A Review of "Is Ethical Deception a Fiction? (Part Two)"
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Preliminaries
Before tackling Mac Deaver’s response to my second article (9-15-13), in which I reviewed his original treatise on “Authorized Ethical Deception” (AED), two comments ought to be made. First, He objected to references I made on his Holy Spirit errors on the new birth, Holy Spirit baptism, spiritual gifts, etc. He has set forth these positions now in two books and in debates. The vast majority of brethren, past and present, define Mac’s positions as false doctrine, and I have exposed the fallacy of many of his teachings in Spiritual Perspectives. Most, if not all, of these have been sent to him, and he has not responded to them except by way of general acknowledgement. This discussion, however, is on a different topic; so nothing more will be said about those other matters (in this series) lest they detract from the exploration of the topic under discussion.
Second, no attempt will be made to answer the “slanted” language or “loaded” verbiage that Deaver likes to pepper his writings with. He will claim that the Scriptures are being rewritten and use words such as pathetic and pitiful in an attempt to demean anyone who disagrees with him. It seems more preferable to simply deal with the subject matter than engage in various tactics such as these.
Abram and Sarai
The entirety of my second article analyzed the two situations in which Abram and Sarai deceived Pharaoh (Gen. 12) and later the king of Gerar (Gen. 20). Deaver argues that the deception was “ethical.” If he believes it was “authorized,” the question would be by whom? If God authorized Abram and Sarai to use deception, why then did He punish Egypt and Gerar for believing it? If the deception was not authorized by God, did Abram take it upon himself to do it? The texts indicate that it was Abram’s idea.
My position (and that of an overwhelming number of brethren) is that Abram lied on both occasions, although Deaver thinks that most of us have “mishandled badly” these incidents (1). He agrees that Abram deceived Pharaoh and Abimelech, but denies it was a lie. Sarai was Abram’s half-sister, the daughter of his father but not his mother, but she was also his wife. Now what would anyone think who was introduced to a man who said the woman with him was his sister? Obviously, one would think she was single and available because of the information withheld—that she was his wife. Not only does such an introduction imply that the two of them are not married; it is also only a half-truth—or a half-lie, depending on one’s perspective.
Deaver claimed that the fact that God punished the Egyptians and the inhabitants of Gerar proved that Abram did not lie: “Notice please that in the text, God plagued Pharaoh and not Abraham.” When I offered an explanation for why God did so (see the 9-15-13 article), Mac responded by saying: “Yes, but that doesn’t prove that Abraham lied to Pharaoh, does it? Not at all” (1). Of course it doesn’t. It was not intended to. There are two sides to argumentation: 1) Showing that the other person’s rationale is erroneous; and 2) establishing your own position. The explanation of the reason that God plagued Pharaoh was to demonstrate that Deaver had not proved his case (since another reason might exist for God’s punishment); it was never intended to establish my case. We cannot help but wonder why Mac tends to confuse these two elements.
Irony and Reproval
Next, Deaver does deal with the challenge I made against his claim that calling Abram Sarai’s brother showed acceptance of the situation, but I averred that he said so in a sarcastic sense, as a rebuke. Mac replies that “it is not clear from verse 16 that Abimelech is using irony” (1). Perhaps it is not an ironclad interpretation, but why else would he deliberately choose the word brother after he knew they were married? Interestingly, Deaver passed over one-third of this article with but a brief reference to it. Does that mean that he agrees with my analysis?
To further the case for irony, I pointed out that the text says, “Thus she was reproved” (KJV). The New King James uses rebuked. Deaver checked a few versions and discovered that the idea may be that Sarah’s name was cleared, righted, or vindicated. Both are legitimate translations, and both interpretations are possible, which the Pulpit Commentary allows for (1:1:256). But in either case, nothing indicates that Abimelech approved of the deception. Harold G. Stigers wrote the following in his Commentary on Genesis:
In v. 16 there is the peculiar circumstance of the money, which may be a value paraphrase of the value of the animals and slaves given to Abraham, stated in a judicial manner. The giving of the animals is, in effect, a pecuniary settlement to guarantee that no legal recourse may be had by Abraham against Abimelech at any future time. It is also to serve the double purpose of preventing any strife between Sarah and Abraham, for she truly shares in the blame. It may parallel the return of dowry in the case of an unsatisfactory bride. With it he sums up the matter: justice has been done to Abraham. The thought of reproof (AV) is perhaps here but it is secondary. The thought can only be an expression of complete equity having been established in respect to her, for Abimelech stands under the command of God to restore her to Abraham. He wants to make sure that she understands she has no claim of any sort on him. Thus he dismisses her to Abraham (180).
