Did Jesus lie? If so, then not ALL lying is sinful, right?

[Thoughtfulone]

John 7 (NIV)

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles

1 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8** You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” **9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.

10 **However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. **11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”

Now He couldn’t have changed His mind because He is God and KNEW that He would be going. So he told an untruth. Now we know that Jesus was sinless. This must mean that in certain circumstances, it is o.k. to tell a lie, right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

John 7 (NIV)

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles

1 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8** You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” **9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.

10 **However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. **11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”

Now He couldn’t have changed His mind because He is God and KNEW that He would be going. So he told an untruth. Now we know that Jesus was sinless. This must mean that in certain circumstances, it is o.k. to tell a lie, right?

No.

He told his brethren that he was not going because his time had not come. At the time he told them, this was true. And in fact he stayed in Galilee and did not go with them. So he was speaking the truth.

AFTER his brothers left, his time came and he went. That he went in secret rather than publically could have been as much to spare his brethren from misjudging him or because he himself judged it best to do so.

But it was not a lie.

Jesus did not say, “I’m not going to this festival under any circumstances.” He said he was not going because (at the time he was speaking) his time had not yet come.

He did not say, “I’m not going to this festival because my time has not come. And it won’t come for a long long time, well after this festival has concluded.”

What he said was perfectly true and when he determined (through the Father and the Spirit) that indeed his time had come, he went.

He never lied. . .and lying is not right. . .not even to bring about ‘good’.

 

[blackice71]

Interesting…I am actually thinking maybe sometimes it is a sin to not lie. Sometimes truth is mean for no good reason. For example…would you tell someone their baby was ugly?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Interesting…I am actually thinking maybe sometimes it is a sin to not lie. Sometimes truth is mean for no good reason. For example…would you tell someone their baby was ugly?

Why would you need to lie? Why would you feel you had to tell somebody, “your baby is ugly?” (and why does your opinion of the baby ‘supersede’ the opinion of the mother that he is handsome)?

 

[blackice71]

Just an example…you would only be put in such a situation if asked for your opinion. Truthfulness is indeed a virtue…but it not to be used in a careless, mean spirited manner. Another example----a soldier who is captured and asked to give away secrets of his nation.

 

[TEPO]

John 7 (NIV)

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles

1 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8** You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” **9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.

10 **However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. **11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”

Now He couldn’t have changed His mind because He is God and KNEW that He would be going. So he told an untruth. Now we know that Jesus was sinless. This must mean that in certain circumstances, it is o.k. to tell a lie, right?

What are you assuming that Jesus’ “TIME” would be…? His trial, His death or His resurrection… ? …Or was it later that afternoon…?

Then again, who are we to assume anyways…?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just an example…you would only be put in such a situation if asked for your opinion. Truthfulness is indeed a virtue…but it not to be used in a careless, mean spirited manner. Another example----a soldier who is captured and asked to give away secrets of his nation.

He doesn’t have to lie. . .he can simply refuse to say anything.
Next. . .

Honestly, this is like the old "Lie to the Nazis’ thing.

The Nazi soldier walks up and says, “Are you hiding Jews?” and you are. . .

Can you ‘lie?’ No.

Do you have to say, “Why yes, yes I am?”

NO!

You can say, “Do I look like a crazy person? If I were hiding Jews, you’d kill me!” (You’re telling the truth. Is it your fault the soldier makes an incorrect assumption from it?)

or, “Jews? I would NEVER hide a Christ killer” (since Jews are not actually Christ killers, you aren’t lying.)

You don’t have to bleat, “No, I am NOT hiding Jews” as if that were the only possible response and well too bad if people snark over it’s being a lie. There are other options that don’t involve lying.

 

[GEddie]

Why couldn’t HE have told them one thing and then changed HIS mind?

Who hasn’t, after all, done that?

Sure, JESUS as God could not change HIS mind. But HE was also a human being, with a human head. And as such, HE could decide from moment to moment, just as we can. And, as with us in this instance, no lying would be involved.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[FaithJoy]

Jesus is rejecting the plan of events presented to Him in the question,that is,He would be revealed to the people. He wasn’t speaking of and exclusively of the festival. He was speaking of the main idea of the question posed to Him, to reveal Himself to the" works He does".

 

[Luke_K]

Honestly, this is like the old "Lie to the Nazis’ thing.

The Nazi soldier walks up and says, “Are you hiding Jews?” and you are. . .

Can you ‘lie?’ No.

Do you have to say, “Why yes, yes I am?”

NO!

