicing one's faith.



I think the circumstances dictate whether or not it's OK. In the Biblical examples we're given, lying in order to avoid harming another in cooperation with evil is fine, but lying under other circumstances is not OK. That's what I get out of it, anyway.

if you check the original argument, there is an implicit assumption that Rahab was a perfect person and a perfect instrument of God.

If you ever read Bible from beginning to end, one thing is clear: most of the folks who are mentioned in the Bible, from Old to New Testament, from David to Paul and others, are highly FLAWED, IMPERFECT being, even when following God's will.

It's human nature to stumble and falter, with or w/o God.

So whether the injunction not to lie is universal or not, the theory that Bible is full of contradiction because one lady mentioned in OT was imperfect because she lied really doesn't mean anything.

In the Bible, there are examples of folks who serve God and yet, is imperfect and commit sin, e.g., David/Bathsheba involved in adultery/murder, one of God's apostle suffering from sickness despite serving God(Paul, physical ailment in NT), folks defending God with all their heart and might, and dying/suffering in the process, etc.

Another common error is assuming that what is biblical or godly has to come from Christianity itself. For example, in OT/Exodus, Moses got very godly and sound advice from his father-in-law, a pagan priest.

It's basic human nature, whether you are Christian or not, to exploit and take advantage of other folks. If you read the beginning of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, you'll notice the same line of observation regarding highly flawed nature of basic human character.

Wow––lots of good stuff to chew on there!

I think that the first point that you made, that judging the appropriate course with respect to a hypothetical situation isn't the same as doing so with a real situation, is exactly why I don't like answering hypotheticals. On the other hand, that's one of the first things that I find people who want to argue with me do. They often come up with some supposed moral conundrum and then assert that Biblical principles are insufficient to lead to a proper, moral response.

Anyway, you are very correct about this antinomianism. In fact, it's for this reason that I don't think that the first post nails it in this thread. It is very disturbing to me to hear believers talk about how their actions don't particularly matter because they have faith. It strikes me as being very similar to Gnosticism, which advocated some pretty immoral behavior based on the grounds that flesh is corrupt and that special knowledge saves. Therefore, what we do with our flesh doesn't matter as long as we have that special knowledge. That seems like exactly what you said in terms of people having the idea that God's law has to do with eternity, but nothing to do with life here (if I understood you correctly).

I also find it disturbing that so many believers are willing to cast aside the Old Testament. Yes, Christ came to fulfill the law, and through his death and resurrection, we can obtain salvation through grace and no longer have to worry about what foods we can and cannot eat. Can we say that, if we are no longer governed by the law as set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we do not need to follow the Ten Commandments? Well, yes and no. Do I have to forgo BBQ? No I do not. Do I have to restrain myself from murdering? Yes I do. Jesus summed it up when he answered the Pharisees on this very issue. In response to their question about the greatest commandment, Christ gave two, that the greatest is to love God with all of one's being, and that the second is like it, to love one's neighbor as oneself. If one keeps these two guiding principles, one necessarily keeps the Ten Commandments (though I guess you could make an argument about Christians having to keep the Sabbath). By giving us an example of how we are to conduct ourselves in this world that we might live on in the next, Jesus gives us a more mature means of determining right and wrong. Instead of following a set of rules as a child might, we now have access to the guiding principles that underlie those rules. In other words, we can exercise judgement instead of carrying around a rulebook.

As to the idea of being a covenant keeper, you'll get no argument from me. That's something that I often stress––that as Christians, we are participants in what Christ himself called "the New Covenant". As usual, God has performed and kept his end of the deal, and now we Christians must keep our end of the deal, which means following the behavioral example of Jesus as closely as we are able, with the understanding that we cannot be perfect. When I mentioned lying to save ourselves or another, I meant from physical harm as with the examples of Rahab and the midwives. Certainly we could never save someone's soul as Christ did. Our behavior should be Christ-like, but our ability can never be Christ-like. I would also argue that there is no commandment against killing, that the commandment says that we shall not murder, which leaves open the possibility of killing in self defense or to protect another from harm. And the idea of WDGR is a good one, and since we're talking about the issue of killing not necessarily being a sin, I think that your point that we are almost always operating with limited information is a good one, so we'd better be darned sure before we squeeze that trigger. In fact, I'd say that dying to save another is far more Christian than killing to save another. Something else I'll have to chew on...

