Ethical Discrepancies in Biblical Accounts
Explore alleged discrepancies related to lying in biblical stories, such as the situations with the Hebrew midwives in Exodus, Rahab in Joshua, and Rahab the harlot in Hebrews. Understand how faith, deception, and ethical decisions play a role in these narratives, offering insight into potential explanations for the perceived contradictions.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible
Lesson 5 Lesson 5 Ethical Discrepancies Ethical Discrepancies
Rationale: The student will encounter (some) ethical discrepancies and will become familiar with plausible explanations that reconcile the alleged ethical discrepancies with scripture.
1. Lying Tolerated Exodus 1:15-21 (NASB) 15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; 16 and he said, "When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live." 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live.
18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?" 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them." 20 So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. 21 Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them.
1. Lying Tolerated Joshua 2:4-6 (NASB) 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 "It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them." 6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
1. Lying Tolerated Hebrews 11:31 (NASB) 31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace. James 2:25 (NASB) 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
Two things are evident: 1) The Hebrew midwives and Rahab did lie. 2) Both the Hebrew midwives and Rehab were justified in the eyes of God by their fear of, and faith in God. However, this creates an ethical discrepancy.
2. Lying not tolerated Exodus 20:16 (NASB) 16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Proverbs 12:22 (NASB) 22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, But those who deal faithfully are His delight.
2. Lying not tolerated Ephesians 4:25 (NASB) 25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another. Colossians 3:9-10 (NASB) 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him
2. Lying not tolerated Revelation 21:8 (NASB) 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
In a number of historical biblical accounts, people lied to saves lives. The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys Pharaoh had commanded them to kill. (Exodus 1:15-19). Rahab lied to save the lives of the Hebrew spies in Jericho (Joshua 2). Is it ever right to lie to save a life? This issue will be the focus in light of six basic ethical positions; the first three positions are what is known as Ethical Relativism .
1. Antinomianism (Anti-against & nomos law): Lying is neither right nor wrong: there are no laws; hence lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. There are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or on pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds.
Antinomianism as an ethical system has five fatal flaws: a) It is self defeating. The one denying all values certainly values their right to deny them! b) It is purely subjective. It provides no objective rules to govern society; it ends up being a free-for-all. c) It is too individualistic. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.
Antinomianism as an ethical system has five fatal flaws: d) It is ineffective, since two or more people cannot function in a society without objectively binding rules. e) It is irrational. It entails the belief that opposing views are both right at the same time and in the same sense.
2. Generalism: Lying is generally wrong, there are no universal laws, however, as a rule lying is wrong but in specific cases this general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether a given lies is right will depend on the results.
Generalism in contrast to antinomianism, argues that there are some binding moral principles. But in contrast to absolutism, generalism insists that none of these moral laws are really absolute. Since every moral principle allows for exceptions, the generalist has an easy solution to moral conflicts (such as lying).
However, since generalists have no absolute moral principles, their view tends to be reducible to antinomianism. Unless there are some objective moral standards that are binding on all persons at all times, then any given action at any given time could be justified.
3. Situationism: this system claims that there is only one absolute moral law and that is love. Telling the truth is nullified by love. Lying to save a life is the loving thing to do; hence, lying is sometimes right. Any moral rule except love can and should be broken for loves sake. Everything else is relative; only one thing is absolute, love.
Situationism claims to be a one-norm absolutism. It believes that everything should be judged by one absolute moral law: love. However, it turns out that this moral principle fails in that it has no content in advance of or apart from the situation. The situation defines what love is so to speak.
Thus this diminishes this one moral law (love) to be no moral law at all, hence it reduced to antinomianism. Finally the denial of all value except love is self defeating, for it values the right to say there are no other values.
The ethical systems of Antinomianism, Generalism, and Situationism are three forms of ethical relativism, and although some who proclaim to be followers of Christ embrace generalism and situationism, the Biblical Christian must reject all three systems.
Three forms of Ethical Absolutism: 4. Unqualified Absolutism: Originated with Augustine, the bishop of Hippo. This system can be summarized as follows: There are no moral conflicts; they are only apparent, not real. Sin is always avoidable; no one should ever lie to save a life.
This system derives its nature from the following rationale: a) God s unchanging character is the basis of moral absolutes. b) God has expressed His unchanging moral character in His law. c) God cannot contradict himself. d) Hence, no two absolute moral laws really conflict. e) All moral conflicts are only apparent, not real.
Despite the positive aspects of unqualified absolutism, there are some serious deficiencies in this position. a) It is unrealistic. b) Unmerciful. c) It is unsuccessful in avoiding the inevitable modification of its absolutes (such as the Hebrew midwives).
Though it is true that moral conflicts are not by God s original design, it is a fact that we live in a fallen world, therefore moral conflicts are unavoidable as illustrated in the Bible, and the Christian ethic must adequately provide answers for such conflicts, something that unqualified absolutism does not do.
5. Conflicting Absolutism: We live in a fallen world, and in such a world, moral conflicts do occur. When two moral duties conflict, we are morally bound to both duties. God s law can never be broken without guilt; therefore one must do the lesser evil, confess that sin and ask for forgiveness.
This system is built off of the following premises: a) God s law is absolute and unbreakable. b) In a fallen world, unavoidable conflicts between God s commands do occur. c) When conflicts happen, we should do the lesser evil. d) Forgiveness is available if we confess sin.
Conflicting absolutism has the value of retaining absolutes and yet being realistic about the fallen world in which we live. However, it does not appear to have successfully defended itself against the moral charges leveled against it.
Consider the following: A moral duty to sin is morally absurd. For example, in a moral conflict, if one is morally obligated to do evil, how can there be a moral obligation to do what is immoral? It seems to be a morally absurd claim.
6. Graded Absolutism: This view maintains that there are differing grades within the moral laws of God. The belief that all sin is equal is not Biblical.
This system is outlined as follows: a) There are higher and lower moral laws; for example: Matthew 22:36-39; John 19:11. Here we see an example of Jesus categorizing commandments and sins.
This system is outlined as follows: b) There are unavoidable moral conflicts: some personally unavoidable moral conflicts exist in which an individual cannot obey both commands. (2 Samuel 11:3 David sent messengers and one said; is this not Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?) c) No guilt is imputed for the unavoidable; God does not hold the individual responsible for personal unavoidable conflicts, providing that one keeps the higher law.
Reason dictates that a just God will not hold responsible a person for doing what is actually impossible. It is impossible to avoid the unavoidable, (The Hebrew midwives). It is impossible to take two courses of action at the same time.
Persons are not morally culpable if they fail to keep an obligation they could not keep without breaking a higher obligation. The Bible includes multiple examples of persons who were praised by God for allowing their highest duty in situations of moral conflict: a) Abraham willing to kill Isaac. b) The Hebrew midwives. c) Rehab. c) The three Hebrew youths of Daniel.
The essential principles for graded absolutism are these: There are many moral principles rooted in the absolute moral character of God. There are higher and lower moral duties, for example, love for God is a greater duty than love for people.
These moral laws sometimes come into unavoidable moral conflict. In such conflicts we are obligated to follow the higher moral law. When we follow the higher moral law, we are not held responsible for breaking the lower law.
In the case of the Hebrew midwives, and Rehab the spy, they encountered an unavoidable moral conflict, they chose the higher moral law, for which they were praised as having chosen to honor God to the best of their ability given their circumstances.
In terms of Ethical absolutism the student of Christ will have to decide for oneself which system one will embrace, however, graded absolutism seems to be the most Biblical and proves that no ethical discrepancy has been committed by the Hebrew midwives or by Rehab.
