Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
The only exceptions are the account of God's creation of the heavens and the earth (an
understandable exception inasmuch as a party to deceive had not yet entered the picture)
and the flood story.
I could not be sure that he really meant what he said. No, it is difficult to
imagine a society that could actually function with such a moral construct.
Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is the view that deception may
sometimes, and under certain conditions, be morally permissible, or even
praiseworthy.2 This is the view that I maintain and, moreover, will argue is
necessitated by the evidence preserved for us in Genesis.
Any discussion of deception, especially one that will focus on its morality,
must necessarily begin with a definition of the term. We have to try to be
as objective as possible here because, obviously, the way we define deception could color the results of our investigation from the outset. The Oxford
English Dictionary gives the following definitions for the verb "deceive":
1. To ensnare; to take unawares by craft or guile; to overcome, overreach,
or get the better of by trickery; to beguile or betray into mischief or sin;
to mislead. 2. To cause to believe what is false; to mislead as to a matter
of fact; lead into error, impose upon, delude, "take in." 3. To be or prove
false to, play false, deal treacherously with; to betray. 4. to cheat, overreach; defraud. 5. To beguile, wile away.3
A common, and critical, element of these nuances is intentionality. Unintentional miscommunication may be due to problems on the front end caused
by a person's being "deceived in the first place,... ignorance, fatigue, bias,
delusion, intoxication, or language difficulties."4 One time, when I was in
a little restaurant in a small town in Ukraine, I was surprised to see that the
establishment had an English menu. However, it was soon clear to me that
they really did not know English but had simply used a basic dictionary to
translate words from Ukrainian into English. For example, I was amused to
find on the menu an offering called a language sandwich. I figured out that
what was really meant was a tongue sandwich. Their dictionary had obviously
provided language as an equivalent for tongue and so this had made its way
onto the menu. There was obviously no intent to deceive. This example also
shows that most of the factors that result in misunderstanding or misinterpretation may also be operative on the receiving end so that a person could
end up with a mistaken belief that was never intended by the communicator. I could have ended up with the mistaken belief that learning Ukrainian
was as simple as eating a sandwich. That would be nice! Obviously, that was
not the message that the restaurant owners intended for me to receive.
Gerald R. Miller and James B. Schiff, Deceptive Communication (Newbury Park, Calif.:
Sage, 1993), 1-2: Only the most stubborn ethical absolutist would undertake to defend the
proposition that it is neverjustifiable to communicate deceptively."
3
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 305.
Sissela Bok, "Deceit," in Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2 vols., ed. Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte
B. Becker (New York: Garland, 1992), 1:242.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
(Gen.
3:1-19)
12:10-20)
20:1-18)
26:6-11)
27:1-40)
29:15-30)
31:4-9, 38-42)
31:17-18, 20-29)
31:19, 30-35)
34:1-31)
37:29-35)
38:1-26)
39:1-20)
42:7-28)
44:1-34)
Components of this definition are found in Bok, "Deceit," 1:242; and David Nyberg, The
Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1993), 67.
How are we to explain the fact that the book of Genesis is virtually rid
dled with cases of deception? What is going on here? How are we supposed
to regard this phenomenon, often perpetrated by esteemed patriarchs,
people we have been taught to respect? Is all of this deception bad? Are any
of these deceptions ever positively evaluated? If so, why? Why have so many
instances of deception been preserved for posterity? What are the implica
tions of all of this for us today? At least some progress toward answering
these questions can be made by considering the narratives' own evaluations
of these events, though sometimes this is lacking or unclear.
Almost all of these deception events are evaluated as negative by the text
itself. This is certainly no problem for us inasmuch as we are already predis
posed to regard deception negatively. For two events (8 and 9), the narra
tive evaluation is unclear. This still does not present us with any problems.
There is nothing specifically stated in the text so far that challenges the
prevalent view that deception is bad. The problem comes into focus when
we see that three of the events (12, 14, and 15) are evaluated positively, at
least implicitly, by the narrative itself.
