A LYING SPIRIT

A Primer on Holy Deception

JOSHUA TORREY

TORREY GAZETTE

Copyright ©2015 by Joshua Torrey

www.torreygazette.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the author. Made and designed in the United States of America.

ISBN-13:

ISBN-10:

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cover Design by Joshua Torrey

www.canva.com

Interior Design by Mathew B. Sims

www.MathewBryanSims.com

This book is dedicated to the modern Shiphrah, Puah, Jael, and Rahab who are subverting the unrighteousness of Planned Parenthood through holy deception.

TABLE OF

CONTENT

FOREWORD

CHAPTER 1: GOD’S HOLY DECEPTION

CHAPTER 2: MAN’S HOLY DECEPTION

CHAPTER 3: AN EXCURSE ON GENESIS

CHAPTER 4: DEFYING EVIL THROUGH DECEPTION

CHAPTER 5: OBJECTIONS TO HOLY DECEPTION

APPENDIX A: A HEALTHY VIEW OF SIN

APPENDIX B: THE RELATION NATURE OF SIN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

FOREWORD

Recently, the ethical nature of deception in exposing Planned Parenthood has been questioned. Many "fraudulent activities" were required to expose this worship of Satan. This has become something of an attacking point for those outside the church as well as some Christians. Many Christians in both fundamentalist and progressive camps have honest questions about the ethics of holy deception. So I decided to broach the subject with whoever was around me. These discussions included Baptists, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians of different variants.

There were important questions that kept getting asked — “Does God lie?” “Does He participate in deception?” “Does He endorse deception?” These important questions have been discussed throughout church history. I believe the Scriptures present a convoluted answer. Perhaps more convoluted than we would like to believe. Still, I believe that answer clearly affirms that holy deception is permissible and essential to Christians. For the sake of clarity, “holy deception” should be defined as deception that subverts injustice in support of righteous judgment. This ethic only makes sense in a fallen world. Thankfully the Scriptures present us with answers for how to live in a fallen world.

Before starting my argument from its foundation, I want to make a quick statement about modern paradigms on lying and deception. These two concepts are almost universally lumped together. But I hope to demonstrate that in the Biblical witness they are not the same. In a similar vein, individuals who oppose any type of deception might think Numbers 23:19 is the end-all verse. It reads,

“God is not a man, that He should lie,

Nor a son of man, that He should repent;

Has He said, and will He not do it?

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” –Numbers 23:19 (NASB)

This passage and the objection associated with it are addressed in the last chapter. To ensure a fair reading of my argument, I ask people to either read that chapter first or temporarily set that objection aside. I believe an honest evaluation of Scripture concerning deception will provide the necessary proof that this objection is a non sequitur.

To reach this conclusion I would like to start by taking a look at the Biblical examples of God utilizing deception and then move to examples include men and women. These texts will provide an important background to the ethical nature of practicing holy deception.

1

GOD’S HOLY DECEPTION

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. — 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (ESV)

And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him and also prevail; go out and do so.’ Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.” — 2 Chronicles 18:19-22 (ESV)

Some will have potential issues with the above-quoted passages for obvious reasons. With a paradigm of deception along with lying being bad and unethical, we cannot look upon our God as one who deceives. There are a couple things that need to be stated to help evaluate the text more honestly. These types of analogical arguments which argue that something is evil thus God could not perform it have been in the church from its conception. I would heartily recommend Mark Stien’s Language For God in Patristic Tradition for examples of character traits and actions that the early church thought unfitting for the Divine Nature. We need to be careful about reading our cultural stigmas as something that is not in God's nature. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 or 2 Chronicles 18:19-22 may leave us scratching our heads and asking questions. But these are the important questions that we must answer.

These passages support the idea that God utilizes deception. God “sends a strong delusion” (no medium) and “has put a lying spirit in the mouth” (medium). Does this mean He is devious? If not in His actions at least in His intent? This is a principal step in our discussion about the ethical status of deception. These passages are clear that God desires people to be deceived. There is an unarguable intentionality to these passages. God is also the sender of these deceptive movements. So He is not merely passive in these examples. Our God is the source of deceptive behavior even though He is not the deceiver. What does this permit us to say about His character and nature?

Whether one thinks 2 Thessalonians is in the future or past it is clear that God is the sender of the delusion. The word is used in other places as “error” (e.g. Matt 27:64) and deceit (e.g. 1 Th 2:3). It is hard to determine if this “delusion” finds its origin in sinful man or is God being deceitful. From the wider scope of Scripture I affirm the former. It would seem the delusion reinforced the mindset of those in rebellion against God (like Romans 1:18-32). The result is the same in both — false belief. One could even render it as a false faith. This is not deception on a small scale. The text is clear that this deception will result in complete, eternal judgment. This deception demands the truth be rejected. This delusion slams the door shut on redemption.

The Chronicles passage is not didactic but a historical event. It is not merely a historical event though. It is the crux of a spiritual war. God seeks to bring judgment against the faithless leader of His covenant people. They have rejected God. They refuse to obey or acknowledge Him except through fake prophets. In response, God asks for a way to “entice” the king. The angels speak among themselves until a specific spirit decides to be a deceiving spirit. This lying spirit would lead the king to his death. The similarities with 2 Thessalonians are plain. An angelic being decides he is willing to deliver God's delusion. He is the one who will deceive on behalf of God. Through him, judgment will be brought down upon God's enemies.

It is interesting that the spirit is not identified more specifically. He is merely a spirit who will be a lying spirit to the king. Yet, he is given as a confirmation that God has judged the king. The deception occurs among existing rebellion against God. It confirms that rebellion and finalizes it.

