(Is It Ever Okay to Sin? Post 4) Blessed Sins

            The closest thing to a condoned lie in the Bible is when Rahab told the king of Jericho that she 

did not know where the Israelite spies went. It turns out that they she hid them on her roof beforehand. 

The result of this episode? Rahab and her family ends up getting saved when the Israelites invade 

their city (Jericho). Let’s study this a little more. It's found in Joshua chapters 1, 2, and 6.

            Moses had died (Joshua 1:1). God tells Joshua to move into the land He was going to give them 

(1:2-4). To scout the land in front of them, Joshua sends two spies into the promised land, and 

specifically to the city Jericho (2:1). The king of Jericho learns about this, and tries to find the men (2:2-

3). He specifically goes to Rahab the Harlot and tells her to hand the spies over  (2:3). Rahab lies to 

them (2:4-5). The spies are safe, and promise to spare her and her family (2:14). In chapter six, the 

Israelites conquer Jericho (6:21). Rahab was saved (6:25).

            In Hebrews 11:31, the author writes about Rahab: “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not (was 

saved) with them that believed not (the rest of Jericho’s residents), when she had received the spies with 

peace.”

            People look at these two passages (indeed, any two passages where a sin is committed and good 

follows) and do the following logic*:

1. Someone sins.

2. God later blesses that person.

3. Therefore, God condoned that person's sin (in extreme situations).

           

            What people forget, in this instance and the last one I went over, is that nowhere in the Bible 

is Rahab praised, blessed, or rewarded (etc.) for sinning. The writer of Hebrews doesn’t say, “Rahab is 

awesome because she sinned to save the spies.” No, she was praised for her faith. Look at her 

awesome speech in Joshua 2:9-13. Look at the fear of the Lord and her faith in God. She is being 

commended for that. Her lie was unfortunate, but was not the focus of Hebrews 11:31.

            Are there other instances of people sinning in the Bible and later being blessed? Yes, there is. 

David commits adultery with Bathsheba and murders her husband (2 Samuel 11:2-17). I think we can 

all agree he lived a long and generally happy life. Elisha tells a lie to the Syrians looking to capture him 

(2 Kings 6:13-20). Elisha was one of the great prophets, and he lived a long and wonderful life. But if 

you read the Bible, you will find that nowhere does it condone those sins. The sin never causes the 

blessing. Sin happens, and sometimes amazing things come out of it.

            But nowhere does God permit us to sin. We sin anyway, and in God’s providence He uses it for 

good. But to use the famous words of Paul, “God forbid” us from deliberately sinning so that God’s 

grace and goodness can be made known (Romans 6:1-2).

            To summarize, does God condone sinning if it achieves a higher purpose (saving lives, for 

instance)? My personal answer is no. But again, there are two sides to the issue. Some say that yes, it is 

okay in extreme conditions. I’ll give you some articles for both sides.

            In my next and (most likely) final post on this issue, I’ll go over an interesting position I came 

across.

*For you logicians out there, forgive me if I did something wrong with my example. Anyhoo, the first 

two steps (the premises) were true. But step three (the conclusion) did not follow from the premises. 

It’s wrong because God blesses that person for other reasons (faith, obedience, etc.), not for that sin. It’s 

been awhile since I’ve looked at a logic book, but I think this mistake in general terms is called a non 

sequitur.

P.S. Articles that say sin (specifically lying) can be okay: 

http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-it-ever-morally-permissible-to-lie/

http://www.gotquestions.org/right-to-lie.html

Articles that say sin is never okay:

http://bibleq.net/answer/4009/

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=733

http://www.bibleteacher.org/Lying.htm (this is the best article for this side of the issue)

(Is It Ever Okay to Sin? Post 3) Sin to Save?

            Exodus chapter one details the plight of Joseph’s descendants. There came a time when an 

Egyptian king (Pharaoh) came to power who did not know* of Joseph and what he had done for Egypt 

(verse 8). This king saw the Hebrews as a threat (9). So, naturally, he goes all Hitler on them. He tells 

the Hebrew midwives** to kill the baby boys (16). Because of their fear of God, they did not do it (17). 

Naturally, the Pharaoh learns of this and asks them why they did not obey him (18).

            Here is the rub. Basically, the Hebrew midwives (Shiphrah and Puah) tell him, “The Hebrew 

women have their children too quickly for us to get there in time to kill them” (19). This sounds really 

odd to most, so many assume that this is a lie.

            For the midwives’ obedience and faith, God blesses them by giving them houses and allowing 

the Hebrew nation to grow stronger (20-21).

