Part 5 (1/2)
As specimen ill.u.s.trations of the teachings of the Talmud on this theme, Hamburger quotes these utterances from its pages: ”He who alters his word, at the same time commits idolatry.” ”Three are hated of G.o.d: he who speaks with his mouth otherwise than as he feels with his heart; he who knows of evidence against any one, and does not disclose it,” etc. ”Four cannot appear before G.o.d: the scorner, the hypocrite, the liar, and the slanderer.” ”'A just measure thou shalt keep;' that is, we should not think one thing in our heart, and speak another with our mouth.” ”Seven commit the offense of theft: he who steals [sneaks into] the good will of another; he who invites his friend to visit him, and does not mean it in his heart; he who offers his neighbor presents, knowing beforehand that he will not receive them,” etc.
And Hamburger adds: ”Every lie, therefore, however excellent the motive, is decidedly forbidden.... In the tract Jebamoth, 63, Raba blames his son for employing a 'lie of necessity' _(nothluge)_ to restore peace between his father and his mother.... It is clear that the Talmud decidedly rejects the principle that 'the end justifies the means.'”[1]
[Footnote 1: Compare also art. ”Falseness” _(Falscheit)_.]
On the other hand, Hamburger cites Rabbi Ishmael, one of the Talmudists, as teaching that a Jew might transgress even the prohibition of idolatry (and lying is, according to Talmudic teaching, equivalent to idolatry) in order to save his life, provided the act was not done in public. In support of his position, Rabbi Ishmael cited the declaration concerning the statutes of Moses in Leviticus 18: 5, ”which if a man do he shall live in them,” and added by way of explanation: ”He [the Israelite] is to live through the law, but is not to die through it.”[1]
[Footnote 1: See Hamburger's _Real-Encyc_., II., art. ”Ismael R.”]
And Isaac Abohab, an eminent Spanish rabbi, in his _Menorath Hammaor_[1] gives other ill.u.s.trations from the Talmud of the advocacy of special exceptions to the strict law of truthfulness, with a good purpose in view, notwithstanding the sweeping claim to the contrary by Hamburger. He says: ”Only when it is the intention to bring about peace between men, may anything be altered in discourse; as is taught in the tract Jebamoth. Rabbi Ilai says, in the name of Rabbi Jehuda, son of Rabbi Simeon: 'One may alter something in discourse for the sake of establis.h.i.+ng harmony.'... Rabbi Nathan says: 'This indeed is a duty.'... Rabbi Ishmael taught: 'Peace is of such importance that for its sake G.o.d even alters facts.'” In each of these cases the rabbi cited misapplies a Bible pa.s.sage in support of his position.
[Footnote 1: See German translation by R.J. Furstenthal, Discourse II., I.]
Isaac Abohab adds: ”In like manner the rabbis say that one may praise a bride in the presence of her bridegroom, and say that she is handsome and devout, when she is neither, if the intention predominates to make her attractive in the eyes of her bridegroom.
Nevertheless a man is not to tell lies even in trifling matters, lest lying should come to be a habit with him, as is warned against in the tract Jebamoth.”
Thus it would appear that there were discussions on this subject among the rabbis of the Talmud, and that while there were those who advocated the ”lie of necessity,” as a matter of personal gain or as a means of good to others, there were those who stood firmly against any form of the lie, or any falsity, as in itself at variance with the very nature of G.o.d, and with the plain duty of G.o.d's children.
Among the Christian Fathers it was much the same as among the Jewish rabbis, in discussions over this question. The one unvarying standard was recognized, by the clearest thinkers, as binding on all for always; yet there were individuals inclined to find a reason for exceptions in the practical application of this standard. The phase of the question that immediately presented itself to the early Christians was, whether it were allowable for a man to deny to a pagan enemy that he was a Christian, or that one whom he held dear was a Christian, when the speaking of the truth would cost him his life, or cost the life of one whom he loved.
There were those who held that the duty to speak the truth was merely a social obligation, and that when a man showed himself as an enemy of G.o.d and of his fellows, he shut himself out from the pale of this social obligation; moreover, that when such a man could be deterred from crime, and at the same time a Christian's life could be preserved, by the telling of an untruth, a falsehood would be justifiable. If the lie were told in private under such circ.u.mstances, it was by such persons considered different from a public denial of one's faith. But, on the other hand, the great body of Christians, in the apostolic age, and in the age early following, acted on the conviction that a lie is a sin _per se_, and that no emergency could make a lie a necessity. And it was in fidelity to this conviction that the roll of Christian martyrs was so gloriously extended.