In both texts, God uses deception against His enemies. He is not beyond deception to cement perpetual rebellion against Him. I would affirm that He is not the deceiver. But He utilizes it to bring about righteous judgment. I will argue that this is the distinguishing feature between holy and unholy deception. Holy deception has at its root a defense for righteousness. Said another way, holy deception subverts unrighteousness and supports righteous judgment. We can ask what this mean for Christians by studying Biblical examples of man’s deception. The Bible is full of them, but we are now in a position to read them without immediate suspicion.

2

MAN’S HOLY DECEPTION

God's use of deception was for judgment. This judgment was against people who opposed God. God's deception continued their preexisting rebellion and led to their final judgment. I will now turn to man's use of deception for the sake of preservation. Instead I will turn to man's use of deception for the sake of preservation. In many cases these deceptions were used against God's enemies in a time of war. There are multiple passages that are relevant. I will focus on the stories of Rahab, Jael, and Solomon.

THE HARROWING HARLOT

There are many interesting linguistic and historical arguments concerning Rahab. Whether or not she was a prostitute is irrelevant to her protecting spies and saving her family. Most will be familiar with the story but here is the pertinent part,

Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.” But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. And she said, “True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And when the gate was about to be closed at dark, the men went out. I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” But she had brought them up to the roof and hid them with the stalks of flax that she had laid in order on the roof. So the men pursued after them on the way to the Jordan as far as the fords. And the gate was shut as soon as the pursuers had gone out. — Joshua 2:3-7 (ESV)

The story is straightforward. Rahab lies to protect the spies from Israel. There is reason to believe that the spies would go to a prostitute’s house intentionally to hide. Nonetheless, she had to hide them to protect them. Upon successfully hiding them she had to lie to get the king off the scent. It is unlikely that Rahab had direct correlation with the king of Jericho. More likely someone was acting on his behalf and authority. This small detail reminds us of the Hebrew midwives who disobeyed Pharaoh (Exo 1:15-17). The lying is an essential part of the salvation of the spies. The hiding was not enough. They had to be sent “out by another way” (Jam 2:25).

The historical account that follows indicates that Rahab was saved from the destruction of Jericho. In fact, she was the deliverer of her entire family because of her denouncing Jericho and clinging in faith to the God of Israel. Rahab acts as a type of messiah that would come from her line (Matt 1:5). All put together there are serious salvific undertones to the encounter. Two NT passages support this soteriological reading (Jam 2:24-25; Heb 11:31). These texts go so far as to say that she was justified because she acted in faith regarding the spies.

What exactly does this mean? Neither the OT text nor NT texts point to her lying as sinful. Instead, a generic set of "actions" is exalted. Very specifically in James she is included because of the historical "works" she performed in saving the spies. Few individuals in Scripture receive such commendation for their holy behavior. It seems odd to highlight Rahab without making mention of what actions are being praised. It points to the whole of Rahab’s works being praiseworthy.

The inclusion of the female, gentile Rahab in these Jewish-oriented epistles would have struck a strong chord in both epistles. This is especially true in James where she is presented alongside the great father figure of Abraham. Rahab’s “sent them out by another way” (Jam 2:25) put here in amazing company. This seems to confirm the valid nature of deception. She is not merely being praised for hiding the spies but successfully saving them through lying. I acknowledge my position goes against the critical insights of John Calvin,

Therefore, although our purpose, be to assist our brethren, to consult for their safety and relieve them, it never can be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth. And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path, they deviate into circuitous courses. (Comm on Joshua 2)

However, we see Calvin resorting to the analogical argument that since deception is "evil" it cannot be found in God. Because it cannot be found in God, it would unlawful to use deception to save a life. Calvin’s argument has problems on multiple points, God's use of deception being the foremost. Delusions were sent to confirm previously existing attitudes within the enemies of God. These delusions were sent by God. Rahab is protecting God's people from God's enemies. Her lying subverts the unrighteousness of Jericho in fulfillment of their judgment. It also preserves God’s people from judgment at the hands of the unrighteous.

STAKING HER CLAIM

Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my master, turn aside to me! Do not be afraid.” And he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. He said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened a bottle of milk and gave him a drink; then she covered him. He said to her, “Stand in the doorway of the tent, and it shall be if anyone comes and inquires of you, and says, ‘Is there anyone here?’ that you shall say, ‘No.’” But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died. And behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” And he entered with her, and behold Sisera was lying dead with the tent peg in his temple. - Judges 4:18-22)

Another woman, another lie. There is a pretty interesting undercurrent of feminine deception that I will inspect briefly in the next chapter. Until then, it is important to provide a context for the story. The people of Israel are at war. Deborah and Barak are the popular names of the story, and they have crushed the enemy. But God has told Barak that a woman shall receive the honor (Jud 4:9). So Sisera, the enemy general, is permitted to escape Barak only to be killed by a woman through literal crushing.

When Sisera arrived at the camp he felt secure enough to fall fast asleep, and Jael wasted no time killing the commander "secretly." The reason for the text saying this are unknown. This could either imply that Jael snuck up on Sisera or was hiding her behavior from the other tent dwellers. There is also a possible allusion to Genesis 3:15 in the imagery of Sisera’s head being crushed. In any case, Jael used deception to bring judgment upon the enemy of God. One could speak of her being the delusion that God used to reinforce and bring an end to Sisera’s rebellion. But further yet, Jael is not an Israelite (Jud 4:17). She is married to a descendent of Moses' father-in-law. In this way she is like Rahab.

The testimony in Scripture is that Jael is to be blessed above all women (Judges 5:24). In the case of Rahab, it was easy to distinguish saving the spies from lying to the government. Here, Jael's two activities are rather crude. She lied and killed a guy in his sleep. In a culture that prided itself upon taking care of visitors, Jael's example seems to spit in the face of cultural values. This is not something that would have been praised except when seen through spiritual eyes.