            People say, “Hey, the midwives lied to save lives, and God blessed them for it! Therefore it is 

okay for us to lie in extreme situations, too.” But hold up a second, tell me where God blesses them for 

lying? Who says they were lying in the first place?

            The Hebrew midwives could have been telling the truth. Unless the Bible tells us they were 

lying explicitly (Peter denying Christ) or indirectly (Rahab the Harlot and the spies), we are to assume 

they were telling the truth. Here are three options:

1. Maybe it is true. Maybe the Hebrew women really did have their children quickly, and were able to 

do something with the baby boys before the midwives got there.

2. Maybe the Hebrew women waited until their children were born before telling the midwives they 

were giving birth. When the midwives came, the baby boys would be long gone.

3. This option is just a twist on the second. The midwives could’ve made an agreement with expectant 

mothers beforehand not to come until well after the women had their children. The baby boys would be 

hidden. This is #2 except “pre-meditated”, with the midwives in league with the Hebrew women to 

save their children.

            Simply put, the midwives were telling Pharaoh the truth. The Hebrew women had their children 

too quickly for the midwives to get there. In their obedience to God, the midwives defied the supreme 

ruler of the land. They are an example to us.

            Now back to the purpose of the post. No, the Bible does not condone sin in this instance, 

because the Hebrew midwives did not sin. Simple as that, really. I'll get into Rahab's sticky situation 

next.

* Some speculate that this Egyptian king was Hyksos. The Hyksos attacked Egypt and ruled it for a 

time. Eventually, the Egyptians overthrew them and rules themselves once again. This makes sense. A 

foreigner would have no clue about Egypt’s history, and therefore no knowledge of Joseph. (If you 

click the link, you will have to scroll down to get to the part where the writer states that the Pharaoh 

most likely was Hyksos. It's a somewhat lengthy article)

** Some speculate that the Hebrew midwives weren’t actually Hebrew, but were midwives to the 

Hebrews (as opposed to Hebrew midwives). This doesn’t change the post, but it is an interesting note.

(Is It Ever Okay to Sin? Post 2) The Premise

            1 Corinthians 10:13 states, “… And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted 

beyond what you are able…” (NIV)

            The King James writes, “… but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted 

above that ye are able…”

             Other Bible versions basically say the same thing. This verse is the premise for the rest 

of my post(s) on this subject. If my interpretation (exegesis) of this verse is incorrect, then, most 

likely, so is my opinion on this subject.

             Now, back to the subject. Is sin justified (excused, okay) in extreme situations if it saves 

lives?

             My personal answer is no. Now, I am a teenager, so no one probably cares about my 

personal opinions. That’s okay. Here is the premise of my position:

            For it to be true (that sin is excused in extreme situations), that would mean that God 

would put us in situations “beyond what (we) are able.” I hope this makes sense. For me to say 

that “sin is okay in certain situations,” I would have to believe that 1 Corinthians 10:13, the great 

doctrinal rock in times of trial (I don’t know how many times I’ve heard it quoted), is wrong.

             For sin to be okay when the going gets tough, I would have to believe that God could put 

me in a situation where disobedience to Him is fine. I don’t know about you, but whenever I read 

the Old Testament (and the Bible in general), one of the major thoughts I come away with is…

God hates sin.

             (I was planning to end the post with that thought, but I just thought of something else. Oh well, 

here is the extension:) Now, for me to turn around and say, “Well, you know, sin is okay if it saves 

lives” would be weird because…

Sin is what kills lives.

            Because sin is what allowed death (spiritual and physical) into the world, I can’t turn 

around and say “sin saves.” I hope this makes sense. Now that I’ve established the premise for 

my position, I’ll go into the historical account of the Hebrew (or Egyptian) midwives and Rahab 

the Harlot. I’ll conclude this topic (unless I want to write more) with a fascinating position I 

came across.

(Is It Ever Okay to Sin? Post 1) It's All a LIE!

            Alrighty, I am done with the Strange Scriptures series. I might go back to the book in 

the future, but for now, I’ll write about another topic:

            Is it okay to sin (more specifically, to lie) in extreme situations if it saves lives?

            I recently had a discussion with a friend over this matter. We talked about the hypothetical 

Nazi/holocaust situation. What if I was hiding “enemies of the state” in my house (Corrie Ten Boom 

style), and Nazis came to my door? They demand to know if I am hiding anyone. What do I do? 

Lie to save lives, or tell the truth… and people die?

            Ouch.