I guess we do see plenty of examples of government at various levels ruling that certain expressions of one's faith are illegal, and we hear about people being fired for violating corporate dress codes that ban the visible wearing of religious symbols. So far in my short life as a Christian, I haven't run into a situation in which I've had to choose between obeying God's command and secular law. As to cultural despising, I have to look no further than Arfcom to get a healthy dose of that. Certainly I can expect to be ridiculed and despised as a Christian––it goes with the territory and is symptomatic of a world that can't or won't see beyond itself. While I haven't seen any examples of it (yet?), I can certainly see the possibility of civil claim over the whole person coming into conflict over one surrendering his life to God. On first reading, I can see where you're going with the example of the SCOTUS ruling, but I'll have to chew on it to see if it really causes me to suffer legal persecution for being a Christian.

I'd say that the Romans 13 issue of submission to government is similar to the situation with Rahab. Yes, I am expected to submit to government. If government wants to kill me, am I to let them? Christ did, and all but two of the apostles did (if I have the count right). What if the Nazis want me to surrender Ann Frank? I'd answer that what Rahab did was right in the eyes of the Lord. As you pointed out at the beginning, it's all subjective and each decision needs to be taken on its own. This is exactly what I believe is meant by Jesus fulfilling the law and not destroying it. I do not have to rely on a set of written rules that govern all situations. Instead, I need to ask exactly what you did, what does God require of me in order that I might keep the New Covenant. Because Christ fulfilled the law, I now have access to the moral underpinnings of the law and can exercise my own judgement as to what I need to do in a given situation in order to be found just in the eyes of God.

When you say that my brothers and sisters will betray me, and when you say that many Christians hold this antinomianist outlook, I begin to question whether or not many who call themselves Christians are, in fact, Christians. If a Christian is someone who subscribes to and follows the teachings of Christ, I'd argue that those who say that they have been saved by faith only and can now do whatever they please are definitely not exhibiting a Christian attitude.

There's nothing wrong with discussions like that in and of themselves, but I think the agenda behind them is often rooted in a moralism.

I think the problem is rooted in the antinomianism prevalent in modern evangelical Christianity - and please understand and interpret me without reading condemnation in my statements, I am speaking broadly and with generalization. I do understand there as many different flavors of doctrinal emphasis and segregations as Baskins Robbins has ice cream - but in the United States there is also a commonality of theological world view that is heavily informed in dispensational theology as the predominant presuppositional schematic for exegesis. The result is that they understand God in terms of Grace as a personal God, but in terms of His Law as impersonal; expanded out into the dichotomy held between law and grace the Old Testament God is perceived as angry and judgmental and the New Testament God is loving and forgiving. The result is that a religious moralism then rules any discussion about the law with a strictness that doesn't properly comprehend the change in standing before the law once regenerated and often doesn't understand the exact same doctrines operating through the Levitical administration. Overall modern evangelical Christianity, at least in America, just doesn't teach covenant and a fully orbed theology, once a truncated theological perspective is accepted the truncated world view is presuppositional to the discussion.





Root presuppositions are the same, it manifests itself in a myriad of different ways. It's philosophically Greek to the core which is why is appears similar to Gnosticism to you, that can go diametrically the other direction though from the same presupposition and form an authoritarian legalism too, or hold both at the same time on different issues. Because Greek philosophy is dialectical it oscillates between two opposite principles and you see this everywhere in our society; law and grace are dialectical, nature and grace are dialectical, it affects every area of life especially politics.

There was a time in our country when the Gospel had great power, not so much today; from my perspective at least as much as I've been able to figure out a reasonable answer to the differences, is rooted in the shift in ethical axioms. Christianity is Trinitarian and as the other gentlemen noted, Calvinism formed the ethical foundation of our culture for a couple of centuries which was progressively undone through the three great waves of Unitarianism in the 19th century with the Civil War being the zenith shift to Greek presuppositions. In turn nominal Trinitarian Christianity which maintains portions of trinitarianism theologically is no longer trinitarian ethically, culturally and most certainly not politically. The result is that the Gospel has become as mysterious and foolish to modern Americans as it was to the Greeks in Pauls day.



I agree, try to discuss the three uses of the law, restraint upon sin, didactic and pedagogical functions and you'll end up in an argument over salvation, even if you agree at the start that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, there's a reason for that. Everything is interconnected, line upon line, precept upon precept and meaning has to establish continuity consistently.