Even more so, Judges 5:17 indicates that Jael's husband Heber was at peace with Sisera. It was under this guise that she told Sisera to take his rest among their tents. It would seem she went against her husband's political affiliation, deceived a general seeking protection among friends, and then slaughtered him. The song of Scripture praises her for this very activity (Judges 5:24-27). Some might correctly point out that not every Biblical event is moral and ethical. This is true. But there is Scriptural praise attributed to Jael.

The road of interpretation leads us to see a different ethical standard in times of war. Jael is praised in her deception leading to intentional harm. She is the recipient of the honor as God proclaimed to Barak. There is a trend building. God's enemies are brought to judgment through deception. Once again this is seen as a holy course of action.

THE WISE KING

When all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had handed down, they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice. - 1 Kings 3:28

Solomon was smarter than his father. The first kid ever. Besides Jesus. I kid, I kid.

But seriously, almost everyone knows the story of Solomon requesting wisdom to govern the land of Israel. As a young lad, Solomon knew he needed more than earthly wisdom to govern what was the most powerful nation in the world. He forfeited earthly riches for spiritual wisdom. Of the request God said, "Behold, I have given you a wise and discerning heart, so that there has been no one like you before you, nor shall one like you arise after you" (1 Kings 3:12). Because of this, there can be no question about the wisdom of Solomon in the early period of his kingship. It was given by God to reflect godly character. The author of Kings proves this through a very special example. He wedges in a story that demonstrates the godly wisdom of Solomon. Two women had babies. One woman’s baby died during the night. The woman attempted a switch-a-roo. And now both women claimed the living baby. Both women were prostitutes. There seems to be no way for either of them to prove their mothership.

Solomon's solution is legendary. He requests a sword to cut the child into two pieces. A piece shall be given to each woman. The false mother reveals herself. The true mother reveals herself. Solomon has administered righteous judgment through deception. The Scriptures reiterates that "the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice." This is crucial to the thesis. Holy deception has at its heart true justice. It subverts injustice for the sake of righteousness. Solomon’s deception is spiritual and righteous deception. This is not the wisdom of man. Solomon had no intention of slicing the child in two. The charade continued solely to reveal the true mother. Solomon deception provided the accurate judgment.

Solomon's deception is different from the other examples. It does not result in a loss of anyone's life. Is that what makes it ethical? That is to suggest that the ends justify the means. This is not the position of holy deception. And it is not a position I want to endorse. Instead, holy deception is inherently different in the very act because it supports righteous judgment. Looking at the examples of Rahab, Jael and Solomon certainly seem to indicate a positive Scriptural response to deception to preserve life and administer proper justice.

3

AN EXCURSE ON GENESIS

Let’s recall that all of this has been in response to questions about the ethical nature of deception in recent stings against Planned Parenthood. Before going to the most pertinent passage of Scripture on the issue, I would like to delve into the world of Genesis briefly. I do this primarily to present the very complex world of deception in the Scriptures. It does not seem to me that each occurrence can be wrapped together into one neat bow. Having seen the delusions that God sends, as well as the righteous judgment found in deception, the deception texts in Genesis become interesting case studies.

Perhaps no other biblical book has more deception in it than Genesis. With a mindset that all deception is bad, one could easily read through the text and come away with a bunch of moral teachings about deception. The only problem is that not all of the deception in Genesis is bad. I want to walk through examples on both sides while presenting some literary themes that run through Genesis. I do not intend to extend or defend holy deception. I merely want to take a longer look at some familiar passages.

DECEPTION UNTO REDEMPTION

The opening scene of Genesis is loaded with deception. Adam and Eve are called "naked" (Gen 2:2). Straight forward in English right? In the very next verse, the serpent is called "crafty" (Gen 3:1). The same root Hebrew word is used. There is a play on the crafty nature of the devil over against mankind’s sinless condition. As the curtain opens on the fall, deception already lies in the background of redemptive history. Eventually, Eve blames the serpent (Gen 3:13). Paul agrees that Eve was deceived (1 Tim 2:14). This particular deception is the backdrop upon which deception, particularly the feminine variety, dominates Genesis’s theme of redemption.

Skipping Sarah's actions with Hagar for a moment, Rebekah is the first woman to utilize clear deception (Gen 27:1-13). Prior to that though, Rebekah is privy to the promise of God for Jacob (Gen 25:23). Jacob is truly the "loved child." Isaac loves Esau for the most incredulous of reasons (Gen 25:28), and it is  telling that the Scriptures weave food/hunting into Esau’s disrespect for his birthright (Gen 25:34). The very thing that fuels Isaac's love girds Esau's demonstration of no faith. Similarly, the story of Rebekah's deception is not disconnected. The emphasis even during the deception is on the food. The element that rooted Isaac’s love was also the reason Esau lost his birthright. It is beautiful poetry to see food be the center of the deception.

While many are inclined to focus on Jacob (and his string of deception), there is a strange battle going on between the parents here. I contend that a purely contextual reading suggests Rebekah is striving to fulfill God's promise for Jacob. It is debatable whether or not she should have done this since the birthright already belonged to Isaac. This smacks more of Rebekah's frustration with Isaac and taking matters into her own hands. This is quite like Sarah's attempt to fulfill God's promise for a child. Except in Rebekah's case, there was divine revelation supporting the blessing of Jacob. So while similar, Sarah's attempt to fulfill God's promise is decisively unlike Rebekah's.

A similar situation to Rebekah's occurs later in Genesis. Jacob's son Judah has a tumultuous time in Genesis. Throughout the later section of Genesis, Joseph is contrasted with Judah in terms of faithfulness. All of this starts when Judah chooses Tamar to be the wife of his oldest son (Gen 38:6). In the course of time a couple of Judah's sons die while married to Tamar. In fear, Judah preserves his younger son by sending Tamar to live with her father (Gen 38:11). Based upon the OT law, Judah is in the wrong. He should have provided his younger sons for marriage. He certainly should have taken her into his house. The Hebrews hearing the story of their patriarch would have noticed this. Judah is presenting himself to be a poor redeemer. This backdrop helps explain Tamar's deception of Judah. It definitely helps explain the conclusion of the story.