            What does the Bible have to say about situations like this? There are basically two Biblical 

accounts of history that pertain to this touchy subject: Rahab the harlot (Joshua 2) and the Egyptian 

midwives (Exodus 1). There also is a handy verse to keep in mind throughout this discussion. It will be 

in my next post.

Strange Scriptures: Shut Up! (Just Kidding :)

            (Chapter 1 of Strange Scriptures) Have you ever wondered what the word “Selah” means 

in Psalms? I have. I’ll be reading something, and I’ll randomly see “Selah” at the end of a verse. 

The annoying thing is that I’ve heard the meaning for it a gazillion times, but I always forget! 

Hopefully this time will be different.

            It’s a relatively simple explanation. Originally, the Psalms were meant to be sung. That’s 

why you’ll read “Sing unto the Lord” or some variation of it a thousand times in the psaltery (the 

Psalms were not meant to be read along like prose). All “Selah” means is a break, or a pause, in 

the singing. Instead of hearing voices, the listeners would hear a musical interlude until the 

singer started up again.

            This is sort of like in my church where, after a verse or a chorus, the band will just play 

music while everyone contemplates the lyrics and what they are singing.

P.S. The Hebrew word for “Selah” means “to be silent” (shut up :).

Strange Scriptures: What a Tangled Web We Weave

           Many know about the account of Joseph and his brothers. In one of their earlier “episodes”, 

Joseph’s father gives Joseph a “coat of many colors” (Genesis 37:3). His brothers get extremely jealous, 

and things go downhill from there. Eventually, Joseph gets thrown into a pit, where he dies.

            Just kidding. He goes on to become the 22nd President of the United States.

            In the third chapter of her book Strange Scriptures, Barbara Walters goes over this incident. She 

writes that the brothers weren’t being petty and childish when they got jealous over the coat. It wasn’t a 

case of “Why did Jo get more ice cream than we did?”

            No, Joseph’s coat was extremely special. According to Barbara, it was called a kamise, and 

only two people in a clan or tribe had it. The sheikh, or ruler, and his heir. The former was Jacob, and 

when Jacob gave Joseph the coat, the latter was Joseph. The coat symbolized the ruler-to-be after the 

present leader died.

            Understandably, Joseph’s older brothers were upset. In that culture, the inheritance did not go to 

the youngest (or second youngest, in this case) son, but to the oldest son. Yeah, I would've gotten 

angry, too.

            At first glance, it may seem that Jacob was being unfair by choosing Joseph. But if you 

remember his earlier life, he only wanted one wife (Rachel) in the first place. Through Laban’s trickery, 

he married Leah first, and then Rachel (Genesis chapter 29). Leah ended up having several sons before 

Rachel, and they (duh) were older than Rachel’s first son, Joseph (Genesis chapters 29-30).

            Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, so naturally he wanted her first son (Joseph) to be his heir. 

There is a case for both sides, and this whole mess started with Laban. Ouch, I would not like having a 

father-in-law like that.

            Whenever you hear the bare-bones “Joseph got a coat and his brothers got jealous” historical 

account, remember that it was much deeper than that. Joseph’s brothers (probably Reuben) should’ve 

been heirs to Jacob, but if Jacob had his way, those brothers wouldn’t have existed. 

            That last sentence was weird, and the whole situation was a mess.

Strange Sciptures: Rude

            For the next few posts, I’ll be going off a little book called Strange Scriptures That Perplex the 

Western Mind by Barbara M. Bowen. This book goes over verses in the Bible that might puzzle people 

unaccustomed to Middle Eastern ways. The Middle East has not changed very much since Bible times 

(besides McDonald’s). Because of this, when she writes about passages of scripture I can be assured 

that she is not only accurate today, but that her explanations are also accurate for “Bible” times, as well. 

Her exegesis (explaining passages of scripture) is very valuable.

            The first verse I will go over (in chapter one of the book) is a small matter, but it is important to 

understand culturally and spiritually. In Luke 10:1-20, Luke writes about how Jesus sent 70 men, in 

pairs, to places where Jesus Himself would come. In verse 4, he writes that Jesus said, “Carry neither 

purse (money), nor scrip (bag), nor shoes, and salute no man by the way.” That means that Jesus’ 

disciples were not to greet those they met on their way to their destination.

            When a European or American reads that, he or she might be tempted to think that Jesus wanted 

His disciples to be rude. This is a natural reaction, given the way we “salute” or greet people today. We 

might nod our head and say “hi”, never stopping during the process. Why wouldn’t Jesus allow His 

disciples to be similarly courteous?

