Rahab the Liar?

Revelation, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, and the Ninth Commandment

For years I have pondered the question: Did Rahab sin when she deceived the representatives of the King of Jericho? Did anyone harboring Jewish people who lied to the Nazis sin against God by saying something that isn’t true? Is there ever a context in which we can say or do something that would mislead another person where it wouldn’t be sinful? These are all difficult ethical questions that we must consider carefully.

I want to take a brief moment and pivot to a conversation about Special Revelation vs Natural Revelation: which one must trump the other if they appear to be at odds? I would always take the truth in Scripture that is plain and clear over what I understand to be true in nature if they appear to conflict; similarly, if Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology are at odds, I would usually tend to err on the side of using Biblical Theology to informing my understanding of God’s truth. The reason I do this is because, while systematics are useful in understanding a topic using all passages relating to it, I believe biblical theology is more naturally suited to digging into the nuance and context that are necessary to understand tough topics. In short, I would argue that Biblical Theology is more helpful in working out difficult topics because you are naturally doing the work of exegesis on a large scale, whereas systematics is going to be more narrow and rigid in how you arrive at your conclusions which can negatively affect the outcome.

Why did I want to stop and talk about revelation and different methods of interpretation? Well, I think how we approach the God and His word will be vital to this conversation. I believe if you interpret primarily using natural theology and/or systematics, you will be much more likely to come to the conclusion that saying any untruth is sinful. Why is that? Because the natural theologian will argue that God is true, natural man understands what telling a lie is (they would typically say any untruth is a lie), and therefore to tell a lie is to not properly reflect God into the world and the liar has therefore failed to glorify God in their living, thus proving they have sinned. Similarly, the Systematist will focus on all verses related to God and truth, man and truth, God and lies/deception, man and lies/deception, law, and the like. The systematician will likely come to a principled understanding that God hates all lies and all liars, and therefore any lies that man commits God therefore hates, so any lies are sinful (though they may make a distinction between lying with the tongue and deceiving with actions) . I have little sympathy for the theologian using natural theology as their main interpretive lens, but I do for the systematician—they really are approaching the Scriptures, as far as I can tell, in the best way they know how, which leads them to these conclusions; however, their systematic conclusions on God and doctrine can hinder instead of help their ability to exegete the text, leading them to not see what God is clearly communicating through the text. While that last statement may have sounded strong and definitive, I also want to acknowledge that more learned and gifted men than I have argued and are presently arguing over these things, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I believe what I’ve written, but I also reserve the right to acknowledge that I may be wrong if I am persuaded by an iron-clad argument.

Why is it that I focus more on Special Revelation and Biblical Theology to approach the text? Well, God’s word is the clearest form of revelation we have, and He has given us the Holy Spirit Who leads us into truth as we study, pray, and live for God—I can’t think of a better place to start than with Special Revelation. The reason I approach Special Revelation with Biblical Theology is because Biblical Theology is the most holistic approach to understanding what God is trying to communicate in Scripture. There are debates about the definition of Biblical Theology, but, in essence, its focus is on understanding biblical truth and themes as they have been laid out and presented in Scripture, in the context of the original recipients of the revelation, and as they are developed over time. So, as we consider if Rahab sinned, we should be thinking about what she did and how it relates to the biblical truth that came before it and that followed after it in their appropriate contexts.

First, I want us to consider how the New Testament talks about Rahab: God saw it fitting to include her in the hall of faith (Hebrews 11) where she is commended for her faith; also, in James, it is stated in a positive manner that her work of deception against the King’s men in concealing the spies justified her faith! A faithful act cannot be both faithful and sinful; as a result, we can look at how the New Testament addresses Rahab and affirm that no sin is attributed to her (quite the opposite).

Next, we need to consider the ninth commandment. Yes, the ninth commandment does not say lying and it is in reference to a legal context; however, you could argue that since men were there on the business of the King that it was a legal context. Regardless, I believe that Scripture expands on our understanding of the ninth commandment to include general lying as well, so I don’t want to focus too much on the minutiae of it and miss the larger point (I am a Westminsterian Presbyterian—I believe our confession and catechism properly parses these things out). In any case, Rahab did speak an untruth, but when we look back to the ninth commandment, to whom is the truth owed? To our neighbor! Who is our neighbor? Essentially anyone in need within our sphere of influence, including someone who may be considered an enemy under normal circumstances. But who is not our neighbor? Our neighbor is not someone who is trying to thwart the plan of God, or commit atrocities that would offend the laws of God—this is why it wasn’t sinful for Rahab to deceive the spies, or for people to deceive the Nazis as it related to hiding enemies of the state. In deceiving the enemies of God, Rahab and those like her were actually upholding the sixth commandment while simultaneously upholding the ninth commandment.

John Frame’s works have been tremendously helpful to me in formulating my position, and you can read an excellent post by him, here on the subject. He also addresses these things in various places relating to ethics in his books—check them out. James Jordan also takes a similar position to Frame I’ve heard, though I haven’t yet read anything from him on ethics.