The issue isn't a change in the law but its administration - it's still present and operative; through Christ we are dead to the law, and no longer "under law" in Paul's words, but this means it is no longer a penalty and condemnation, the death penalty has been fulfilled and lifted and the High Priest has made one sacrifice and entered the Holy of Holies for us. So the law of sin and death is unto the redeemed man the law of liberty, the man has changed and his standing before the law has changed now administered consistent with his standing through Christ's Melchizedekian Priesthood. That gets right back into the Trinitarianism of Christianity though because Scripture teaches that salvation is judicial and ethical. Because Christianity is now fuzzy on this it will assert Trinitarianism on its right hand and Unitarianism on its left trying to balance the two through philosophical dialecticalism and assert the Gospel as an executive act through Christ's office of King. Great confusion is the standard of the day.

This can get confusing because the terminology used is the same, its not until one understands the axioms and presuppositions that its laid upon until the differences in meaning are really comprehended. Scripture teaches plainly that justification is by grace alone through faith alone; Galatians is as plain as day, both parties will agree with what it says but the dialectical will turn around and assert that faith activates grace, it's a logical necessity from that presupposition. Since the "pardoning" language of Scripture is assigned forensically it requires a nullification of the law in place of fulfillment. This is huge and really gets into your last paragraph because a concept of salvation that nullifies the law is not the Gospel, in other words the guilty man going free as a guilty man by saying the sinners prayer, is not Biblical salvation. The Gospel teaches penal satisfication, that Christ bore our sins actually, not as a token or idea. Again, the language used will be the same it's the meaning and the doctrinal implications of how that meaning works itself out that matters, as for some depending upon emphasis it's really two entirely different concepts of atonement, this is where you come into conflict. This is why any discussion of the law becomes a soteriological argument, because if you strip away, unknowingly many times, the concept of a nullified law then the would-be Christian claimant is standing before you without atonement, then whammo!

Arguments are futile and very seldom result in any positive results, rather battle lines are drawn, ecclesiastical separations occur when what is desperately needed in our day is fully orbed teaching on the expansive meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity. While orthodox Christians will all affirm a nominal Trinitarianism, thank God, the real meaning and its philosophical implications are not comprehended.



Great, I would judge urge caution on the "behavioral model of Jesus" as His behavior was consistent with the law under circumstances we may not be which may require different behavior. It's easiest to just keep the two main principles you mentioned and the Ten Commandments and it's implementing legislation as root principles, everyone can learn and understand them, the Golden Rule is a good example of boiling down some principles to a simple concept.

You mentioned dietary laws, as a good example, and I agree with your interpretation - but people act like the dietary laws of Scripture are some heinous thing when they don't even compare to the dietary laws we are under. Just open your refridgerator, I bet you've got Federal milk, and Federal cheese, and Federal beef and eggs and butter; fact is if you don't grow it yourself or buy it from a farmer, then every bite is baptized in a sea of dietary laws complete with regulating your extrement to a 1.6 gallon Federal flush and Federal lightbulbs too and everything in between. Heck the Israelites had it easy as compared to humanistic statism, as Christ said and you pointed out correctly, hold the main two principles as axioms and everything else you do will be in the trajectory of the law, there are no principles under humanistic statism and you can't possibly know the law. If you have to go before the law you better get a priest, called an attorney, that specializes in the area for that particular. Levitical priesthood was a piece of cake in comparison.



Here's an example for you. Social security enumeration - what if you don't believe in Social Security? It's a voluntary system, Social Security laws do not require anyone to get one, and paying social security taxes is a different issue than having an account for those taxes to be credited to. If you have a religious conviction about not being enumerated, in other words you'll pay the taxes but you not only don't want benefits, you don't want to be eligible for benefits - you are going to find massive persecution. In fact, quite equivalent to economic excommunication as you become subject to massive coercion, restraint and real threats. With the advent of Obamacare it's going to get much much worse in many more areas, such as maybe rejecting immunization. Educating your children is another area, ask any "homeschooling" family that's become the target of CPS for choosing private education for religious reasons. What about a marriage license, maybe because you are Christian you don't want to preemptively violate your wedding vows by getting a marriage license. What about incorporation and 501 c 3 licensure of Churches, maybe you believe the Great Commission's command to teach all nations to obey God cannot be set aside through compliance with Internal Revenue Code, and flowing out of that, you disagree with the Federal governments involvement in the sacrament of Baptism. Yeah, bring that one up, the civil government will leave you pretty much alone on that one, the Church is another matter - if you want to see mean and nasty, just bring that one up. I could go on and on and on, in the United States you lay claim on the material world under Christ as Lord and you will be perceived as a kook, radical, foolish and come under massive persecution.

I've got to get to work, thanks for the discussion.