Tamar deceives Judah to sleep with her by posing as a prostitute. To do this, she takes off her widow robes (Gen 38:14) to sleep with the recently widowed Judah. Thinking ahead, she procures some of his belongings as a payment and token. Sometime later, word spreads that Tamar is pregnant. It is clear to everyone it was done immorally. As the stepfather, Judah feigns religious righteousness (Gen 38:24). Tamar was supposed to be chaste until she was joined with one of Judah’s son. However, Tamar reveals herself and presents Judah's tokens. The deception has proven its point. Judah discovers that he was the unrighteous one.

Tamar is "more righteous" even in her deception (Gen 38:26). Through Judah she would have two sons. The younger son Perez would become a part of the Messianic lineage. Through her deception, Tamar became a part of Christ's family tree. In that regard she is not unlike Rahab. Tamar's deception made her "more righteous" because she correctly deserved to be in Judah's family. Judah was unrighteous for excluding her from her rightful promise from God. Her deception brought her into the Messianic promise given to Eve. I am not making a case here for the ethical nature of their fornication, but this is an interesting movement in the feminine deception through Genesis. In Eve the Garden is lost. In Tamar the Promised is received. Deception is not a one size fits all element of the Genesis story.

DECEPTION IN EGYPT

One of the stranger themes in Genesis is the involvement of Egypt. This makes more sense in the original context. If one holds to a traditional dating of Genesis (that Moses wrote the book), then the first people to hear these words read were the Hebrew slaves from Egypt. Let that sink in. One of the biggest buzz words for the book of Genesis is "Egypt."

Starting with a small example, Sarah's little power play with Hagar is a "trip to Egypt" (Gen 16). Paul would note this same point (Gal 4:21-31). Seeking the promise of God in an Egyptian would have been incredibly foolish in the minds of the listeners. Paul harkens back to this instinctive reading to destroy law based arguments.

In another example, Abraham (Gen 12:10-20) takes Sarah to Egypt literally. A famine drives them. Though elsewhere in the Scripture famine is a sign of judgment that does not seem to be the case here. In a hall of fame for bad examples, Abraham thinks deception will keep him safe. He has Sarah say she is his “sister.” This itself was not a complete lie. Yet the purpose behind it was to make Sarah single. This went beyond deceptive. Abraham put Sarah at risk out of fear for himself. In the end, it is God who delivers Abraham and his bride from the house of Pharaoh.

This story’s point is not about deception however. It points to the exodus of Israel. There God will save His bride Israel. This does not justify Abraham's deception about Sarah being his "sister," but it helps us understand why the text is included in the canon of Scripture. Abraham's example will be repeated both by Abraham and his son. These deceptions make no sense and are inexcusable. They subvert righteousness and put the faithfulness of godly women in danger. They are poor decisions turned into typological opportunities.

The biggest deception in Egypt occurs under Jacob's son Joseph. In a manner similar to Solomon, Joseph utilizes an intricate deception to determine the character of people. In this case these people are his brothers. Most of us are familiar with the story. Joseph is the firstborn son from Jacob's favorite wife. Jacob probably regarded him as his first born son. Joseph receives a "coat of many colors" (which is likely a poor translation). It likely denotes authority and not favoritism. Joseph being in charge of his shepherd brothers fits the context and developing story. Joseph finds himself in Egypt where he rises to the top of all of Egypt. Before that though he has a detour in jail because of another woman's deception (Gen 39). The wife of Potiphar, Joseph’s boss, attempts to seduce Joseph. She recommends them lying to Potiphar. And when Joseph stays faithful, Potiphar lies about Joseph attacking her. It is interesting that Potiphar’s wife goes nameless as she perpetrates horrible deceptions against the righteous.

Once Joseph sits directly under Pharaoh, he pulls the equivalent of a long con. Up the arrival of his brothers, He accuses them of being spies (Gen 42:9). He puts them in jail for three days before sending them all back without Simeon. Joseph sends them home with their money snuck in their bags. They are not to return without Joseph’s brother Benjamin. They can't control their fear. Even Jacob is fearful of sending Benjamin. The text implies the brothers waited a significant time before re-entering Egypt. Left unaddressed is the fact that Simeon is in jail the entire time. All of this to see if Joseph’s brothers will bring Benjamin to Egypt without betraying him. The repetition of going to Egypt, bringing his brothers to jail, and ultimately breaking bread with them must have been quite the tale for the Hebrew slaves. All this to determine the validity of his brother's heart. All of this to reveal Judah the worthy redeemer from among his brother. But that is actually a sub point.

Scattered across this timeline, Joseph is actually a pre-fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. The whole world is blessed through him. Genesis 41:57 says "all the earth" came to him for bread <cough> and wine <cough>. He tests his brothers and provides a bountiful table before them. All of this prefigures Jesus Christ's "testing" of His brothers/people (who betray Him) before providing the bread of life to the entire world. The story of Genesis ends with a partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

With the previous study on deception in mind, it would seem that Joseph in his wisdom was right to test his brothers. If the predisposition to denounce deception is displaced, Joseph is seen as an early Solomon, who is an early Jesus. The book of Genesis provides these cluttered views on deception all mixed together. Yet, all of these subthemes of deception are merely preparation for the start of Exodus. Just as deception was a big part of getting to Egypt, deception plays a big role in getting out of Egypt.

4

DEFYING EVIL THROUGH DECEPTION

Three section have been read. One remains. The purpose of this series was to challenge any attempt to discredit the current defrocking of Planned Parenthood. Some have questioned the ethics of deception to bring down monstrous evil. Well, thankfully there is one text in the Scripture that brings an end to the discussion.

