Authorized Ethical Deception? (Part 2)
A Christian might ask, “Why would any brother write an article trying to justify “Authorized Ethical Deception” (AED)? The main purpose for Mac Deaver having written this article appears on page 5: “We preachers who have accused Abraham of lying have been wrong.” Mac thinks that everyone (but him) is wrong, which is not unusual. But he is as wrong on this point as he is on his Holy Spirit positions. Nevertheless, it would appear that the development of his AED doctrine was for the specific purpose of mounting a defense for Abraham. Why anyone would want to do so is a matter of conjecture; the “justification” fails. His rationale is examined at length below. The Scriptures themselves tell what occurred when Abram and Sarai traveled to Egypt because there was a famine in the land of Canaan:
And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you” (Gen. 12:11-13).
Deaver thinks that such a deception is ethical, since Sarai was his half-sister, a fact the reader does not discover until Genesis 20:12, when Abraham and Sarah tell the same lie to Abimelech of Gerar: “But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.” So Abraham and Sarah both had Terah for a father, but they had different mothers, which makes them half-brother and half-sister. It is clearly the case that they are related by blood, but it is just as clear that they are in fact, husband and wife, which everyone understands to be different from a brotherly-sisterly relationship. In claiming to be Abraham’s sister, therefore, deception is involved. Was it “ethical” deception?
Of course, Deaver argues that it was “ethical.” According to his construct, two facts are relevant:
1) Sarai was Abram’s wife.
2) Sarai was Abram’s sister.
Operating under the premise that a person is not required to divulge everything that he knows, Deaver submits that they told Pharaoh that she was his sister but withheld the fact that they were married (3). But this incident is not parallel with what Samuel did. He went to a city in order to do two things: 1) offer a sacrifice; and 2) anoint David as king. By withholding the second reason, no one was harmed; no evil consequences ensued. Anointing David as king was simply something they did not need to know, and the prophet was not required to tell them. In the case of Abram and Sarai, the information they withheld made a huge difference, and it intentionally deceived the Egyptians.
They noticed the beauty of Sarai, and the princes of Egypt recommended her to Pharaoh, who took her to his house (Gen. 12:14-15). Abram was physically safe and well treated by Pharaoh who lavished gifts upon him, but God plagued Pharaoh’s house because of Sarai (vv. 16-17). The text does not say how Pharaoh made the connection between the plagues and Sarai, but he accosts Abram: “What is this that you have done to me? Why did you not tell me she was your wife?” (v. 18). Obviously, Pharaoh thought he had been lied to—or at the least deceived—and certainly not “ethically” deceived. “Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way” (v. 19). Does he sound just a little angry over having been deceived? All that Deaver can say is, “Notice please that in the text, God plagued Pharaoh and not Abraham” (3). Although this observation is true, it does not alter the fact that Pharaoh was lied to and that harm had resulted.
However, it is a fair question to ask, “Why did God plague Pharaoh instead of Abraham?” Two answers come to mind. The first is that He holds those accountable who are deceived. The way that many people think, the one who has perpetrated the deception is at fault and must take the blame, but the Bible consistently emphasizes the fact that the one who is deceived is at fault. Oftentimes, people believe a lie because they desire to (2 Thess. 2:10). But even if that is not the case, we are still responsible for what we believe.
Consider, for example, the agreement obtained by deception between Israel and the Gibeonites during the time of Joshua. They lied about being from a far country and used moldy bread and worn-out clothes as deceptive props in order to obtain a covenant, which Israel gave them (Joshua 9). We may be tempted to think that such an agreement did not need to be honored since it was obtained by fraud, but when Israel gave their word, they had to keep it. They were to blame for buying into the deception and believing the lie.
The same is true for the man of God who prophesied against Jeroboam and the altar at Bethel. He knew that God had told him not to eat bread or drink water in the city and refused to eat with the king. But when an older prophet told the man of God that God had spoken to him and that it was all right to have a meal there, he relented and ate in Bethel. 1 Kings 13:8 says succinctly of the older prophet: “But he lied to him.” As a result of allowing himself to be deceived, the man of God lost his life.
