What qualifies as a ‘lie’ from a biblical perspective?

[ChaosBorders]

Currently I am taking a course in Lying and Deception and find the subject quite fascinating. I’m thinking of starting a series of posts on lying and deception as it relates to the Bible. I think the first should be:

What qualifies as a ‘lie’ from a biblical perspective?

Today’s definition of a ‘lie’ is extremely broad, a decent (but not totally comprehensive) list of which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

By some of today’s definitions, God (and certainly many prophets), tell them regularly (despite God often being depicted as unable to lie). If it is taken as true that the biblical view of God cannot lie (a subject of a later debate) then which of the modern definitions seem to qualify as lies and which would be considered honest?

If Cnorman would contribute any knowledge he may have on what constituted a ‘lie’ in those times (in the original language) and what modern Judaism, if different than then, usually considers a lie that would be awesome.

[sleepyhead]

Hello chaosborders,

This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but, the only type of lie that in and of itself is wrong would be bearing false witness against your neighbor. In all other cases, lying has to be viewed as merely a tool, and the purpose behind the lie is either good or bad.

[ChaosBorders]

Hello chaosborders,

This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but, the only type of lie that in and of itself is wrong would be bearing false witness against your neighbor. In all other cases, lying has to be viewed as merely a tool, and the purpose behind the lie is either good or bad.

Are you certain? How do you interpret Revelations 21:8?

But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part `shall be' in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.

Remember that this is the theology sub-forum, so scripture is considered authoritative here.

[sleepyhead]

Hello chaosborders,

>>>Remember that this is the theology sub-forum, so scripture is considered authoritative here.<<<

That would mean that the OT, and more specifically the laws as given through Moses, and which all the apostles (except maybe Paul), believed in, would be authoritative. If you were living in that time frame as a jew, lieing would mean bearing false witness against your neighbor.

[ChaosBorders]

Hello chaosborders,

>>>Remember that this is the theology sub-forum, so scripture is considered authoritative here.<<<

That would mean that the OT, and more specifically the laws as given through Moses, and which all the apostles (except maybe Paul), believed in, would be authoritative. If you were living in that time frame as a jew, lieing would mean bearing false witness against your neighbor.

And what would other untruths be considered?

[bjs]

And what would other untruths be considered?

The vast majority of the time any dishonesty (false statements, intentional half-truths, lie of omission) is wrong. Bearing false witness is always wrong.

However, there are conceivable situations in which a lie is morally right. The easiest example is when, during the Second World War, people lied to hide Jews from the Nazis. The extreme nature of such circumstances makes lying the greater good.

This does not justify other kinds of lies that are told out of selfishness, but it does recognize the complicated nature of life and the fact that doing what is right is not about following a bunch of rules.

“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.�

[ChaosBorders]

And what would other untruths be considered?

The vast majority of the time any dishonesty (false statements, intentional half-truths, lie of omission) is wrong. Bearing false witness is always wrong.

However, there are conceivable situations in which a lie is morally right. The easiest example is when, during the Second World War, people lied to hide Jews from the Nazis. The extreme nature of such circumstances makes lying the greater good.

This does not justify other kinds of lies that are told out of selfishness, but it does recognize the complicated nature of life and the fact that doing what is right is not about following a bunch of rules.

“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.�

And is it that the lie itself is morally right, or that the consequences and intent are good enough to outweigh the wrongness of the lie?

You say bearing false witness is always wrong. Conceivably, a mass murderer is on trial and no one witnessed his crimes, but still know it was him. Would it be wrong for someone to falsely testify against him if it meant getting him locked up so he couldn't kill more people? Why is one type of lie always wrong, but other types are not? (More importantly, do you have any scriptural support you can bring forth to defend this stance?)

[bjs]

And is it that the lie itself is morally right, or that the consequences and intent are good enough to outweigh the wrongness of the lie?

You say bearing false witness is always wrong. Conceivably, a mass murderer is on trial and no one witnessed his crimes, but still know it was him. Would it be wrong for someone to falsely testify against him if it meant getting him locked up so he couldn't kill more people? Why is one type of lie always wrong, but other types are not? (More importantly, do you have any scriptural support you can bring forth to defend this stance?)

I agree that it was the intent and motivation, not the lie itself, that was good.

I would be cautious with the “mass murder� example that you use. To falsely claim to be a witness of a crime is wrong. If there is other evidence against a person, use that evidence. If there is no other evidence, then how do we “know� that that person is guilty?

For scriptural support I would turn to the story of Rahab and the spies found in the second chapter of Joshua. Rahab saved the lives of some Israelite spies by hiding the spies and lying to their pursuers.

For her act of dishonesty she was honored both in the Old Testament by the Israelites and twice in the New Testament.

James 2:25 says, “In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?�

Hebrews 11:31 honors Rahab’s faith by saying, “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

[ChaosBorders]

And is it that the lie itself is morally right, or that the consequences and intent are good enough to outweigh the wrongness of the lie?

You say bearing false witness is always wrong. Conceivably, a mass murderer is on trial and no one witnessed his crimes, but still know it was him. Would it be wrong for someone to falsely testify against him if it meant getting him locked up so he couldn't kill more people? Why is one type of lie always wrong, but other types are not? (More importantly, do you have any scriptural support you can bring forth to defend this stance?)

I would be cautious with the “mass murder� example that you use. To falsely claim to be a witness of a crime is wrong. If there is other evidence against a person, use that evidence. If there is no other evidence, then how do we “know� that that person is guilty?

And if that evidence is insufficient, but you knew they were guilty of it? Our justice system is set up purposefully such that guilty people are far more likely to walk away than innocent people are to take a fall, but the result is that some professional criminals (such as mafia members) get out of going to jail on a pretty regular basis.

[bjs]

And if that evidence is insufficient, but you knew they were guilty of it? Our justice system is set up purposefully such that guilty people are far more likely to walk away than innocent people are to take a fall, but the result is that some professional criminals (such as mafia members) get out of going to jail on a pretty regular basis.

This looks like a very slippery slope. I agree that our justice system is flawed, but I don’t know any way to make it better.

If we don’t have the evidence to convict someone of a crime then how can we really be sure that the person is guilty? Does someone deserve to go to jail because the evidence convinces me that he is guilty even if it doesn’t convince a jury of his peers?

It is possible to have evidence that is inadmissible, but most of the time that means that we had to break laws to get the evidence. How many laws are we willing to break to catch the bad guys? If I have a hunch that someone is guilty does that mean I get to break into their home to get the proof? Can I beat someone up until they confess? If I have proof that someone is guilty of murder then can I just shoot the guy right there?

The legal system does let guilty people get away with crimes, but it also protects innocent people and it protects our own souls. If we start down the path of dishonesty and immoral behavior to convict the bad guys – if the ends justify the means – then there will be no turning back. We will keep following that path until there is no way to tell the difference between ourselves and the people we are trying to catch.

So, in the end, I still say that it is always wrong to bear false testimony against your neighbor.