However, any one text cannot not accomplish the task. I have spent time looking at other texts to prove that I am not building an inappropriate standard on one passage. I have presented Biblical texts that support the idea of deception being used to bring about righteous judgment and deliverance. Once residual misconception is removed, the clinching text comes from Exodus. It also links directly to delivering babies from evil. In short, it is a perfect text to study in relation to Planned Parenthood.

MIDWIVES AND STRONG WOMEN

Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. — Exodus 1:15-21 (ESV)

Let's walk through this text from the top. Over time, the Pharaohs had forgotten the blessing that Joseph provided at the end of Genesis. There is even a hint that Israel had begun to worship false gods (Josh 24:14). These two events may have worked together to remove the blessing of God over the people. In either case, the political dangers of multiplying Hebrew children worried Egypt. The relationship at the end of Genesis was not ideal either. These are the same Hebrews who were unwelcome in the main city, and they took advantage to farm the land (Gen 46:33-34). The Egyptians would not even eat with the Hebrews (Gen 43:32). From the start, the Hebrews were the outcast minorities. They were the unclean immigrants. Egypt questioned their nationality and feared betrayal during a war. The Hebrews were the definition of unwanted people — except for their value as labor. Egypt’s purposed solution is gendercide. The number of similarities to the founding of Planned Parenthood is staggering.

All this background is presented for a reason. Pharaoh's attack is certainly spiritual, but it is primarily political. It is gendercide and racism. Pharaoh is intimately worried about this kingdom being toppled by the multiplication of little children. This should remind us of Herod (Matt 2:1-18). We should also recall Psalm 8:2. Babies are kingdom shakers and this makes them targets. It is in the persecution of them that Pharaoh believes he will gain his victory. It is against this backdrop that the exodus occurs. The exodus that removes men, women, and children from Egypt (Exo 10:7-11; 10:24-26). The major gospel text of the Old Testament is presented in this highly charged context. Many of these same social and political themes are evident in the Gospels. There is no way to separate Christian doctrine from Christian ethics. The Gospel is political. The Gospel is racially sensitive. Righteousness involves innocent lives. This is the heart of holy deception.

The law of Egypt stand against all of this. The law of Egypt is the destruction of innocent lives. In this world the text introduces us to the Hebrew midwives who are asked to carry out this destruction. They are to be the legal means by which injustice is performed. It is their job. It is mandatory. Yet, their names give away the fact that they will be above reproach. Their names mean "fair/beautiful" and "splendid." They are God-fearers. Could just two women serve the entire population of Israel? That is debatable but unlikely. These two women foreshadow Moses and Aaron. The emphasis on two women matches other Biblical forms including Deborah/Jael and Mary/Elizabeth. The redemption of God's people often comes from two women.

These two women had the potential to be Planned Parenthood. Business was apparently booming. That is what has Egypt scared. But to fulfill redemption, they refused to obey Pharaoh. In their fear for God, they could not obey Pharaoh. They also had to lie about it. This package of works is direct disobedience to the government. Take note, permitting children to live was in direct disobedience to the government. The New Testament clearly prescribes obedience to the government (Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13-14). Most Christian affirm an exception to this teaching when it demands sinfulness. Defiance is permitted to support righteousness. These Christians would be correct. This distinctio is essential to holy deception. Lying to pervert justice is forbidden in the 8th Commandment. Deception to preserve righteous judgment receives praise in Scripture.

These midwives rejected the praise of Pharaoh and preserved the children. Instead of pandering to the government, they stonewalled the king of lawlessness. The Hebrew word in Exodus 1:20 means that God was "well pleased." And He treats the midwives accordingly. There is an irony here that must be caught. What did the Lord give them for their obedience? The very thing they were protecting — godly offspring (Exo 1:21). A community of future kingdom shakers. God built up the covenant community on the faithful holy deception of these two women.

Some will want to point out that the blessing could correspond to the disobedience and not the lying. Earlier posts on this issue make it clear that no such distinction needs to be made. God blesses the midwives for their disobedience through lying.

IMPLICATIONS

The text is rather clear. The women lied. And God brought blessings. Not only did He bring the blessing of a family but He also brought forth the blessing of a messiah (like Tamar and Rahab). The stories of Genesis begin to ring in our ears. Once again deception is at the center of righteous judgment and deliverance. Once again God uses deception to bring about the redemption of His people and the promise to Eve — the true Messiah. This is not merely God using poor circumstances. This is God reversing a false judgment set forth by humanity. This is God overturning the false righteousness of the world.

Those who have practiced deception against Planned Parenthood are to be lauded for their faithfulness. They have taken advantage of their particular opportunity and been found faithful. They have taken on the unfaithful midwives of our day. They have rejected the Pharaoh of the modern world. The question becomes are Christians ready to lie to the supreme authorities of the world to protect the innocent?

5

OBJECTIONS TO HOLY DECEPTION

It should not be surprising that material on "why it is okay to lie" might receive some push back. It is time for me to address a couple of objections that went undeveloped in earlier sections. I have decide to deal with these in no particular order. Some answer might have overlap with each other or earlier sections.

DECEPTION IS NOT IN GOD'S NATURE

The firs objection is simple – Deception is not in God’s nature. This is a really strong objection probably even the best objection of the bunch. Let me make a preliminary point before addressing Biblical support for this objection. Sleep is not in God's nature. Neither is eating. God does not perform them. That does not make them inherently evil. Said again, they are not automatically a sin. This demonstrates that the argument solely from God's nature is ultimately insufficient. Calvin’s use of this objection in reference to Rahab fails to hit the mark of true exegesis. It hides behind an analogical argument that is unsatisfactory. What needs to be clearly articulated is hatred for the characteristic and activity (that will be the source of the next objection).

Also, is deception really against God's nature? Before anyone freaks out, let me answer in the affirmative. But it has already been shown that God is not beyond utilizing deception for His purposes. So is it really a stretch to see deception is His nature? I think not. I also think that some of the popular Biblical support is a little weak after a second glance,

“God is not a man, that He should lie,

Nor a son of man, that He should repent;

Has He said, and will He not do it?