            The problem is the Middle Eastern greeting isn’t like the Western greeting. We might shake 

hands and say, “How are you doing?” But it doesn’t last long, a minute or so at the most. Then we are 

on our way. No, the Middle Eastern greeting is elaborate and repetitious. They kiss their friend (or 

whoever) on both cheeks, then they have a little hand ritual, then they have a list of complimentary 

speeches and questions. The whole process can take hours. That is what Jesus meant by a “salute”.

            No, Jesus’ disciples had a job to do. They were to be focused. The Messiah was here; they were 

to spread the news. The Kingdom of God was (and is) near. This was an eternally important message 

that they needed to spread. They could not be hampered by extremely long greetings, so they were not 

to greet anyone on their way.

            Now that we understand what Jesus meant culturally, how can we apply this lesson spiritually? 

When we are saved, Jesus gives us responsibilities. Two of these are to spread the Gospel and to love 

one another. These are weighty things, and we are called to fulfill them. But there are often cultural 

obstacles. In Jesus’ time, greetings could sidetrack evangelism. Though that is not a problem in our 

culture, America has its own obstacles for Christians desiring to be obedient to God.

            For instance, a lot of Americans believe that, while faith is important, religious folks should 

keep their beliefs to themselves. If Christians try to tell them about Jesus, they are insulted. They say, 

“Keep your Jesus to yourself.” This is an obstacle that is just as real as the “forever greetings” of Jesus’ 

time.

            Another obstacle we have in America’s culture is the pseudo-Christian belief that if you know 

about Jesus, you’re good to go. Just go to church once in a while. Jesus covers you, baby. Do your 

thing; we’ll see each other in Heaven one day. The obstacle is “knowing can save you”. That is why 

we have a culture of people who call themselves Christians, but don’t live like Christ. It is a deadly 

obstacle. People know who Jesus is (sorta), and they know what He did (sorta). They believe this 

knowledge can save them.

            Jesus wasn’t being rude; He was just giving us an example of what it looks like to put the life of 

a Christian in action. We are not to falter in the face of cultural obstacles. No, my friends, when Jesus 

saves you, you are to live for Him. Cultures will pass away, but God never will.

Genesis ≠ Evolution: It's All Good

            There are a couple more biblical arguments for a literal Genesis, but I will stop with this one. It is the biggest obstacle for theistic evolution (TE), for if explained correctly, this argument against TE will demonstrate that TE is an attack on God’s character.

            TEs believe that the Big Bang happened billions of years ago. The world was then formed, eh, like four billion years ago or so. Then, however many years ago, lightning struck a pool of goo, and the first cell was formed (another theory is life formed on crystals). Then, it evolved and evolved and evolved into… a human! Wonderful, right? Maybe for atheistic evolution, but not for TE, unfortunately.

            As more and more creatures were formed through procreation and other means, and those creatures became more advanced, sad things started to happen. You see, they started dying. Terrible stuff, but that’s not all. They killed and ate each other and they got sick. There was violence as “survival of the fittest” lived itself out. Before humans even evolved, there was death, violence, and disease. This, my friends, is TE’s downfall.

            Let me read to you the beginning of Genesis 1:31, the last verse of chapter one. “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” It was very good. Mankind was created, the earth was complete, and God said, “It was very good.”

            How is this a problem for TE? This is a problem because if there was death, violence, and disease before God’s creation was complete (after man was created), does God think those things are good? Think about it. According to evolution, how did we evolve to this point? Survival of the fittest along with natural selection. But that entails death and suffering, which, if you ask any Christian, is not good. According to TE, though, death and suffering existed at the same time God called His creation good.

            This means three things for God. 1) He is a liar (calling His creation good when it is not). 2) He thinks death, violence, and disease are good (which is completely inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. We can discard the Bible if this is true). 3) Evolution is not true (which means there was no death, violence, and disease when God said, “It was very good.”)

            Do you see the position this leaves TE? For evolution to be true, survival of the fittest has to be true (from the beginning of life up to now). For the Bible to be true, there had to have been no death, violence, and disease before and directly after God had finished creating the universe. As anyone can see, these two things are polar opposites. Only one can be true.

            When talking to a TE, ask them if they believe there was death, violence, and disease before humans evolved. They will say yes (because that is how we got here). Then tell him or her, “In Genesis 1:31, after God had finished creating the universe, including humans, He called His creation good. Do you mean to tell me that you believe death, violence, and disease are good to God? For you to be correct, those things had to exist at the same time God finished His creation and called it good.” They will be forced with the options I mentioned above.

            I tried this on a TE, and he never answered :/

P.S. Sorry, I about pounded this anti-TE argument into the ground. But it is the strongest Biblical case against TE, so it is worth it.