Of course, all of these complications could have been avoided if Abram and Sarai had not chosen to deceive in the first place.
Faith or Fear
Of course, we can offer criticism of Abram and Sarai for these two events because, in spite of them, they are still people of faith. All of us have moments where we may have acted out of fear more than out of faith. Remarkably, Deaver says that they did trust in God on these two occasions, but then he quotes from himself, saying that “someone could counter that since God had already told Abraham that he would make of him a great nation, that Abraham should have run the risk of telling powerful men that Sarah was indeed his wife. Perhaps this is correct” (2). Yes, it is correct. The text makes it clear that the pair acted out of fear. Consider Genesis 20:11:
And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.”
Can anyone say that Abraham was not motivated by fear? He was fearful that God would not protect him and Sarah—that these “powerful men” would kill him. Mac has no trouble (apparently) in accepting that fear and faith can operate at the same time in connection with the same event. The fact is that we either fear God or man (Matt. 10:28). It was their fear of man that caused Abraham and Sarah to practice deception—not faith.
Withholding Information
Once, again, Deaver tried to confuse the situation by attempting to pit me against myself, but I was clear in my second article and will happily state it again for anyone who missed it. It is not withholding information, per se, that constitutes a lie, and I gave several examples of legitimate reasons for not saying everything that we might know. Does the following half-paragraph not make sense?
Witnesses swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Both [Abraham and Sarah, gws] conspired to deceive rulers by only telling a part of the truth. Concealing vital information makes their statements a lie. Withholding information that is not vital is not a lie, nor is it deceit (9-15-13 article, p. 3).
For some reason, Mac thinks I was unclear in the matter. I doubt that many will agree with him. Just this past week, the movie, Judgment at Nuremburg, was aired. When the witnesses were sworn in, they were asked if they would tell the truth, withholding nothing. Yes, most of us understand that withholding pertinent, relevant, vital information constitutes an untruth—a lie. Abraham and Sarah lied.
Incredibly, Deaver takes an unusual approach when he says, “I contend that in Egypt and Gerar, Abraham and Sarah were acting in self-defense.” Really? They only imagined they were in danger; what was the evidence for it? Surely, this claim needs no comment. Self-defense! Does the reader agree?
After this astounding claim, Deaver then argues that I did not prove that the information Abraham and Sarah withheld was vital information (3). The reader will no doubt consider that the point is obvious and self-evident, which it is in light of what occurred. And if they had done it in innocence and naivete the first time (with bad results), then on what basis do we excuse them the second time they did it?
When it became evident that both Pharaoh and Abimelech had taken Sarah for purposes of cohabitation, why did Abraham not speak up to protest? Pharaoh complained, “I might have taken her as my wife” Likewise, Abimelech had taken Sarah for the same purpose Pharaoh had. God says that He kept him from touching her (Gen. 20:6). Both God and Abimelech knew what his intent was. Does Mac really want to argue that the information withheld was not vital?
Doing What One Can
One incredible statement follows another. Mac says: “And my contention is that the strategy that Abraham and Sarah employed was their way of doing what they could and leaving the rest to God” (3-4). Huh? While the principle of doing what we can and leaving the rest to God is a good one, our part cannot include lying or other unethical behavior. God aids in the legitimate efforts we set forth.