Why are there so many warnings in the New Testament against false doctrine? The answer is that anyone who allows himself to believe a lie or to be deceived will be lost. Jesus said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). Why did He say that? Jesus advised His disciples to take heed to what they heard (Mark 4:24). Paul cautioned Timothy to take heed to himself and to his doctrine. He needed to continue in the truth, the doctrine that he taught, because in so doing he would save himself and those who heard him (1 Tim. 4:16). What is the implication of not devoting the proper amount of effort to his teaching? First, he would be lost, and, second, so would his listeners be lost—if they believed and followed error. All of us are responsible for what we believe. So was Pharaoh.
The second answer to why God plagued Pharaoh and did not openly punish Abram is that Abram is the man He has chosen and just made the three great promises to earlier in Genesis 12. God will not change His mind about Abram just because he is not perfect. He has already demonstrated his faith in leaving Ur of the Chaldees and then Haran. He is primarily a man of faith, but he is not without fault. God’s patience with each of us is not exhausted by an occasional misstep. At any rate Abram is chastised in the form of a stern rebuke by Pharaoh and being forced to leave.
Abraham and Abimelech
Abram, whose name God has now changed to Abraham, repeats this error when he decided to journey south once again, this time stopping in Gerar. On this occasion he told King Abimelech that Sarah was his sister, and he took her (Gen. 20:1-2). Did Abraham suffer anxiety concerning what might happen to her? Was Sarah a bit unnerved over what situation she might become engulfed in? How could they put themselves in this position—twice?
This time God spoke to Abimelech, telling him that he was a dead man because Sarah was another man’s wife (v. 3). Abimelech protests that Abraham had told him that Sarah was his sister and that she had likewise assured him that Abraham was her brother (v. 5). God answered that it was for that reason (because he acted in the integrity of his heart) that He had not allowed Abimelech to touch her (v. 6). But now he had a choice. He could restore her to Abraham, who would pray for him, or he could keep her, and he would die (v. 7). The decision was easy and uncomplicated.
The next morning Abimelech had a few questions for Abraham:
1. “What have you done to us?”
2. “How have I offended you, that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin?”
3. “What did you have in view, that you have done this thing?” (Gen. 20:9-10).
Abraham answers that he did so because he did not think the fear of God was in Gerar and that they would kill him to take his wife (v. 11). Then he tried to justify himself by explaining that Sarah was his half-sister (v. 13). Deaver thinks that Abimelech accepted this explanation and even referred to Abraham as her brother (4). He has missed the irony here. Abimelech is using sarcasm by referring to Abraham as her brother. Verse 16 makes this clear when it closes with Divine commentary: “Thus she was reproved.” Abraham did pray for Abimelech and his people, and the women began bearing children once again (vv. 17-18).
Deaver’s Conclusions
Mac wonders what would have happened if Abraham and Sarah had told the truth about being married but recognizes that we do not have that information. He offers then the following observations:
…there was no way for Abraham and Sarah to know what kind of men were in positions of power in areas where they were but traveling strangers. And please notice, that God always protected Abraham and Sarah. They clearly used a form of deception; they never lied. Later God blessed Isaac and Rebekah in spite of Isaac’s (Gen. 26:1-16)… (4)
While it is true that the couple in question had no knowledge as to what Pharaoh or Abimelech would be like, it is also the case that they did not know anything about anywhere else in Canaan until they arrived there. Nevertheless, they left Ur and Haran and went to a land that God showed them because they trusted in Him to keep His Word to them. They were always traveling pilgrims. So why did they not trust him on these two occasions? God always did protect them, which is the reason they had no cause to deceive these men.
They never lied? Yes, they did in that they withheld vital information. If they were in a courtroom today and testified that they were brother and sister before a jury, but later their marital status was uncovered, no one thinks it would be a stretch for the judge to say, “Why did you lie to this jury?” Witnesses swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Both 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.