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" - Numbers 23:19 (NASB)

The text seems clear right? God does not lie. So why would I say it is weak? When read in context, the sum of the verse is "God makes good on His promises." What He promises He shall do. He will not change His mind or "repent." This is a significantly different subject than holy deception. The same is true of Paul’s point in Titus 1:2.

Even more confusing, the Scripture says that God repents (Gen 6:6-7). So the authors of Scripture were okay saying that God repented in some sense. But it must be a different sense than the one mentioned in Numbers 23:19. The dangers of this kind of proof texting should be obvious. God did repent in some sense. Explaining the "how" of Genesis 6:6-7 is not the point though. So if God could “repent” in some sense is it okay to say the God could "lie" in some sense? Perhaps. The Scriptures certainly would not be in error if they said God did lie. But the Scriptures do not say such a thing. Instead, Hebrews 6:18 says “it is impossible for God to lie.” So I am inclined to say that deception is not in God's nature.

As a formula for understanding, I see deception in a unique category. So let me briefly explain how I can see deception as contrary to God's nature yet not inherently sinful (like eating, sleeping, etc.). There are many things in the law that are not sins but still mark a person as "unclean." These are a special thing ethically. Many people have often read "unclean" as inherently sinful, but this is to misunderstand the holiness laws of the OT. It is also to misunderstand why they are abrogated in Jesus Christ. These holiness laws can, and must, be abrogated in Jesus Christ because they are in fact not sinful.

Despite never having a specific command against it, I believe deception is analogous to this type of uncleanness on a higher level. I know of no place that explicitly forbids deception except for the 8th Commandment (which features heavily in the next objection). But spoilers, the 8th Commandment is not speaking to general deception or lying. It speaks against a very specific perversion in this fallen world. As I see it, in a perfect world, deception would not be needed. Thus, it is fitting that God in His perfect nature does not lie just as in the eternal state I do not expect to need sleep or food (though as created beings we might partake in both...I really don't know). In summary, 'holy deception' is an unfortunate activity in a fallen world, but it is not a sin.

GOD CLEARLY STATES THAT HE HATES SIN

One of the faster objections put on the table is the 8th Commandment. This commandment is normally quoted as "thou shalt not lie." This is also normally how the Commandment is taught to children. But this quotation is not found in the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:16; Deut 5:20). Instead, the commandment prohibits false testimony. The focus of this proper interpretation is on courtroom situations. The language of the commandment suggests the context of the swing testimony. One is not to bear false witness/lie in a courtroom to subvert justice. This is to use false speech to bring about unrighteousness. Letting someone off the hook through deception is evil. False conviction through deception is evil. This is the point of emphasis for the 8th Commandment.

The argument expands beyond this text. The familiar statement "thou shalt not lie" is from Leviticus 19:11. Here too though, lying is brought up in association with "stealing" and "dealing falsely." Here "lying" is associated with doing harm to one's neighbor. This is not an ambiguous and general lying. This is a very pointed moral commandment to do good toward your neighbor. This is repeated in the NT (Col 3:9). This type of deception is vastly different from deception to preserve justice and save one's neighbor.

Finally, the verb for "lie" in Numbers 23:19 is used even less often in the Old Testament. It is hard to argue for an understanding of this particular verb beyond the subverting of justice (Prov 14:5). It certainly might include all forms of deception, but there is nothing in any usage to imply this thought.

In many of the previous examples in this series, deception was used to subvert injustice. It was not used to falsely condemn a man. Nor was it used to falsely vindicate a man. A Hebrew word for “lie” was not used in any of them either. Though our cultural distinction would call these events “lying,” the Scripture never associates these examples with things God hates. It is unfair to correctly read that God hates injustice as defined by the word “lie” and then apply this judgment to texts that do not use the word. In the face of many positive examples, there remains no Scripture to sufficiently prove that God hates deception that saves/preserves a righteous man or damns/condemns an unrighteous man.

THAT'S ARGUING THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS

The third argument is a philosophical jab. It is a pretty common objection because it seems to be logical. It goes like this "if you will lie to save a life, why not just blow up abortion clinics?" Now, this one is pretty silly once you stare at it for a few seconds. First, it presumes the conclusion. It presumes that lying is wrong such that it needs the ends to justify the sinful “means."

But let's dig a little deeper. Why the assumption that lying is bad? Strip lying down to its base. It is non-factual talk. Is all non-factual talk sinful? All fiction writing is by nature non-factual talk. Children's books are often filled with fictitious stuff that is far beyond belief. What makes these non-truths ethical? Is it the ends? Fictional books are not trying to convince us that they are historically accurate (not all of them anyway). They are written to entertain. So are we really turning against lying, as a form of non-factual talk, because of its deceptive intent?

What about pranks? Are pranks unethical? They too are non-factual talk. They are intentionally deceptive. They do so with hopes of a funny outcome. Is it really the outcome that makes a prank ethical but deception unethical? That is "ends justify the means" type thinking. And it would invalidate some pranks if the individual pranked did not find it funny. It should be clear, unless individuals suggest that all non-factual speech is unethical, then they are using "ends-justify-the-means" to disregard holy deception. The question and accusation are inherently flawed. There is no reason to respond to this accusation. But let me answer it as if it was not.

One might still ask, am I not inherently saying "lie to support righteousness" but don't "lie to subvert righteousness"? Is that not clearly ends justify the means? Well, let me answer first — it is not. Now let me show by analogy that there is an ontological difference between these two acts, thus disproving the reliance on "the ends."