Abraham’s Blessings
Ignoring most of what I wrote previously on the subject, Deaver spends another page re-affirming his argument that God’s bestowal of blessings upon Abraham, while He sent punishments upon Pharaoh and Abimelech, proves that Abraham did not sin. However, Mac is only presenting prima facie evidence, and not all of what he says is accurate. Stigers gave a far different explanation for the reason that Abimelech gave money to Abraham (see the preceding quote in this article). Besides, Abimelech did not share Deaver’s view that Abraham was right and he was wrong. He said, “What have you done to us? How have I offended you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? You have done deeds to me that ought not to be done” (Gen. 20:9).
God did not censure Abimelech for blaming Abraham. The king clearly accused Abraham of being at fault for their great sin. God does not reprove him for those charges. Abraham’s prayer for Gerar must have humbled him, knowing that he was the cause of the problems. Abraham was a man of great faith, but he acted out of fear on these two occasions. God did not pull back his blessings from him for his two errors in judgment—any more than He does to a Christian who errs. Deaver makes a case for his position, but it is largely speculation and (as a whole) contradicts nearly everything else we have discovered in the passage.
A brief disclaimer is made that Rahab’s case is not the same as Abraham’s, since she told an actual lie, as did Isaac, concerning Rebekah being his sister. But Deaver missed the point. They prevaricated but were not condemned specifically for it. In fact, Rahab is commended for her faith (but not her lie). The comparison shows that if Abraham and Sarah lied (proven earlier in this article), God could still bless them, also.
Propositions
Well, at least Deaver and I have something upon which to agree—that every precisely stated proposition is either true or false. But he misunderstood what I wrote and tried to claim I contradicted myself. No such thing occurred. Following is the sentence I wrote, followed by my explanation of it.
Mac does present a precisely-stated proposition when in this paper he writes: “The proposition, ‘She is my sister,’ is either true or false.”
I did not say, She is my sister, is precisely stated. It was that proposition that included those words I objected to. What was precisely stated was that Mac’s proposition was either true or false. His proposition, She is my sister, is not true; it is false because sister is not precisely defined, since it can mean half-sister, adopted sister, or step-sister. He did not catch the distinction and concluded that I contradicted myself. I do not criticize him for it; it was undoubtedly an honest mistake.
Sophistry
Since Deaver accused me of omitting an explanation that sheds light on the “sister” business, I will do so here. I did not comment on it since it is just so much sophistry and had no merit, but since he insists, here is what he wrote:
Now, if a half-sister is a sister when Abraham and Sarah claimed that she was his sister, they told the truth. If a half-sister is not a sister, then when Abraham and Sarah claimed that she was his sister, they told a lie. The proposition, “She is my sister,” is either true or false. Which is it? (5)
To see how easily this argument falls apart, just substitute, step-sister or adopted sister. In each instance they could have answered, “Yes.” But Mac’s paragraph assumes what he needs to prove about the proposition. He continues to assume that it is either true or false when other possibilities exist. A half-sister is not a full sister, but even if she had been a full sister (yuck!), he would still have been hiding the fact that they were married! This was not superfluous information; it bore directly on the men’s behavior toward Sarah.
To demonstrate why some seemingly clearly-stated propositions cannot be successfully answered true or false, consider this one. True – False. Moses was an Egyptian. Is that a precisely stated proposition? He was born in Egypt; he was raised by Pharaoh’s daughter, and he was a prince over Egypt. Therefore Moses was an Egyptian. Do we have the whole story, however? No, because from the preceding information we do not know that he had Hebrew parents, that he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, that he chose to suffer affliction with the people of God instead, and that he delivered Israel out of Egypt. Just because someone claims that a proposition is precisely stated does not mean that relevant information has not been omitted. If Mac does not see this point, others will.
However, propositions aside, Deaver should think more about the implications of what he is arguing. Does he actually think the “deception” that Abraham and Sarah perpetrated upon Abimelech was pleasing to God when Jehovah had to personally intervene to keep adultery from occurring? Surely he would not claim that illicit sex was “self-defense,” also. What if this event occurred in an age in which God no longer spoke directly to people and no intervention occurred? Deaver has not shown that the deception of Abraham and Sarah was ethical at all. Certainly, it was not authorized.