Justin Martyr, whose Apologies in behalf of the Christians are the earliest extant, speaks for the best of the cla.s.s he represents when he says: ”It is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie.”[1] And again: ”When we are examined, we make no denial, because we are not conscious of any evil, but count it impious not to speak the truth in all things, which also we know is pleasing to G.o.d.”[2] There was no thought in such a mind as Justin Martyr's, or in the minds of his fellow-martyrs, that any life was worth saving at the cost of a lie in G.o.d's sight.
[Footnote 1: First Apology, Chapter 8.]
[Footnote 2: Second Apology, Chapter 4.]
There were many temptations, and great ones, to the early Christians, to evade the consequences of being known as refusers to wors.h.i.+p the G.o.ds of the Romans; and it is not to be wondered at that many poor mortals yielded to those temptations. Exemption from punishment could be purchased by saying that one had offered sacrifices to the G.o.ds, or by accepting a certificate that such sacrifice had been made, even when such was not the fact; or, again, by professing a readiness to sacrifice, without the intention of such compliance, or by permitting a friend to testify falsely as to the facts; and there were those who thought a lie of this sort justifiable, for the saving of their lives, when they would not have openly renounced their Christian faith.[1]
There was much discussion over these practices in the writings of the Fathers; but while there was recognized a difference between open apostasy and the tolerance of a falsehood in one's behalf, it was held by the church authorities that a lie was always sinful, even though there were degrees in modes of sinning.
[Footnote 1: See Smith and Cheetham's _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_, art. ”Libelli.” See also Bingham's _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, Book XVI., Chap. 13, Section 5; also Book XVI., Chap. 3, Section 14; with citations from Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian.]
Ringing words against all forms of lying were spoken by some of the Christian Fathers. Says the Shepherd of Hermas: ”Love the truth, and let nothing but truth proceed from your mouth, that the spirit which G.o.d has placed in your flesh may be found truthful before all men; and the Lord, who dwelleth in you, will be glorified, because the Lord is truthful in every word, and in him is no falsehood. They, therefore, who lie, deny the Lord, and rob him, not giving back to him the deposit which they have received. For they received from him a spirit free from falsehood. If they give him back this spirit untruthful, they pollute the commandment of the Lord, and become robbers.”[1]
[Footnote 1: Book II., Commandment Third. _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_ (Am. ed.), II., 21.]
Tertullian names among ”sins of daily committal, to which we all are liable,” the ”sin” of ”lying, from bashfulness [or modesty], or 'necessity.'”[1] Origen also speaks of the frequency of ”lying, or of idle talking;”[2] as if possibly its frequency were in some sense an excuse for it. And Origen specifically claimed that the apostles Peter and Paul agreed together to deceive their hearers at Antioch by simulating a dissension between themselves, when in reality they were agreed.[3] Origen also seemed to approve of false speaking to those who were not ent.i.tled to know all the truth; as when he says of the cautious use of falsehood, ”a man on whom necessity imposes the responsibility of lying is bound to use very great care, and to use falsehood as he would a stimulant or a medicine, and strictly to preserve its measure, and not go beyond the bounds observed by Judith in her dealings with Holofernes, whom she overcame by the wisdom with which she dissembled her words.”[4]
[Footnote 1: ”On Modesty,” Chap. 19. _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, XIV., 97.]
[Footnote 2: Origen's Commentaries on Matthew, Tract VI., p. 60; cited in Bingham's _Antiq. of Chr. Ch_., Book XVI., Chap. 3.]
[Footnote 3: Gal. 2: 11-14. A concise statement of the influence of this teaching of Origen on the patristic interpretations of the pa.s.sage in Galatians, is given by Lightfoot in his commentary on Galatians, sixth edition, pp. 128-132.]
[Footnote 4: Quoted from the sixth book of Origen's Miscellanies by Jerome, in his Apology against Rufinus, Book I., -- 18. See _The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, second series (Am. ed.), III., 492. See, also, Neander's _Geschichte der Christlichen Ethik_, pp. 160, 167.]
There were Christian Fathers who found it convenient to lie, in their own behalf or in behalf of others; and it was quite natural for such mortals to seek to find an excuse for lies that ”seemed so necessary”
for their purposes. When Gregory of Nyssa, in his laudable effort to bring about a reconciliation between his elder brother Basil and their uncle, was ”induced to practice a deceit which was as irreconcilable with Christian principles as with common sense,”[1] he was ready to argue in defense of such a course.
[Footnote 1: Moore's _Life of S. Gregory of Nyssa. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, second series (Am. ed.), V., 5.]