Sex between a married couple is ontologically different than pre-marital sex or adultery. One supports marriage. The other can destroy marriages. But that is not what makes one good or bad. The acts themselves are different from one another because of the heart and context of the event. Similarly, one does not lie to result in righteousness. One should lie when righteousness is being subverted. The ends of the situation are actually quite irrelevant. If the end of that lie is imprisonment, death, etc. the lie would still be justified. Hence not "ends justify the means."

A Biblical example would be the wise men’s deception of Herod (Matt 2:7-16). Herod attempts to deceive the travelers. He wants to kill the prophetic messiah. After finding Jesus, the wise men are warned in a dream to go home another way (Matt 2:12). This might seem innocuous but the Scripture described Herod as being “tricked” or “mocked” by the wise men (Matt 2:16). It is in this fury that Herod sends soldiers to kill the babies in Bethlehem. God could have saved Jesus without the travelers lying. This could have saved the babies of Bethlehem. And yet, the wise men were told through special revelation to avoid Herod. They were told to “trick” Herod. This was a righteous act because it subverted Herod’s desire for unrighteousness. It was not righteous because of the consequences of the lie. By those standards many might say the wise men failed.

I hope these objections have been helpful to those who will face criticism for supporting "holy deception." Let me conclude by saying, holy deception is not defined by the ends or conclusion. It is define by what it glorifies. It promotes righteousness not unrighteousness. It serves its neighbor and not self. It never condemns the innocent. It never frees the guilty. Holy deception seeks to ground the righteousness of God into time and place.

APPENDIX A

A HEALTHY VIEW OF SIN

These chapters appeared as blog posts on Torrey Gazette. They are included here to provide more insight to the nature of sin. They are neither essential nor inconsequential to the thesis of holy deception. They can be enjoyed or discarded without damage to the ethical defense of holy deception.

A HEALTHY VIEW OF SIN

The room stood at a stand still, "Judah, are you a sinner?" Some people may have been holding their breath waiting for an answer.

His beady eyes went around the lunch table. His long hair gives him a more childish face. But this is especially true as the corners of his lips curl. His eyes locked on me. He could not tell if he was supposed to be funny or serious. We had just returned from our morning service, and I was in the middle of telling a story. For the first time during the Lord's Supper Judah had expressed a desire to partake. Normally he is asleep. On this particular Sunday he was awake for the whole service. I was both excited and exasperated. I took the opportunity to talk to him about sin, Jesus' body being broken, and Jesus' blood being shed.

I am a paedocommunion apologist. But I respect my local church, the elders, and our collective confession. So I aggressively educate my children. I asked Judah if he realized he was a sinner. He said, "yes" and then he proceeded to point to every other member of the family to state that they too were a sinner. He was not seeking to justify himself in pointing out the sins of others. Confession of community sinfulness is never inherently legalism. He was just reiterating the theological truth that he was learning.

At lunch, his eyes met mine and he smiled. He has a boyish charm that will almost certainly be the cause of headaches and heartbreaks. He answered my mom, "Yes, I'm a sinner." He then proceeded to go around the table saying each person in our family was a sinner. Until he got to my father — Pastor Grambo (the name is a long story). He stopped to consider if he was a sinner and answered in the negative. There was a round of laughter and some correction. Once again he was back to "everyone's a sinner."

In the broader world of evangelicalism this is an important proposition. I am very glad that he affirms it. As believers grow this truth leads to very important questions — what is sin? Are we ever not sinning?

This is crucial in pastoral theology. It is also crucial in parental theology (aka "how to raise children"). Every human activity is tainted by our fallen-ness but does that mean every activity is inherently "sinful"? Paul says what is not done in faith is sin (Rom 14:23). Does this not imply that there are things done in faith that are not sinful? Similarly, the author of Hebrews says it is impossible to please God ... without faith (Heb 11:6). Does this not imply that actions done in faith are pleasing to God?

Some will point to Isaiah 64:6 to prove that the "righteous deeds" of humans are sinful. I have taken time in other places to show that this passage as well as Ezekiel 36:16-18 point to the covenant unfaithfulness of Israel. The uncleanness described is a righteousness being made soiled. It is an old covenant description. These statements are contained to Israel in her covenant state before God with their wicked religious practices. At best, these can be applied to the church when they are in rebellion, but not of believers in general. The debate over Romans 7 is age-old. Yet, even those who affirm that exegetically Romans 7 must be pre-conversion (which I do) attest that Christians remain perpetual sinners. This is not the same as saying every act is a perpetual sin.

A "healthy understanding of sin" is to acknowledge that we are all wretched sinners who need God's grace; but it is not an unrealized grace. This grace is not stuck in the heavens but is found in Jesus Christ. It is at the very least a grace come down. Yet even more, it is not found in a stagnate Jesus Christ. It is at the very least a grace raised up. This grace is found in the resurrected and reigning Christ.

This Jesus Christ nailed our debt to the cross and publicly humiliated the forces of evil (Col 2:13-15). We have been completely liberated from death (Heb 2:14-15). A resurrected Jesus Christ does all of this. Resurrected not solely for His justification but also for ours (Rom 4:23-25). This means that our resurrection is a reality (Eph 2:4-6). There is something quantifiably different in the resurrected person. Our justification from sin and death is a present reality (Rom 6:7-11).

A healthy understanding of sin recognizes its dominion over everything that does not belong to Christ. Among those who belong to Christ sin no longer has dominion. It has been put to shame. It has been mocked and ridiculed on the stage of redemptive history. Christian sanctification lives in this reality.

Yes, Judah is a sinner. Yet, he is a sinner who can please his earthly father. He is a sinner who can please his Heavenly Father. Not because of any work he has done (Eph 2:9) but because His Savior became man to conquer sin for mankind. A healthy understanding of sin acknowledges that our sin is permanently nailed to a cross.