The comment about God blessing Isaac despite the lie fits the explanation for the reason that God continued to bless Abraham. If he could bless Isaac despite the lie, then surely he could do so for Abraham as well.
Deaver effectively argues against his own position by pointing out that Abraham and Sarah really had no reason to deceive Pharaoh and Abimelech. He well states that God “was going to make of him a great nation [Gen. 12:1-3]; give a certain land to his seed [Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18-21], and that He would give him an heir [15:1-6].” Since God had promised these things to Abraham before his trip to Egypt and he still did not have an heir by the time they traveled to Gerar, then Abraham had to know that God would protect him from those who might want to kill him in order to have Sarah. It was not necessary for Abraham to deceive.
The claim is made that God was on the side of Abraham and Sarah in each incident and that He “found no fault with the plan” (5). It could just as easily be stated that He expressed no approval of the plan, either. At any rate, the same is true with Isaac and Rebekah; yet Mac admitted that they told a lie (since they were not even half-brother and half-sister).
In Genesis 26:6-7, Isaac and Rebekah were living in Gerar; he told the men of that place that Rebekah was his sister, “lest the men of the place should kill me” because of her great beauty. When Abimelech saw the couple expressing affection as a husband and wife would (v. 8), he upbraided Isaac: “Quite obviously she is your wife; so how could you say, ‘She is my sister’?” When Isaac explained that he was fearful of being killed (as her husband), Abimelech’s anger was unabated: “What is this you have done to us? One of the people might soon have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us” (v. 10). God did not find fault with Isaac’s plan, either.
The Proposition
As brother Warren used to say, “Every precisely-stated proposition is either true or false.” This statement itself is a proposition, and it is true. Mac does present a precisely-stated proposition when in this paper he writes: “The proposition, ‘She is my sister,’ is either true or false.” However, one must define the terms in the proposition, and that is where the ambiguity comes in. We use the terminology half-sister for a reason—because it is more precise. Today one may be a half-sister, a full sister, an adopted sister, or a step-sister. In the case of Abraham and Sarah, the word sister is not accurate; only half-sister describes the precise relationship (whether or not the two are also married)
If a woman gives birth to twins, the question is often asked, “Are they identical or fraternal?” The reason is that we often know that more specific information is available. If someone is debating baptism, they will define the term as meaning immersion so that the listeners will not think they are referring to sprinkling or pouring. What if someone affirmed that sprinkling is baptism and then said the following proposition is either true or false. “All who are baptized are Christians”? How would Mac answer? He would surely disagree with the definition that sprinkling is baptism, even though most of the religious world might say so. Terms used in a proposition must be defined properly.
The same thing is true of the following proposition: “All married people do not commit fornication.” But in what sense are they married? They might be married civilly, according to the laws of the land but not married Scripturally in the eyes of God. Likewise, when someone says they have a divorce, the first question we have is, “Was it a Scriptural divorce or not?” The point is that terms must be defined. Sister is too broad of a category; half-sister is accurate.
We have not been wrong in accusing Abraham and Sarah of lying because: 1) They did not state the entire truth when the information they withheld was vital, and 2) Their purpose in withholding the information was to deceive those around them. To accuse Abraham is simply to state the fact of the matter. We are not judging him. All of us have probably said or done things out of a momentary fear. Peter denied Jesus three times because he feared for his life. It was wrong to do so, and Peter knew it; he went out and wept bitterly.
Though Abraham was not right on these two occasions (possibly due to a lack of faith) does not detract from the man of faith he was. When God tested him with offering his only begotten son Isaac, the patriarch proved himself worthy of God’s choice of him to be the father of the faithful. The fact that he had a moment or two of weakness simply shows that he was human, as the rest of us are. Frankly, that knowledge is a comfort—because if we should falter, we know that we can recover. We know that we are in good company and can be even better. Authorized Ethical Deception is an invention of man—not a Scriptural principle.