In event 12 (Gen. 38:1-26), afterjudah's son and Tamar's husband died,
Judah gave his other son to Tamar to raise up offspring for the dead brother,
as was Tamar's right under the law of the levirate. When this resulted in the
death of the second son, Judah withheld his third son from Tamar out of
fear that he, too, would die. Then Tamar, disguised as a prostitute, deceived
Judah himself into impregnating her. The narrative evaluation is provided
by none other than the person deceived. Judah himself concludes: "She is
more in the right than I," or an even better translation: "She is in the right,
not (38:26) .6
In event 14 (Gen. 42:7-28), when his brothers traveled to Egypt to get
grain during the famine, Joseph pretended not to recognize them, accused
them of being spies (which he knew was untrue), and commanded them to
produce their other brother Benjamin as proof of their truthfulness. There
is no explicit narrative evaluation provided by the immediate context. How
ever, the fact that these actions on the part of Joseph eventually led to the
restoration of the family indicates a positive assessment.
In event 15 (Gen. 44:1-34), during his brothers' second trip to Egypt
for grain, Joseph planted his divining cup in Benjamin's sack in order to
frame him for a crime he did not commit. This resulted in an impassioned
plea from Judah for consideration of their father's love of Benjamin and
for permission to be held as Joseph's slave in the place of Benjamin. There
is no explicit narrative evaluation of this deception event either. However,
6
This is referred to as "a comparison of exclusion," [in which] the subject alone possesses
the quality connoted by the adjective,... to the exclusion of the thing compared" (see Bruce
K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, Ind:
Eisenbrauns, 1990] 265 [14.4e]).
Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1985), 308: 'That the sons of the hated wife should have come to terms with the father's
attachment to Rachel. . . and her children is enough to promise an end to hostilities and a
fresh start."
8
See, for example, Ora Prouser, 'The Phenomenology of the Lie in Biblical Narrative"
(Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1991), 182-83: "It was considered acceptable, and
generally praiseworthy for a weaker party to engage in deceit in order to accomplish his or her
goals against a stronger power."
9
See, for example, Josephus's views in this regard, described in Michael Williams, Deception
in Genesis: An Investigation into the Morality of a Unique Biblical Phenomenon (New York: Peter
Lang, 2001), 90-96, 97,137.
10
See Claus Westermann, Genesis: A Commentaryf 3 vols., trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1984-86), 2:166: "Pharaoh's reproach is the last word in the narrative and so takes on
considerable importance with regard to the whole. It shows at once that the narrator does not
approve ofAbraham's conduct and attributes a clear conscience to Pharaoh." Similar conclusions
can be drawn from Abraham's and Isaac's deceptions of Abimelech (events 3 and 4).
rebuked (event 4) .Jacob's sons, especially Simeon and Levi, are strongly rebuked by their father for their actions against the Shechemites (event 10).
Simeon and Levi give a legitimate reason for taking action, but the reason
does not justify the action that they took. At least, this is their father Jacob's
evaluation. Later, on his deathbed, Jacob talks about the unbridled rage
of his two sons: "Simeon and Levi are brotherstheir swords are weapons
of violence. Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they
pleased. Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel" (Gen.
49:5-7). After the incident at Shechem, these brothers deceive their own
father (event 11), causing a rift in the family that took years to heal. In the
narrative, they themselves admit their guilt (Gen. 42:21). It is clear from the
Scriptures that the patriarchs do not get a pass on deception just because
they are patriarchs.
Third, perhaps the criterion for positively evaluating deception is when
an Israelite deceives a non-Israelite.11
A quick scan of the positively evaluated deception events, however, shows
that this is also an inadequate criterion. Tamar, an Israelite woman, deceives
Judah, and her deception is positively evaluated. Joseph deceives his brothers and this is positively evaluated. In the cases where an Israelite deceives a
non-Israelite, the narrative provides negative evaluations.
What is left to consider? I suggest that the only criterion for positive deception in the Bible is the motive of the deceiver, and the only acceptable
motive for perpetrating deception on someone else is . . . the restoration of
shalom. By shalom I do not mean some pie-in-the-sky Utopian existence but
rather, as Claus Westermann has defined it: "the normal way of life... in all
of its aspects, along with all of its tensions."12
Shalom is the normal relationship of things or people to each other.
When two people have established some kind of mutually agreed upon relationship with each other, with all of its expectations and all of its responsibilities, the continuation of this relationship is shalom. When one of the
parties in this relationship wrongs the other one, the scales become imbalanced, and shalom is disturbed. In this case, where the expectations and
responsibilities of the relationship have been violated, the wronged party
may legitimately use deception to restore that shalom to what it was before.