You can say, “Do I look like a crazy person? If I were hiding Jews, you’d kill me!” (You’re telling the truth. Is it your fault the soldier makes an incorrect assumption from it?)

or, “Jews? I would NEVER hide a Christ killer” (since Jews are not actually Christ killers, you aren’t lying.)

You don’t have to bleat, “No, I am NOT hiding Jews” as if that were the only possible response and well too bad if people snark over it’s being a lie. There are other options that don’t involve lying.

It seems to me that those responses are equivalent to lying, because you’re intentionally trying to deceive the Nazis. You know they will interpret your statement as “I don’t have Jews here”, which is false. It would be disrespectful if you tried to pull that tactic on your parents or anyone else. So we’re stuck with the same problem of a sin becoming OK as long as it’s committed against an evil person.

 

[Luke_K]

Why would you need to lie? Why would you feel you had to tell somebody, “your baby is ugly?” (and why does your opinion of the baby ‘supersede’ the opinion of the mother that he is handsome)?

In some situations, if you don’t lie people automatically assume the other option is true. Imagine a person struggling with same-sex attractions who hasn’t “come out” because he would be humiliated if he did. If he’s hanging out with a group of friends and someone with a suspicion asks him “Are you sexually attracted to men?”, and he doesn’t say “No.” then they’re going to know. If he tries to divert the topic or just not respond, then obviously they’re going to think he’s hiding it, because he would emphatically say “No!” if it weren’t true.

 

[seagal]

The Catechism is very clear that *all *lying is a sin (para. 2485) and is to be condemned.
However, the Catechism allows that we are not required to reveal the truth if it is not appropriate to do so (para. 2488) There are certain situations (such as the good and safety of others, the right to privacy, and other examples cited in previous posts) where you can either be silent or use what it refers to as “discrete language”. Para. 2491 allows that professional secrets, (such as those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, lawyers, and priests) must be kept.

When you think about it, it makes sense. Consider that God is truth and anything that is not true is against God.

In some situations, if you don’t lie people automatically assume the other option is true.

Like when someone “pleads the 5th” and they’re assumed to be guilty of something. To quote the Catechism again “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.” You just can’t lie about it. A very fine line, but the line is there all the same.

 

[LilyM]

In some situations, if you don’t lie people automatically assume the other option is true. Imagine a person struggling with same-sex attractions who hasn’t “come out” because he would be humiliated if he did. If he’s hanging out with a group of friends and someone with a suspicion asks him “Are you sexually attracted to men?”, and he doesn’t say “No.” then they’re going to know. If he tries to divert the topic or just not respond, then obviously they’re going to think he’s hiding it, because he would emphatically say “No!” if it weren’t true.

Not necessarily. If someone were rude enough to ask me my sexual orientation (as if it’s anyone’s business!) I’d joke. You could simply say something like ‘why, do you fancy me or something?’ Said in the right tone of voice, it gives nothing away and doesn’t lead to assumptions that you are gay.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The catechism says that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth.

I’d like to know why that is necessarily the case.

Verbal speech was invented by man, for man to exchange thoughts that were too complex or abstract to exchange in other ways.

Why is it wrong to intentionally mislead someone who has harm in mind? I mean, what if by lying/misleading you can prevent a murder? If I knew that I could say something to an evil man that would send him on the wrong path so that he didn’t meet up with his intended victim, have I done good or evil?

There’s somewhere in the Bible, isn’t it, (though I can’t find it right now) that there were women who misdirected men so they couldn’t catch up to and kill Jesus. Isn’t there? Were these women evil to mislead those aggressors? According to other responses in this thread, the fact that they saved Jesus’s life does not justify their evil lies. IMO that just doesn’t make any sense. Does anybody know what story I’m talking about? I’m not sure, but the women may also have sexually seduced the men they were trying to confuse and frustrate. It’s been so long since I’ve read this passage I can’t figure out how to find it on a Bible search.

Just some alternate views to consider. Maybe I’m totally wrong, but what if I’m not? Would you risk getting Jesus killed because you don’t want to lie and you’re stumbling to think of a way to mislead without technically lying?

I’m not trying to encourage lying. Personally I despise being lied to, on matters that are of legitimate interest to me. I am trying to help us all open our eyes and quit trying to judge others by their externally observable behavior.

If any of you judge me because I refuse to say that every act that intentionally misleads another person is intrinsically evil, then you are still guilty of judgment.

