Exodus 1: Mel Gibson, Lying and God's Ethics

After William Wallace is betrayed by his fellow Scotsmen Mornay and Lachlan on the battlefield of Falkirk against the British, he avenges their treachery by killing them in cold blood. Before the next battle, another nobleman named Craig, who had ties to Mornay and Lachlan is brought to Wallace.



When grilled by Wallace about his allegiance to King Longshanks of England, Craig responded by saying, "An oath to a liar is no oath at all."
 

That makes sense, I guess.

In another, less gorey Mel Gibson movie, Bret Maverick lounges in a hot tub. His father questions him about tricking the Commodore, one of the film's antagonist, in the final action scene of the movie. In a classic line, Bret replies, "My pappi always said, 'There's no more deeply moving religious experience than cheating a cheater."'

I love that line.

The implication I'm going to make on today's post will, most likely, be controversial to some of my more conservative friends but, at least, we can get a good laugh (or smile, if you're too serious).

I believe these two quotes are applicable to an obscure implication buried in Exodus 1:15-21.

Read it here, if you'd like.

Jacob, Joseph and all of his brothers have died and there's a new pharaoh who not only doesn't care about their descendants but desires to suppress their growth by forcing them into slavery. When he sees that God's favor is still on the Israelites and that their population keeps growing, pharaoh commands something dispicable from his midwives.

Pharaoh commands: "When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” (verse 16)

I could completely twist Scripture and say that this is the first recorded instance of abortion, but how would midwives recognize the gender of a newborn without seeing it with their technological limitations, I'd like to know?

What pharaoh is commanding is more like infanticide (not much different than abortion, in my humble opinion), in the likes of Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of killing seven newborns last year. The midwives were supposed to sabotage the childbirth and assure that the newborn boys would die. 

How? The Bible isn't clear.

This post is not about abortion, however. I want to focus on what happens next.  The midwives, who feared God, decided to let the baby boys live. (verse 17) When interrogated by pharaoh as to why they disobeyed his orders, the midwives replied, "the boys were already born when we got there." (verses 18-19)

Did the midwives lie?

Yes. It's easy to deduce from the passage that the midwives were in position to fulfill pharaoh's orders but didn't because they were fearful of God.

Did God permit the midwives to lie in order to save baby's lives?

It seems so because God did not react negatively to their deception. In fact, God blessed them by "giving them families of their own." (verse 21)

Is God going against his own nature or is there another explanation as to why God allowed a sin to cover up a sin?

Explanation #1: God makes an exception, leaving the biblical laws as we know them much more fluid in their interpretations. Translation: God may ignore certain sins sometimes because they are not serious and/or do not cause obvious harm.

I don't believe that for a second.

Explanation #2: The Law of Moses, which includes the Ten Commandments, isn't given to the people of Israel until AFTER leaving Egypt in Exodus 20.  (Lying, or bearing false witness, etc, is the ninth commandment.) If the law had not be enacted yet, then could Israelites be held accountable for lying? If that's the case, then perhaps that's why it was permissible for Abraham to lie about Sarah being his sister and not his wife on two occasions. (Genesis 12 & 20)

Seems plausible, right?










Explanation #3: Conservative-leaning types, you may want to look away. Perhaps God is not limited to the Bible (the Bible is the Word of God but not the totality of God) and is able to intercede in certain circumstances in which the objective is to eliminate a common enemy at any cost. How else could Christ-followers ever partake in war, for example?

I realize that my explanations are very vague, but doesn't that lead you to question certain things?

Questions such as:

Does God permit sinful actions in certain situations when doing so would prevent a greater evil?

Now THAT is a can of worms that many many theologians have debated for decades.

The quintessential case of situational ethics is presented with the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a devoted Christ-follower and Lutheran pastor in Germany during the Nazi regime. Going against common Christian pacifism, he decided that assassinating Hitler (even though that would be a sin against God) was worth it to prevent further slaughter of the Jews. He eventually was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis. The battlefield for his soul in dealing with the decision to kill or to remain passive is evident in his letters from prison aptly titled, "Letters and Papers from Prison."

I know what some of you are thinking:

"Where do you draw the line?"

"If the Bible isn't clear on what sins are greater than others, how can we decide to do a lesser sin to prevent a greater sin?"

Fair questions, indeed.

As for the second question, I do believe the Bible gives an indication of what sins are more egregious to God than others. This will be a topic of a future post but if you'd like to read ahead, take a look at Ezekiel 8.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think on situational ethics? Apart from telling "white lies," what biblical justification have you found to support or utterly deny that God would allow a small sin to cover up another?