11
Consider the tendency of the targums and midrashim to present the deceptions of
Israelite deceivers in a favorable light. This is conveniently presented in Williams, Deception in
Genesis, 114-24 (for the targums) and 125-31 (for the midrashim).
12
Claus Westermann, "Peace (Shalom) in the Old Testament," in The Meaning of Peace:
Biblical Studies, trans. Walter Sawatsky, ed. Perry B. Yoder and Willard M. Swardey (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1992), 29.
For shalom to be re-achieved legitimately by means of deception, the following elements need to be present:
1. The deception must be limited to the person who caused the original
wrong
2. The deception must not disadvantage the deceived person
3. The deception must not advantage the deceiver beyond his/her status
prior to what it was before suffering the original wrong
In those rare instances of positively evaluated deception in the book of
Genesis, we find deception functioning to restore shalom. Conversely, when
deception introduces a disruption in shalom, it is evaluated negatively.
When Judah denies Tamar her rights by not giving her his son Shelah
to carry on the line of her deceased husband, he introduces a wrong, a
disruption of shalom. When Tamar subsequently deceives Judah, she does
not harm, or disadvantage, him and does not by means of her deception
advance her own position beyond what it was before Judah wronged her.
Her deception of Judah simply results in the "normal" situation of having
her deceased husband's line continued; that is, she has restored shalom.
Joseph's brothers had wronged him and had by means of this wrong
broken apart the family. When Joseph deceives his brothers, he does not
harm them (in fact, they ultimately benefit greatly). He certainly does not
advance his own position. Rather, by means of his deception, he effectively
returns the situation to that which existed prior to their wronging himthe
family is reunified, and so shalom is restored.
We can also better understand the negatively evaluated deception events
by noting the absence of this intent to restore shalom. For example, when
Jacob's sons deceive Hamor and Shechem in order to retrieve their violated
sister, it is true that a prior wrong, or disruption in shalom, had occurred,
and that they were thereby justified in using deception to restore shalom.
However, they do not restrict or limit their deception to the original perpetrators of the crime; instead they kill all the males in the city, even those who
were innocent of any wrong in their regard. They also benefit personally
and advance their position by plundering the city. Thus, the excuse they
give for their actions ("Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?"
Gen. 34:31) provides a sufficient basis for them to undertake deception,
but their actions do not restore the unsatisfactory situation to a more satisfactory or normal one. That is, their deception does not restore shalom.
Instead, their overreaction to the genuine wrong they had suffered resulted
in another unsatisfactory situationwanton slaughter of innocent people
and their own personal, unjustifiable profitthat rendered them, as their
father puts it, "a stench" to the people living in the land (34:30). This overreaction is what Jacob found unacceptable and was the basis for his deathbed denunciation of Simeon and Levi (49:5-7).
result, death's tyranny over the human race was broken, and the process of
shalom restoration was begun.13 As Gregory elsewhere puts it:
So it is with the incarnation. By the principle ofjustice the deceiver reaps
the harvest of the seeds he sowed with his own free will. For he who first
deceived man by the bait of pleasure is himself deceived by the camouflage of human nature. But the purpose of the action changes it into
something good. For the one practiced deceit to ruin our nature; but
the other, being at once just and good and wise, made use of a deceitful
device to save the one who had been ruined.14
Thus, to express this idea as succinctly as possible: Deception disrupts shalom
in the garden and deception restores shalom at the Cross. Deception ends
the beginning and deception begins the ending. By deceiving Satan with the
Cross, God is undoing what Satan has done. He is restoring shalom.
When we narrow our focus back to the book of Genesis, we also see
that those rare individual acts of deception that are positively evaluated
both restore shalom on the interpersonal level and are simultaneously used
by God to contribute to his larger shalom-restoring redemptive purpose.
Tamar deceives Judah to restore her right, and, as a consequence, Perez
the ancestor of David, and ultimately Jesusis born. Thus, the Messianic
line is preserved, and God thereby advances his redemptive program.
Joseph deceives his brothers to restore his family and consequently the
nationand the Messianic lineis preserved, and God thereby again advances his redemptive program.
God is about the business of restoring shalom that was lost after the original deception. The only way our individual acts of deception could ever be
positively evaluated is if they mimic the purpose of his: to restore shalom.
