Biblical Theology · Ethics of Lying

Examining lying, deception, and concealment in light of Scripture

There is certainly some debate over whether the Bible supports lying in certain situations. There are two critical questions that must be answered to form a clear position. Does the Bible say that lying is a sin? If so, is there any indication that lying is sometimes a sin and sometimes not a sin (permissible)? I will first walk through a biblical definition of sin as it relates to lying, along with an explanation of concealment. Then I will answer the two questions; one by providing clear biblical guidance and stipulations, and the other by examining a case study of Rahab, the Hebrew midwives, Samuel, and the battle of Ai. I believe the preponderance of evidence shows that not only is lying a sin, but that there are absolutely no biblical exceptions.

Before we can discuss whether lying is a sin, or always a sin, we must establish a biblical definition of lying. Since the two are closely related and often one is a feature of the other, I will also include deception in this definition. Finally, I will propose a definitional separation between lying and concealment to ensure there is clarity on the fullness of this topic. We must not only know what lying is, but we must know what it is not.

There are several components or categories of lying in the text, and these include: speaking falsely (Eph 4:25, Col 3:9), bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16, Deut. 19:18–19), speaking unfaithfully and deceit (Prov 12:22, Psalm 101:7), and silence under obligation (2 Sam 14:18–20, Acts 5:3). Based on these components of lying within Scripture, I would define lying in the following way:

Lying is knowingly creating or supporting a false impression in order to deceive; by speaking falsely, bearing false witness, acting unfaithfully, or failing to disclose truth when there is an obligation to do so.

As a quick aside, as a result of my research it now both bothers and astounds me how replete the Scripture is with verses about lying, liars, those who deceive, and bearing false witness. It occurs to me that we, the current Christian culture, may not take the sin of lying with the same level of seriousness as the biblical text does. In fact, it breaks my heart that I have not taken this sin seriously enough.

In a conversation regarding lying and deception, it is important to cover the concept of concealment. The reader may have noticed the inclusion of “when there is an obligation to do so” in the definition of lying as it pertains to disclosure. It should not cause much argument to say that there are times and situations in which we are not obligated or obliged to provide all of the information we have.

By way of example, let’s say that you have shared a bit of information with me and have asked me to keep it a secret. Let us assume, for the sake of this example, that the information you’ve given me does not hold negative moral weight (you have not disclosed sin). A friend of yours comes to me and asks me to reveal your secret. In this case, they are not entitled to the information, and I have no obligation to provide it. I can simply say that this is not information which I have been given the authority to share.

There are many other situations where we are not obligated to provide every bit of information to others. If you ask me what I’m doing this weekend, I may tell you that I’m going to be spending time with my family. I am in no way obligated to tell you everything I’m doing, and this does not constitute deception or lying. Let’s take that a step further. Let’s consider a scenario where I will be participating in an activity that is morally righteous and, knowing that you might ridicule me, I choose not to tell you my entire mission. I tell you that I’ll be going downtown for a few hours and I’ll be eating lunch. I am in no way obligated to tell you that I’ll be preaching the Gospel while there.

As a more extreme example, to truly drive the point home, let’s say I have been given the opportunity to preach the Gospel in a country where that is illegal. As Christians, we know that this is one of the areas in which we are commanded to go against the government for the sake of properly following the commands of God. When I get to the border I am asked, “What will you be doing while here?” My answer is that I’ll be on vacation and will be enjoying some of the food and culture during my time in this country. I am in no way obligated to tell them I’ll be preaching the Gospel while I enjoy the food and culture. Based on this, I would consider concealment to be the intentional withholding of information in situations where one is not obligated to disclose it. Concealment is not and should not be conflated with lying or deception.

We can, at the very least, stand on the biblical truth that lying is considered a sin. In fact, it is one of those things which God hates and even considers an abomination according to Proverbs 6:16–19. It is certainly worth noting that in this Proverb, God not only hates a lying tongue but also the “false witness who breathes out lies.” The case is serious enough to point to the tongue which lies and to the person who bears false witness through lies. It would seem the thoroughness of the case should give consideration to the weightiness of the sin.