One thing that I’ve said before, and usually get the same canned responses, is that the commandment that most people use as the basis for “thou shalt not lie” does not, in fact, say “though shalt not lie.” “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor” IMO is quite a bit more restricted in scope than that. However scholars and others interpret it, the commandment still specifies that what is forbidden is intentionally misleading others so that my neighbor is harmed. This is exactly backwards of what’s taking place when one lies to the Nazis.

Yes, I admit I am pretty obsessive about lying and I don’t tell my kids, for example, to tell someone I don’t want to talk to on the phone that I’m not home; I tell them to say that I’m not available and then if they press for more specifics, just ask politely, “may I take a message” because someone doesn’t have a right to that information just because they dialed my phone. They don’t need to know whether my child is home alone, for example. To fuss and fret over misleading an unknown caller into thinking a parent is home when they aren’t, to me, is worse than scrupulous. It isn’t that I think my children or I will go to hell for lying, it’s mostly a way to keep them from having to be good and clever actors when information should be kept secret.

We see many examples where Jesus does what is supposedly forbidden, according to the dominant interpretation of the Law. Jesus does not apologize, excuse, or sidestep what He did … he unashamedly answers to a higher law than the law of sin and death. For example, defending his friends when they didn’t wash their hands, which he knew was a no-no, allowing them to pick grain on the sabbath, and in fact did “work” on the sabbath by healing. What did He say? He didn’t go into a discussion about the application of the rule against working on the sabbath. He attacked the whole premise of having such a rule by refusing to discuss its merits out of context, substituting instead the question of whether it is better to do good or evil on a sabbath? In the lie-to-the-Nazi example, if one of his friends lied and sent the soldiers on their way, I’d like to think that if anybody tries to say they have sinned by doing so, Jesus would ask, “what is a better thing to tell the soldiers, something that results in evil, or something that doesn’t?” Ends justifying the means? You betcha.

Alan

 

[seagal]

Why is it wrong to intentionally mislead someone who has harm in mind? I mean, what if by lying/misleading you can prevent a murder? If I knew that I could say something to an evil man that would send him on the wrong path so that he didn’t meet up with his intended victim, have I done good or evil?

There’s a difference between lying and misleading or deflecting. The Catechism also says

**2489 **Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.[emphasis mine]

While everything you say must be true, you don’t have to say everything you know. It’s not like you’re in court under oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. If the truth will cause harm, don’t speak at all or use discretion.

Yes, I admit I am pretty obsessive about lying and I don’t tell my kids, for example, to tell someone I don’t want to talk to on the phone that I’m not home; I tell them to say that I’m not available and then if they press for more specifics, just ask politely, “may I take a message” because someone doesn’t have a right to that information just because they dialed my phone. They don’t need to know whether my child is home alone, for example. To fuss and fret over misleading an unknown caller into thinking a parent is home when they aren’t, to me, is worse than scrupulous. It isn’t that I think my children or I will go to hell for lying, it’s mostly a way to keep them from having to be good and clever actors when information should be kept secret.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Your children aren’t lying, but they aren’t giving out information to people who have no business knowing.

We see many examples where Jesus does what is supposedly forbidden, according to the dominant interpretation of the Law. Jesus does not apologize, excuse, or sidestep what He did … he unashamedly answers to a higher law than the law of sin and death. For example, defending his friends when they didn’t wash their hands, which he knew was a no-no, allowing them to pick grain on the sabbath, and in fact did “work” on the sabbath by healing. What did He say? He didn’t go into a discussion about the application of the rule against working on the sabbath. He attacked the whole premise of having such a rule by refusing to discuss its merits out of context, substituting instead the question of whether it is better to do good or evil on a sabbath?

Every one of those examples is an instance where Jesus was demonstrating that he came to fulfill the law of Moses. In no instance did he lie.

In the lie-to-the-Nazi example, if one of his friends lied and sent the soldiers on their way, I’d like to think that if anybody tries to say they have sinned by doing so, Jesus would ask, “what is a better thing to tell the soldiers, something that results in evil, or something that doesn’t?” Ends justifying the means? You betcha.

The ends never justifies the means. Having said that, if I found myself in such a situation where telling a lie would save someone and telling the truth would condemn them and I wasn’t quick enough to come up with a truthful story I would lie and then go to confession. Since it’s extremely unlikely that I will ever face such a dire circumstance it’s enough for me to live my ordinary every day life as truthfully as possible.

 

[seagal]

One more thought on the Nazi thing. How do you know that it is not part of God’s plan that a person be caught and tortured or killed by them? Look at St. Maxmillian Kolbe for example. Just another side to look at.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

One more thought on the Nazi thing. How do you know that it is not part of God’s plan that a person be caught and tortured or killed by them? Look at St. Maxmillian Kolbe for example. Just another side to look at.