This should be our purpose as we participate in God's plan of redemption.
At rare times, and with the restrictive criteria we find in Genesis, deception may be a part of this in our interpersonal relationships. Ultimately and
finally, however, the focus is not on us, but on God's redemptive activity. If
our deception contributes to this divine purpose, then it is used by God and
is positively evaluated. If our deception works against this divine purpose,
then it is still used by God, but is negatively evaluated. We must view all
of our humanityour words, our actions, and our attitudes (including our
tendency to deceive)in the light of the larger divine program. I humbly
suggest that we, as Christians and Christian leaders, concentrate our efforts
on making our lives conform and contribute to the divine shalom-restoring
13
Or. catech. 24 (for translation, see Cyril C. Richardson, "Address on Religious Instruction,"
in Chrstology of the Later Fathers, LCC 3; ed. Edward Hardy and Cyril Richardson [Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1954], 301).
14
Or. catech. 26 (see Richardson, "Address," 303). For a fuller discussion of divine disguise
or deception in the Devil's defeat, see Eugene Teselle, 'The Cross as Ransom,n JECS 4, no. 2
(1996): 150-51, and nn. 13 and 14.
15
Josephus (Ant. 2.9.2 206) and the LXX interpret the Hebrew (337 ^[]) as
"(Egyptian) midwives of the Hebrews." While the (unpointed) Hebrew does allow for this
interpretation, it is clear that the names Shiphrah and Puah are "perfectly good NorthwestSemitic names of women from the first half of the second millennium" (W. F. Albright,
"Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,"
JAOS 74 [1954]: 229). Another argument offered for the Egyptian ethnicity of these women
is that Pharaoh's expectations of them would otherwise be groundless. This argument, too,
is not convincing. John I. Durham (Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco: Word Books,
1987] ,11) speculates: "Perhaps the summons by so powerful a figure was calculated to frighten
the women." In any event, that Pharaoh's expectations of the women are, indeed, groundless
is subsequently proven by their actions.
16
As Katharine Sakenfeld observes, this new relationship "comes into existence... through
Rahab's recognition of Yahweh as God and her recognition that Yahweh has given Israel the
land (w. 8-11)" (Faithfulness in Action [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 22).
Ezekiel 14:1-11 deals with how God will respond to an idolater who seeks
a word from him through a prophet. God says he will answer such a person
in a way that catches him in his idolatrous thoughts (14:4-5).17 This apparently involves deceiving the prophet from whom the person seeks a word
(14:9).
Third, does this understanding of deception weaken the ninth commandment, which says: 'You shall not give false testimony against your
neighbor"?
The commandment found in Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20 literally says: "Do not testify against your neighbor a testimony of falsehood
[Exodus]/emptiness [Deuteronomy]."18 We have to look at these words
carefully because we are walking along the edges of permissibility when we
talk about acceptable deception.
I make the following observations regarding this commandment: (1) It
presupposes a legal or covenantal setting,19 so there is already a previously
existing relationship between the parties involved. (2) Note that one is testifying concerning a "neighbor": that is, to a "friend, companion, fellowcitizen"a person with whom one is in a preexisting relationship that has
responsibilities and expectations. (3) The commandment, then, is in effect
prohibiting exactly the kind of violation of the responsibilities and expectations of this preexisting relationship that positively evaluated deception
rectifies. In other words, the commandment prohibits the behavior that
would create the need for a shalom-restoring deception. (4) Deception that
is directed toward restoring the contours of the preexisting relationship is
not "false" or "empty" (KI or nptf), but healing and restorative. (5) Deception that restores shalom is not directed "against your neighbor," but rather
against the "shalom-disturbing situation."
Thus, I conclude that deception that is perpetrated for the purpose of
restoring shalom does not violate the ninth commandment; just the opposite! It restores shalom that is disrupted by breaking this commandment.
Therefore, the understanding of positively evaluated deception set forth
in this article does not weaken this commandment's force or introduce an
exception to its prohibition. Rather, deception understood and exercised
in this way is working toward the same end as the commandment itselfthe
preservation and restoration of shalom.
17
Exodus 20:16 - & *pna narri vb\ Deuteronomy 5:20 - ? i r muri vb.
19
Note the word testimony (2) and the verb testify (3).
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.