It is fair to say that the Scriptures are strewn with passages on the sin of lying. God’s perfect law tells us that we are not to bear false witness against our neighbor (anyone) in Exodus 20:16. This is recorded as part of the Levitical law in 19:11: “you shall not lie to one another.” Even in song, David pronounces that “You destroy those who speak lies” (Psalm 5:6). We see this pronouncement rise up again and again throughout Proverbs and Psalms (Psalm 34:14, 101:7, Prov 12:17, 19–22, 14:5, 17:7, 19:5, 19:22). I think we can see with no uncertainty that lying is indeed a sin. Not only has God made this clear, He has made it abundantly clear what He thinks of those who commit this sin.

The next question you must answer is whether lying is always a sin or whether there are exceptions. It’s fair to say that there is nothing in the Bible which explicitly states that lying is sometimes permissible. So, rather than saying that the Bible gives explicit permission to lie, we must move our study to what might be considered case law. The question we now ask is, are there cases in the Bible which provide us with a basis to allow sin? In order to answer this question I think we would need to prove, from our case study, one of the following: there are cases in which God…

• Explicitly does not punish someone for lying
• Promotes, exalts, or praises lying
• Desires, coerces, or commands someone to lie

There are a handful of instances (stories) in the Bible that people generally use to prove the case that lying is sometimes permissible in the eyes of God. I will briefly touch on these cases and provide detail on my view of how they interact with this argument.

Prior to moving into the actual case study, there is something about it that must be considered. When the Bible clearly and forcefully calls something sin, should we not take that as a universal truth which must be foundational to our understanding of everything else in the Bible related to that precept? I would like the reader to consider this faithfully. If God tells us very clearly that He hates something, should we not say that the rest of the Bible ought to be interpreted with that as a presupposition? While I do not rest on that presumption in providing the case studies, I do think it’s something we should seriously consider.

This is certainly one of the most popular cases used for the promotion of the idea that God praises a case of lying. First, we must say that it is absolutely true that Rahab lied. The text clearly says, “…the men came to me… and when the gate was about to be closed at dark, the men went out. I do not know where the men went.” Rahab knew exactly where the men were, as she was the one who was actively hiding them on the roof. There is also no question that her lie resulted not only in the men being saved, but also contributed to her life being saved. However, we cannot lean so heavily on correlation that we say it necessitates causation. Additionally, we must always take into account the biblical fact that God uses man’s sin for His good.

Rahab’s lie was sin. It was a real violation of God’s moral law, even though God sovereignly used it as part of His plan. Therefore, rather than leaning on intuition, we must look at what the text says. I think we must first understand the story and what was happening between Rahab and the men she hid. We can truly say, with no argument, that her actions were a result of having fear of the Lord. Rahab states, “I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you” (Josh 2:9). There is another significant component of the story: there was a deal struck. I think it’s significant to our understanding to realize that, in large part, her life was spared due to the promise made to her as part of a contract struck in the moment. Rahab asks the men to save her and her family because she dealt kindly with them. The men agreed, “And the men said to her, ‘Our life for yours even to death!’” (Josh 2:14).

There is nothing in Scripture that explicitly states that God praised, exalted, or promoted lying. In fact, subsequent Scriptures provide us with a clear indication of her faith being praised, not her lie. In Hebrews we see that “By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies” (Heb 11:31). Considering the thrust of James’s argument that one who has faith also shows works, we see him base part of his argument on the actions of Rahab. He asked the obviously rhetorical question, “And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (Jas 2:25).

It is fascinating, and I think very revealing, that James does not mention the lie. He speaks of her accepting the men into her home and then of her sending them away. Why does he not say that she has been justified by her lie? Why does James not say “and then spoke falsely about their location”? I think the reason is clear. Rather, he speaks of what she did in kindness and leaves out her lie completely. Should we take from this that he is including her lie? Would it be wise to say that we should make an inference from silence? I would propose that making an argument from silence like this would be a very dangerous stance on Scripture.

