I've noticed that some Christians seem to have a lot of problems with the story of Rahab, because she clearly lied yet is commended for doing so twice in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25). I've even seen the argument made that the only reason it was okay for Rahab was because she wasn't an Israelite and wasn't aware of God's prohibition of lying. I don't buy this - if Rahab was commended for doing the right thing morally, then presumably she knows enough about right or wrong to know that lying is generally wrong (which is something that should be known through general revelation). I think Rahab simply did the right thing.
Paul Copan's book When God Goes To Starbucks has a chapter on whether it is morally permissible to lie to Nazis when they knock on your door and ask you if you are hiding any Jews in your house. (Another more modern example might be the teacher at Sandy Hook, who hid her kindergarteners in the cabinets and told the shooter that she was alone in the room. I do not think she sinned in doing so.) Copan differentiates between lying and deceiving; he says that one who is bent on doing harm to others has forfeited his right to truth by violating the rights of others. Copan also cites the example of 1 Samuel 16:1-5, where God instructs Samuel to obscure the real reason of his visit to Bethlehem.
While I think this makes much more sense of some common sense situations, this can be dangerous. It can be easy to use this to rationalize lying or other immoral actions. Copan does point out that some actions simply can never be justified (he mentions adultery as one). While I don't have a good way of wording exactly where the line is, it's fair to say that "rarely" is a good description of when this would be allowed. A good parallel would be with killing - it is rarely acceptable to kill, though this is not a hard and fast rule that covers situations like self defense, civil executions, etc. - but that here, the exceptions are obvious and we dare not seek them out when they are not obvious.
Paul Copan's book When God Goes To Starbucks has a chapter on whether it is morally permissible to lie to Nazis when they knock on your door and ask you if you are hiding any Jews in your house. (Another more modern example might be the teacher at Sandy Hook, who hid her kindergarteners in the cabinets and told the shooter that she was alone in the room. I do not think she sinned in doing so.) Copan differentiates between lying and deceiving; he says that one who is bent on doing harm to others has forfeited his right to truth by violating the rights of others. Copan also cites the example of 1 Samuel 16:1-5, where God instructs Samuel to obscure the real reason of his visit to Bethlehem.
While I think this makes much more sense of some common sense situations, this can be dangerous. It can be easy to use this to rationalize lying or other immoral actions. Copan does point out that some actions simply can never be justified (he mentions adultery as one). While I don't have a good way of wording exactly where the line is, it's fair to say that "rarely" is a good description of when this would be allowed. A good parallel would be with killing - it is rarely acceptable to kill, though this is not a hard and fast rule that covers situations like self defense, civil executions, etc. - but that here, the exceptions are obvious and we dare not seek them out when they are not obvious.
Comment