The Controversy About Rahab's Lie

It's a controversial topic as to why Rahab was even written and commended in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 as an example of faith. The controversy lies in the fact that she lied to the Canaanite authorities. I have consulted at least three late Presbyterians - Matthew Henry, Vernon McGee, and Robert C. Sproul Sr. for some possible answers. Why was Rahab written in spite of the fact that she lied to the Canaanite authorities?

Matthew Henry had written this about Rahab's lie:

Now, (1.) We are sure this was a good work: it is canonized by the apostle (James. 2:25 ), where she is said to be justified by works, and this is specified, that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way, and she did it by faith, such a faith as set her above the fear of man, even of the wrath of the king. She believed, upon the report she had heard of the wonders wrought for Israel, that their God was the only true God, and that therefore their declared design upon Canaan would undoubtedly take effect and in this faith she sided with them, protected them, and courted their favour. Had she said, "I believe God is yours and Canaan yours, but I dare not show you any kindness,’’ her faith had been dead and inactive, and would not have justified her. But by this it appeared to be both alive and lively, that she exposed herself to the utmost peril, even of life, in obedience to her faith. Note, Those only are true believers that can find in their hearts to venture for God; and those that by faith take the Lord for their God take his people for their people, and cast in their lot among them. Those that have God for their refuge and hiding-place must testify their gratitude by their readiness to shelter his people when there is occasion. Let my outcasts dwell with thee, Isa. 16:3, Isa. 16:4 . And we must be glad of an opportunity of testifying the sincerity and zeal of our love to God by hazardous services to his church and kingdom among men.

I decided to skip some parts and proceed to this part of McGee's commentary on Joshua 2 to get directly to the point:

She (Rahab) not only believed, but she is acting on that belief. This is her reason for putting her life in jeopardy to protect enemy spies. She heard; she beleived; then she acted upon her belief.

This is salvation, friend. When you hear the Gospel, the good news of what Christ has done for you, you must not only believe it as ahistorical fact, you must trust Christ yourself.

So this woman trusted the fact that God was going to give them that land. She turned into the living and true God. "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she received the spies with peace." (Hebrews 11:31)

Then here's what Sproul has to say from his book "Now That's a Good Question" in Chapter 20 entitled "Lifestyle Ethics" in pages 413 - 414:

Over the centuries, in the Christian church, there has developed an ethicl of truthfulness that is linked to justice. To Christian is always to give the truth and speak the truth to whom the truth is due. The question becomes, Is there such a case for the so-called just or justified lie? I would say so, and the situations falling most clearly into that category would involve war, murder, or criminal activities. If a murderer comes into your house and he wants to know if your children are upstairs in bed and you know that it's intent to murder them, it's your moral obligation to lie to him, to deceive him as much as you possibly can to prevent those lives from being taken. I think that woul dalso be true in cases of war. I don't thin a person is required to tell the enemy where his group is concealed any more than a quarterback in a football game is required to announce to the defense that the intended play is. He can use faking and deception in order to execute that play. That's sort of a war game on the football field. Numerous Christians lied to the Nazis to protect Jews from capture and extermination. I think that in cases in which we know that lying will prevent such evil, it is legitimate.

This pretty much explains it. While parents lying to get their children to do good is a bad thing but lying to somebody to protect one's children (like protecting them from a sex maniac) even at the cost of one's life is something else. Children deserve to know the truth and to where truth is due. Sometimes, you need to pretend not to know anything if it could jeopardize something or withhold confidential truth that could put your loved ones in danger whenever necessary or if your death can harm those you care about. It's all about having a case-to-case basis. Lying to save your skin vs. lying to save others are two different things. It's a matter of prudence. The righteous in Christ may be as bold as a lion yet a lion hides before attacking its prey.