I think this story provides two clear lessons. First, in very difficult situations—situations of life and death—humans will tend to lean on their remnant sin for their response. They will strike deals based on what may save their lives. They will tend to sin in order to act with compassion. Is it true that she dealt with them kindly? Of course. Does that mean her kindness excused her lie? I don’t think we learn that at all.

Second, I think it puts on full display that God can and will use sinful people to do His will. A wonderful truth is that God, in His kindness and long-suffering, will take my terrible decisions and still use them for my good and the good of others. Does this mean that we excuse or persist in sin? By no means. There is no indication that God has changed His mind about lying due to the difficult circumstances. Additionally, we cannot say that God excused her sin and removed guilt due to the “impossible” moral conundrum. We can say that God forgave her that sin due to her faith.

I have actually taken the time to write a four-page article on this subject alone. Therefore, rather than import the entire document here or try to recreate the entire argument from scratch, I am going to provide a short summary of the argument. If the reader would like the full argument I am happy to provide that upon request.

In this section I will argue that Exodus 1:15–21 does not require us to say that Shiphrah and Puah lied to Pharaoh, and that the text’s emphasis falls on their fear of God and protection of life, not on any supposed deception. I maintain that the most natural and textually careful reading does not demand that the midwives lied, and Scripture nowhere praises them for lying.

First, we must consider the timing of Pharaoh’s command: he instructs the midwives to kill the boys “on the birthstool,” at the critical moment between delivery and the baby’s first cry, which would make it easy to disguise infanticide as a stillbirth. This precision actually supports the plausibility of the midwives’ later explanation; it is entirely tenable that, in many cases, the child was already safely delivered before the midwives could arrive.

When confronted, the midwives tell Pharaoh that “the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them,” a statement that need not be read as a lie. Given the harsh conditions and heavy labor of the Hebrews, combined with fear of Pharaoh’s decree and possible reluctance to summon Egyptian-affiliated midwives, it is reasonable that many Hebrew women would deliver quickly, sometimes with the help of neighbors rather than official midwives. As Matthew Poole and others observe, the midwives do not claim this is true of every single case; they report what was generally happening, and they were under no obligation to disclose every detail to a murderous tyrant. In that sense, their words can be seen as truthful, even if they did not disclose every detail, which was not requested in the first place.

The text then says that “God dealt well with the midwives” and that “because the midwives feared God, he gave them families,” which must be understood rightly. In Hebrew idiom, to “make” or “build a house” speaks of establishing and prospering a family line, so the idea is that God protected and prospered the midwives because they feared Him, not because they supposedly told a clever lie. The narrative itself underscores that their central, God-honoring act was that they “did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live,” and Pharaoh clearly knew they were allowing the boys to survive. Their commendation is tied to reverence for God and courageous obedience in preserving life, not to any alleged deceit.

On that basis, I conclude that there is no textual necessity to say the midwives lied; their explanation about the vigor of the Hebrew women is plausible in light of the timing of Pharaoh’s order and the realities of childbirth under oppression. The point of the passage is that they feared God rather than man and chose to protect the covenant people, and God’s blessing rests on that obedience. Even if one were to argue that some element of deception is present, Scripture never praises them for lying but for refusing to participate in murder, just as Rahab is commended for receiving and sending out the spies, not for her falsehood. This fits with the broader ethical point I am making in the larger article: God rewards righteous fear of Him and obedience to His commands, not sin, and His commendation of these women in Exodus 1 does not require us to make lying a morally permissible “lesser evil.”

While this has been used to promote the idea that God commanded or suggested that one of His people lie or carry out deceit, the text does not provide any evidence that a lie was to be told. The best one can do in this case is try to support the idea of deceit or lying by omission. In all honesty, on the surface, and without thinking through the actual events and situation, it does appear that God is telling Samuel to be deceitful or perhaps to lie by omission. However, I don’t believe the text supports either of those suppositions. Let’s take a closer look at what happens in the story to see if we can determine the appropriate stance.

God has determined that Saul is not to be king. He tells Samuel as much and expects Samuel to head out and see Jesse, the father of David. Samuel gives the same response as so many before him who were given a clear command by God: he responds not with thanksgiving for provision for Israel but in fear for his life. In fear Samuel says, “If Saul hears it, he will kill me” (1 Sam 16:2). God tells Samuel to take a heifer with him and tell people he’s going to sacrifice to the Lord. It is clear from the story that God not only told Samuel to say he was going to sacrifice to the Lord but had the expectation that this would be the truth of the matter. We see this come to full fruition when Samuel meets the elders of the city: “Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice.” And he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice (1 Sam 16:5). It is clear from the story that Samuel did exactly what the Lord had commanded, both in saying he was going to sacrifice and in going through with the sacrifice.

That said, we are left to deal with the fact that Samuel had another motive for going to Bethlehem. It is true that this additional motive was left hidden. Because Samuel did not share this other motive—one could even say the primary motive—does that mean we must take his actions as deception or a lie? I don’t think we can ascribe deception or lying to this case. Why? This seems to be a clear case of concealment. Samuel was not obligated to disclose every detail of his mission. In fact, the mission to sacrifice to the Lord had been commanded by God, and Samuel followed this command in every way. God did not obligate Samuel to disclose the other part of the mission to anyone. And I think we can stand on the fact that because this was a mission between Samuel and God, Saul was not entitled to receive this information. He had already been deposed as king and had no authority and no right to this information. It would be fair to say that Samuel was not obligated to provide that information to anyone else in the story. Since Samuel was not obligated and others were not entitled, this was not deception but rather appropriate concealment.

Likely one of the best examples to utilize is that of Joshua and the battle against Ai. Joshua 8, the ambush at Ai, demonstrates strategic military concealment, not lying. Joshua hides men behind the city and feigns retreat to draw the defenders out (Josh 8:3–9). While this tactic creates a false impression for the enemy, the Israelites were under no moral, legal, or covenantal obligation to disclose their plan. The false impression exists. However, because the army of Ai was in no way entitled to be given the information, nor was Joshua obligated to provide that information, this is an act of concealment.

Moreover, the ambush was carried out in obedience to God’s command, not in pursuit of personal gain or to mislead innocents (Josh 8:1–2). The ethical weight lies in the Israelites’ obedience and faithfulness to God’s directive, rather than the enemy’s perception. Strategic concealment in warfare—such as ambush, concealment of troops, or tactical retreat—is morally neutral in Scripture, because it does not involve lying to those one is obliged to be truthful toward. Joshua 8, therefore, illustrates that false impressions alone do not constitute lying; moral culpability arises only when nondisclosure violates a duty to disclose truth. This distinction preserves a consistent biblical ethic: God forbids lying, but He permits prudent concealment in contexts where revealing information is not required.

I have endeavored to provide a biblical case against lying in any circumstance. I do believe that the evidence I’ve provided is overwhelming in support of this case. There is a biblical basis for withholding information when the other party is not entitled to that information and the providing party is not obligated to release that information. However, there seems to be no biblical basis for thinking that God explicitly does not punish someone for lying; promotes, exalts, or praises lying; or desires, coerces, or commands someone to lie. Therefore, the case seems clear that not only is lying a sin, but that lying is always a sin and therefore never permissible.

I do want to make it clear that this is a theological stance based on scriptural support. This writing in no way expresses what I think I would do in various situations. I know myself to be someone who struggles against remnant sin. I am well aware of the fact that in the most crucial moments I might find myself weak and unwilling to follow God’s law perfectly. If my family was in danger and in the moment I believed that a lie would save their lives, would I do it? This is something I cannot know because it’s not a situation that I’ve faced. Does it seem highly likely that I would sin in my desire to save my family? Yes. However, that does not mean that I would not thereafter fall to my knees in repentance for sinning against my God. We are blessed beyond anything we deserve to know that we are forgiven. That said, it is my desire to take lying as seriously as God does and in all situations to properly see God as having complete control, His ways being far above my own.

Not only is lying a sin, but lying is always a sin and therefore never permissible.