Deception in the Bible: Isn’t Lying a Sin?

Posted in

This piece was originally featured in the Southern Nebraska Registerโ€™s โ€œAsk the Registerโ€ column on November 22, 2024, which can be foundย here.

Q. I was reading the Book of Judith, and it seems like Judith is praised for lying. Isnโ€™t lying a sin?

A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, โ€œLying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring manโ€™s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lordโ€ (2483). The Psalms tell us that the Lord โ€œ[destroys] those who speak liesโ€ (5:5). These raise an important question whenever we consider these teachings alongside scenes in the Bible, such as in Judith, that present that moral issue of lying to achieve a better end.

In the book of Judith, we encounter the evil king Nebuchadnezzar and his chief, Holofernes, who set out to destroy Bethulia, the hometown of Judith. Depicted with great bravery and heroism, Judith set in motion a plan to save her people by deceiving Holofernes and, using that deception, brought him to an end, thus saving her people and city. This is not dissimilar to the moral issues posed by the cases of the Hebrew midwives (Exod 1:15-22), and Rahabโ€™s deception (Josh 2:1-24). This brings us to the layered question: Was Judithโ€™s lying permissible? If characters in the Bible lie, does that mean the end can justify the means?

First, we should be clear that just because something is de facto in the Bible does not mean it is morally permissible. If this were the case, we would have a multitude of moral issues to wrestle with: Judithโ€™s deception, Adam and Eveโ€™s rejection of God, Davidโ€™s adultery, Judasโ€™ betrayal, and many more. Clearly not all of the Bibleโ€™s characters and their actions are presented as moral examples to be followed. For helpful guidance in navigating interpretive challenges of this nature, let us consult two of the greatest saints and biblical theologians in Christian history, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Augustine writes, โ€œNo lie is just. Accordingly, when examples of lying are proposed to us from the sacred Scriptures, either they are not lies but are thought so for not being understood, or, if they are lies, they are not to be imitated because they cannot be just.โ€

Augustine goes on to treat the examples of the Hebrew midwives and Rahab, noting: โ€œAs for its being written that God dealt well with the Hebrew midwives and with Rahab the harlot of Jericho, he did not deal well with them because they lied, but because they were merciful to the men of God. And so, it was not their deception that was rewarded, but their benevolence; the benignity of their intention, not the iniquity of their inventionโ€ (Against Lying, 15.31-32).

Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas notes that no one in the Scriptures is praised on account of his or her lie, but rather on account of his or her virtuous disposition. Thus, Aquinas says of Judith that, โ€œIt is thus that Judith is praised, not for lying to Holofernes, but for her desire to save the people, to which end she exposed herself to dangerโ€ (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 110, a. 3, obj. 3).

Ultimately, we can conclude with certainty that lying in any capacity remains a sin. It is a direct offense against Truth, which is fully expressed in the Person of Jesus Christ (cf. John 14:6). It can be said, then, that to some degree Judith indeed committed an offense in lying to accomplish her heroic plans. It is not her lie, however, but her devotion and heroism that receive divine approval. The Bible does not shy from depicting the full spectrum of human behavior, good or bad. What the Bible does reveal is the purity of intention and desire that Judith (and others) had, despite their illicit means of achieving them. In the end, while their good did not justify their sinful means, the resultant good outweighed the offenses that were committed in the process.

All of this leaves us with two convictions: the end should never justify the means, and we should remain pure in our acts and intentions; and we should cling to the hope that even when we do fall short, the Lord is merciful, and that โ€œlove covers a multitude of sinsโ€ (1 Pet 4:8).


Comments

  1. Vincent Ettari, P.E. Avatar

    It is interesting that no one ever addresses Elijah’s direct lies to Ahab.

    In 1 Kings 18, Obadiah encounters Elijah, who intends to meet the King. Obadiah is concerned that Elijah might disappear after he (Obadiah) informs the King that Elijah is ready to see him (the King, Ahab). Obadiah reminds Elijah that he had “hid a hundred prophets of the LORD, fifty men per cave, and I provided them with food and water” 1 Kings 18:13). So if Elijah had not known, he certainly knew about them at that moment.

    But then in verse 22, Elijah states to the people who had gathered on Mt. Carmel, โ€œI am the only remaining prophet of the LORD”. Strictly speaking, Elijah knew this was untrue. There were at least 100 other prophets, being hidden in the caves. But Ahab was present, and his wife Jezebel hated the followers of YHWH. So, Elijah did not betray the existence of the other prophets in front of Ahab.

    Clearly, Elijah was lying when he stated that he alone was left. But that lie was necessary to protect tge other prophets (Nd don’t forget about Elisha, his prophetic understudy).

    So, clearly, there are times that a lie is not a sin against our God.


  2. Vern Steiner Avatar
    Vern Steiner

    Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the delayed response. Our colleague who wrote the blog about Judith moved to another ministry in December and is no longer here at Emmaus.

    Your reading of 1 Kings 18 presupposes that Elijah regards himself as the โ€œonly remaining prophet of the LORDโ€ in an absolute sense. Alternatively, he is not lying if he simply means that at that point, in that moment, he stands alone in taking a public stand against the overwhelming odds. The Hebrew wording of v. 22 certainly allows for this reading: โ€œI am left, a prophet of the LORD, by myselfโ€ (lit.). From v. 19 and the larger context, it seems clear that he stood alone against the opposition in the showdown at Mt. Carmel. Neither Elisha nor the prophets protected by Obadiah were on the scene. This was a contest of 1 against 450! Of course, with YHWH on oneโ€™s side, 1 is a majority!

    Shalom, in Christ,

    Vern Steiner


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are subject to moderation in accordance with our posting guidelines. Follow these instructions to format your comment.