You can’t be serious.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

seagal,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into reading and responding to my post. I like the way you are looking at this whole thing, and I like the way you can discuss both what the Catechism says, and what you would likely do in some emergency.

One thing I want to make certain is clear, though, about one thing:

Every one of those examples is an instance where Jesus was demonstrating that he came to fulfill the law of Moses. In no instance did he lie.

I do not disagree. My intent was not to suggest that Jesus did lie. Certainly He was the master at giving out the Truth and just enough of the Truth in any given situation.

I was trying to move the discussion to one higher level of abstraction. Thus:

a) Written rules were clear: behavior X is strictly forbidden, and/or behavior Y is absolutely required.

b) Jesus showed that the written rules, even assuming they are widely accepted by the members of the society, are subject to a “higher” law and to interpretation.

c) Not working/healing/picking grain on the sabbath are such rules that do not always hold in the face of circumstances, at least in a literal sense. Those written (stagnant) rules are subject to higher laws of what is good and what is evil, as demonstrated by the Living Word, who fulfilled the Law and brought life where previously the law had brought sin and death. Somehow along the way, we were proven that no set of written laws can give you a moment-by-moment formula for correct behavior given the exact circumstances.

d) Only to the extent that Jesus went against the established and agreed upon rules, do I raise the question of whether literal “lying” could be subject to interpretation.

Anyway, no I am not claiming Jesus lied. Just that He broke rules when it was appropriate. Thus at least some of the rules are not “cast in stone.”

I accept anybody’s preference to believe that lying is a special sort of thing that cannot be considered subjective as the other rules that Jesus clearly and knowingly broke. I’m not quite at that point, myself, but I support your stand.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

One more thought on the Nazi thing. How do you know that it is not part of God’s plan that a person be caught and tortured or killed by them? Look at St. Maxmillian Kolbe for example. Just another side to look at.

Pretty radical sounding thoughts, but I can’t say you are wrong.

After all, I guess if the death of His own son was part of His plan, then I accept that I cannot know the mind of God. To me there would be nothing at all redeeming about my willing for my own son to be tortured and killed.

Therefore I am not qualified to say that suffering and death – on anybody’s part – either is or isn’t part of God’s plan.

The wisdom of God is foolishness to men.

To assume that I know what He really does or doesn’t do to cause/allow calamities, is to bring Him down to my own level of reasoning ability.

I do believe that our best way of life, though, is to follow the teachings of Christ, and embrace the lessons life gives us through both joy and pain. After all, from the cloud God told us, “listen to Him.”

Alan

 

[Thoughtfulone]

No.

He told his brethren that he was not going because his time had not come. At the time he told them, this was true. And in fact he stayed in Galilee and did not go with them. So he was speaking the truth.

AFTER his brothers left, his time came and he went. That he went in secret rather than publically could have been as much to spare his brethren from misjudging him or because he himself judged it best to do so.

But it was not a lie.

Jesus did not say, “I’m not going to this festival under any circumstances.” He said he was not going because (at the time he was speaking) his time had not yet come.

He did not say, “I’m not going to this festival because my time has not come. And it won’t come for a long long time, well after this festival has concluded.”

What he said was perfectly true and when he determined (through the Father and the Spirit) that indeed his time had come, he went.

He never lied. . .and lying is not right. . .not even to bring about ‘good’.

I dunno…He flat-out said “I am not going up to this festival”. As God, He knew this to be untrue. Any other way of looking at it seems to be trying to find a loophole…

Does anyone know how the CC or scholars interpret this passage? Certainly if Jesus did tell an untruth, He was not sinning. On this, I think we will all agree.

The CCC says this about lying:

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

But clearly, this doesn’t address a situation where a person’s feelings would be terribly hurt by the truth. I mean, how could it be “an offense against justice and charity” to tell a bride on her wedding day that she looks beautiful if she asks for your opinion?

The CCC automatically assumes lying in order to harm someone instead out of love or protection. Also, most people don’t think quickly enough to come up with a creative way of deflecting.

Basically, most people here are saying that DECEIVING is o.k. but LYING is not. I see no difference whatsoever. If my husband comes home and I ask “Were you at The Pink Pussycat strip club again?”, and he says, “Of course not! I would never go to a place like that!”, when in reality, he was at Pure Platinum’s all-night strip-a-thon, is he not lying? Of course he is! In every way that matters. Words are just words. It’s what they convey to the other person that makes them either truthful or deceptive.

Once again, I feel like people on this site are being overly legalistic.