APPENDIX B

THE RELATIONAL NATURE OF SIN

After reflecting on a healthy view of sin, I would like to spend a little more time discussing where I think we go wrong in our understanding of what quantifies sin. Hopefully, I do not lose friends in the process. This has an inverse relationship then to how we define and quantify obedience. I want to stretch a large tent over what sin is. I desire to use this same large tent to defend Christian obedience.

COMMAND ORIENTATION

Growing up it seemed like sin was solely defined by commands. Another way of putting this is the modern law forms much of early child development — simply "do" or "don't." The generation I prefer to not identify with is springing up asking if Biblical commands exist for every Christian ethic. This approach essentially resolves to "Yes, then obey it. No? Then we will get back to you." This is unfortunate because a generation of pseudo-Christianity is now bringing this style of argument ranging from homosexuality to the legalization of marijuana.

This concept has always struck me as odd. It manifests in disagreements like can Christian lie in non-sinful ways. There is no direct commandment against lying and yet it seems to go against the very nature of God. What is a command-oriented Christian to think?

Thankfully, the church does not consistently think this way. Throughout the same period of being taught to think of sin in terms of commands, I was taught attitude matters. The imagery of the child obeying his parents with a bad attitude is etched into my mind. The moral of the story always being that obedience with a poor attitude was still disobedience. This was probably more an interjection by concerned parents and pastors than a well thought out theological point. But as a theological point it certainly could help explain how Satan, bound to the will of God, remains in perpetual disobedience. It does not matter if he or his demons have faith (James 2:19), they will solely ever do so while rejecting His Lordship. So we would be right to call Satan's submission to Christ's Lordship a sin because internally He rejects Christ's Lordship.

This means that sin is not about commands. But this does not mean we can ignore commands. Commands are a subset of what God has revealed to mankind. To get a healthy understanding of sin, we need to see it as fundamentally our relationship or response to God's revelation. When God speaks our physical and external responses are driven by our internal responses. If we receive God's revelation and trust Him we call that obedience. Sometimes we receive His revelation and struggle with doubt and subsequent disobedience. Sometimes we reject what He reveals while still going through the motions of obedience. And finally, sometimes we both reject what He reveals and externally express our disobedience.

This is crucial in helping us expand the gap between what is sinful and what is ethical or moral. Understanding sin to be a rejection of God's revelation allows us to say much more about sin. It also allows us to affirm ethical and moral activity from non-believers.

RELATIONAL, NOT ONTOLOGICAL

We must focus on God's revelation as the center of sin. With this underneath us, we can look at sin as relational not merely ontological. This means that a specific behavior can be sin or not sin based upon an individual's attitude towards God's revelation (1 Cor 10:23; Titus 1:5). I must provide a caveat. Some behavior will always be sin because its basis is a rejection of God's revelation. To reiterate and state simply — sin is about our relationship to God's revelation. Sin is our rejection of His revelation.

How does this re-paint the garden? Adam and Eve's sin was not eating. That was the external manifestation of the true "original sin." The eating was the breaking of the commandment, which was the fundamental way Israel thought of sin. Christ's teaching returns us to the understanding of the heart for or against God. Through Christ we see the original sin was the rejection of God's word about the tree. In rejecting God's revelation, they decided to believe in unbelief. They rejected the Lordship of God. This then expressed itself in eating the fruit. So we can summarize — sin does not come apart from a rejection of God's revelation. Paul's language in Romans 5:13 and Romans 7:9 slowly begins to make more sense. A lot more sense actually.

What does this mean in terms of total depravity? When Adam and Eve were removed from the presence of God there was a quantifiable difference in the relationship between man and God. As federal heads, Adam and Eve were our representation before God in His temple. In their rejection, access to eternal life (knowledge and experience of God Himself) was cut off. The phrase “sin spread to all men” (Rom 5:12) can be expressed by the simply idea of men suppressing truth or revelation (Rom 1:18). In Romans 1:18-32 Paul lays down the ultimate "know God" (revelation) but "reject God" (sin).

My contention is that in rejecting God's revelation any activity is rightfully called a sin. I believe that Paul addresses this later in Romans when he speaks of sin being activity apart from faith (Rom 14:23). I also believe the author of Hebrews addressed this from the perspective of faith making obedience pleasing to God (Heb 11:6). Total depravity then is nothing more than rejecting God's revelation of who He is and living one's life for the glorification of self. Thinking this way it is significantly easier to understand how "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen 6:5). This statement can be true today for even the most moral/ethical of individuals so long as they reject the revelation of God (namely Jesus Christ).

It should quickly be stated that I am not denying total depravity. I am just not placing it in the biology or makeup of a person. Total depravity is something we are born into by way of a severed relationship with God. I am affirming sin as rebellion against God. I am just not rooting sin in the ontology of the act (though some acts remain sin no matter our attitude toward God). This frees us to see how a baptized, and restored, individual ultimately is incomparably distinct from an unregenerate individual. For the former, this restored relationship to God makes obedience not only possible but, pardon the phrase, easy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Corey Poff for providing proof reading and feedback throughout the original blog series and the subsequent revisions.

All credit for formatting and readability goes to Mathew Sims who provided editorial support as well as sounding board for all my awful ideas.

Finally, this project could not have been accomplished without my wife Alaina. She filled the role of reviewer, editor, design consultant, and lion tamer of our three children.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joshua Torrey lives in Austin, Texas with his wife Alaina Torrey and children Kenzie, Judah, and Olivia. He is a computer chip designer by day. His night job is writer and editor for Torrey Gazette. Relying on a broad background of theological subjects, he is currently focused on ecclesiology and practical theology through corporate discipleship and covenant upbringing.

Table of Contents

FOREWORD

Chapter 1: God’s Holy Deception

Chapter 2: Man’s Holy Deception

Chapter 3: An Excurse on Genesis

Chapter 4: Defying Evil through Deception

Chapter 5: Objections to Holy Deception

APPENDIX A: A Healthy View of Sin

APPENDIX B: The Relation Nature of Sin

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR