Return to Answer

Here is one Protestant view which makes sense to me, and doesn't fudge the issue. The point is that no where in Scripture are the midwives condemned. The same is true of Rahab's actions in Joshua chapter 2. Here I am following the view of the Evangelical Protestant John Davis:-

Not every untruth is the moral equivalent of a lie. All is fair in love and war. Not sure about the love bit, but lying to the enemy is not morally wrong. In all games you can pretend you are going to do one thing but then do something else... it isn't lying. e.g. in tennis you can pretend you are going to lob the opponent and then just tap it over the net... it isn't morally wrong. In warfare you can lay all kinds of deceptions to try and mislead the enemy... it isn't morally wrong.

Sometimes the obligation to one law is nullified by the obligation to obey a higher law.. Should we obey those in authority over us? Yes, except when obeying them means disobeying God.. we must obey God rather than men.

In the case of the midwives the obligation to tell the truth was trumped by a higher obligation, the obligation to save innocent lives.

Pharaoh was the enemy of God and God's people and ordering something contrary to God's will.

Rahab in Joshua 2 faced the same issue and responded in a way which is nowhere condemned (Hebrews 11:31).

Corrie Ten Boon faced the same dilemma in WWII: she chose to lie to the Nazis and say there were no Jews hiding in the house.

In all these cases the deception was not the moral equivalent of a lie. And in all the Biblical cases mentioned to mislead was the right thing to do.

These are the conclusions John Jefferson Davis comes to in his book "Evangelical Ethics- issues facing the Church today" and chapter 1 "Dimensions of decision making". Davis is Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Here is one Protestant view which makes sense to me, and doesn't fudge the issue. The point is that no where in Scripture are the midwives condemned. The same is true of Rahab's actions in Joshua chapter 2. Here I am following the view of the Evangelical Protestant John Davis:-

Not every untruth is the moral equivalent of a lie. All is fair in love and war. Not sure about the love bit, but lying to the enemy is not morally wrong. In all games you can pretend you are going to do one thing but then do something else... it isn't lying. e.g. in tennis you can pretend you are going to lob the opponent and then just tap it over the net... it isn't morally wrong. In warfare you can lay all kinds of deceptions to try and mislead the enemy... it isn't morally wrong.

Sometimes the obligation to one law is nullified by the obligation to obey a higher law.. Should we obey those in authority over us? Yes, except when obeying them means disobeying God.. we must obey God rather than men.

In the case of the midwives the obligation to tell the truth was trumped by a higher obligation, the obligation to save innocent lives.

Pharaoh was the enemy of God and God's people and ordering something contrary to God's will.

Rahab in Joshua 2 faced the same issue and responded in a way which is nowhere condemned (Hebrews 11:31).

Corrie Ten Boom faced the same dilemma in WWII: she chose to lie to the Nazis and say there were no Jews hiding in the house.

In all these cases the deception was not the moral equivalent of a lie. And in all the Biblical cases mentioned to mislead was the right thing to do.

These are the conclusions John Jefferson Davis comes to in his book "Evangelical Ethics- issues facing the Church today" and chapter 1 "Dimensions of decision making". Davis is Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He follows the line of Charles Hodge in "Systematic Theology" and Norman Geisler, though Davis calls this approach to Christian ethics "Contextual Absolutism" and Geisler calls it "Graded Absolutism" ("Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics", Baker, 1981, pages 81-101).

Here is one Protestant view which makes sense to me, and doesn't fudge the issue. The point is that no where in Scripture are the midwives condemned. The same is true of Rahab's actions in Joshua chapter 2. Here I am following the view of the Evangelical Protestant John Davis:-

Not every untruth is the moral equivalent of a lie. All is fair in love and war. Not sure about the love bit, but lying to the enemy is not morally wrong. In all games you can pretend you are going to do one thing but then do something else... it isn't lying. e.g. in tennis you can pretend you are going to lob the opponent and then just tap it over the net... it isn't morally wrong. In warfare you can lay all kinds of deceptions to try and mislead the enemy... it isn't morally wrong.

Sometimes the obligation to one law is nullified by the obligation to obey a higher law.. Should we obey those in authority over us? Yes, except when obeying them means disobeying God.. we must obey God rather than men.

In the case of the midwives the obligation to tell the truth was trumped by a higher obligation, the obligation to save innocent lives.

Pharaoh was the enemy of God and God's people and ordering something contrary to God's will.

Rahab in Joshua 2 faced the same issue and responded in a way which is nowhere condemned (Hebrews 11:31).

Corrie Ten Boon faced the same dilemma in WWII: she chose to lie to the Nazis and say there were no Jews hiding in the house.

In all these cases the deception was not the moral equivalent of a lie. And in all the Biblical cases mentioned to mislead was the right thing to do.

These are the conclusions John Jefferson Davis comes to in his book "Evangelical Ethics- issues facing the Church today" and chapter 1 "Dimensions of decision making".

Here is one Protestant view which makes sense to me, and doesn't fudge the issue. The point is that no where in Scripture are the midwives condemned. The same is true of Rahab's actions in Joshua chapter 2. Here I am following the view of the Evangelical Protestant John Davis:-

Not every untruth is the moral equivalent of a lie. All is fair in love and war. Not sure about the love bit, but lying to the enemy is not morally wrong. In all games you can pretend you are going to do one thing but then do something else... it isn't lying. e.g. in tennis you can pretend you are going to lob the opponent and then just tap it over the net... it isn't morally wrong. In warfare you can lay all kinds of deceptions to try and mislead the enemy... it isn't morally wrong.

Sometimes the obligation to one law is nullified by the obligation to obey a higher law.. Should we obey those in authority over us? Yes, except when obeying them means disobeying God.. we must obey God rather than men.

In the case of the midwives the obligation to tell the truth was trumped by a higher obligation, the obligation to save innocent lives.

Pharaoh was the enemy of God and God's people and ordering something contrary to God's will.

Rahab in Joshua 2 faced the same issue and responded in a way which is nowhere condemned (Hebrews 11:31).

Corrie Ten Boon faced the same dilemma in WWII: she chose to lie to the Nazis and say there were no Jews hiding in the house.

In all these cases the deception was not the moral equivalent of a lie. And in all the Biblical cases mentioned to mislead was the right thing to do.

These are the conclusions John Jefferson Davis comes to in his book "Evangelical Ethics- issues facing the Church today" and chapter 1 "Dimensions of decision making". Davis is Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Here is one Protestant view which makes sense to me, and doesn't fudge the issue. The point is that no where in Scripture are the midwives condemned. The same is true of Rahab's actions in Joshua chapter 2. Here I am following the view of the Evangelical Protestant John Davis:-

Not every untruth is the moral equivalent of a lie. All is fair in love and war. Not sure about the love bit, but lying to the enemy is not morally wrong. In all games you can pretend you are going to do one thing but then do something else... it isn't lying. e.g. in tennis you can pretend you are going to lob the opponent and then just tap it over the net... it isn't morally wrong. In warfare you can lay all kinds of deceptions to try and mislead the enemy... it isn't morally wrong.

Sometimes the obligation to one law is nullified by the obligation to obey a higher law.. Should we obey those in authority over us? Yes, except when obeying them means disobeying God.. we must obey God rather than men.

In the case of the midwives the obligation to tell the truth was trumped by a higher obligation, the obligation to save innocent lives.

Pharaoh was the enemy of God and God's people and ordering something contrary to God's will.

Rahab in Joshua 2 faced the same issue and responded in a way which is nowhere condemned (Hebrews 11:31).

Corrie Ten Boon faced the same dilemma in WWII: she chose to lie to the Nazis and say there were no Jews hiding in the house.

These are the conclusions John Jefferson Davis comes to in his book "Evangelical Ethics- issues facing the Church today" and chapter 1 "Dimensions of decision making".

Here is one Protestant view which makes sense to me, and doesn't fudge the issue. The point is that no where in Scripture are the midwives condemned. The same is true of Rahab's actions in Joshua chapter 2. Here I am following the view of the Evangelical Protestant John Davis:-

Not every untruth is the moral equivalent of a lie. All is fair in love and war. Not sure about the love bit, but lying to the enemy is not morally wrong. In all games you can pretend you are going to do one thing but then do something else... it isn't lying. e.g. in tennis you can pretend you are going to lob the opponent and then just tap it over the net... it isn't morally wrong. In warfare you can lay all kinds of deceptions to try and mislead the enemy... it isn't morally wrong.

Sometimes the obligation to one law is nullified by the obligation to obey a higher law.. Should we obey those in authority over us? Yes, except when obeying them means disobeying God.. we must obey God rather than men.

In the case of the midwives the obligation to tell the truth was trumped by a higher obligation, the obligation to save innocent lives.

Pharaoh was the enemy of God and God's people and ordering something contrary to God's will.

Rahab in Joshua 2 faced the same issue and responded in a way which is nowhere condemned (Hebrews 11:31).

Corrie Ten Boon faced the same dilemma in WWII: she chose to lie to the Nazis and say there were no Jews hiding in the house.

In all these cases the deception was not the moral equivalent of a lie. And in all the Biblical cases mentioned to mislead was the right thing to do.

These are the conclusions John Jefferson Davis comes to in his book "Evangelical Ethics- issues facing the Church today" and chapter 1 "Dimensions of decision making".