ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University

16 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Abrnm found himself in what ethicists call a "conflict situation.^^ He was
confronted by a "conflict of duties," whereby he had "an ethical obligation to do two
or more rnutually exclusive tlii~~gs ... incompatible acts."7 On the one hand, he was
obligatcd to tcll thc Egyptians the tmth but thercby put his own lifc and God's Promise
for all peoples into jeopardy; on the other handhe was obligated to employ a stratagem
to save his life but thereby tell n lie. Scri ture shows "that some duties (to \how love,
justice and mercy) outrank othcn .."'For Abram to tcll rhc wholc truth to thc
Egyptians at the cost of God's Promise would be cornparable to a youth in Nazi
Germany (who had beenforced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler) preferring to fulfil1
his loyalty to Hitler rather than to disobey a murderous order. Being faithful to Cod's
Promise had priority for Abram over being Lruthl'ul to an unjusl despot.
Wcmer Elert statcd that "citizcns arc no longer subjcct to public order which the
sulers thelnselves have ravaged."' Abram was therefore justified 111 expecting the
Egyptiansto want to do what Pharaoh then did: he ravaged the order of justice by
simply taking Sarai by force, both against her will and without the consent of her
"brotheru-guardian. Facing a conflict of duties, an "unusual venture" was necessary
for Abram to "dare the extraordinary" because the established secular order did not
pesmit him to practise his obedience to ~ od. l' Indeed, "concealment of truth does not
necessarily constitute lying. Man is not always obligated to reveal everything ... He
can even refuse to answcr [so Jcsus: Matt. 21:27; 26:63; 27:12, 14; Luke 23:9; John
19:9]. The Hebrew midwives (Exod. 1:19-20) and Samuel (l Sam. 16:l-2) did not lie;
they were not obligated to divulge infomnlion ... ,,l1
Several explanations havc bccn proposcd for Abram's stratagem to save himsclf
by identifying his wife as his sister, including the happenstance that, in Hebrew
language and culture, as his half-sister Snrai really could be called his "sister" (20: 12).
Further, a husband may well have to be eliminated in order to get his wife (see 2 Sam.
ll), but not a brother to get his sister.12 The best defense presented appears to be that
by Umberto Cassuto. Following the lead of some medieval comrncntators, hc notes
that Abrain was indeed attempting to protect Sarai as much as possible by claiming
to be her brothel-. For if he admitted to being her husband: he would be killed and she
suffcr disgracc. Howcvcr, as hcr brothcr hc could fcnd off hcr potential suitors through
the customarily extensive marriage negotiations until the famine subsided and they
on a Sabbath, it violated the Law of God for the Sabbath (see Shahbath 18:3, J. Wilch, "Why It Was Necessary
fur the Pl~uisees lo Oppobe Jeaua,' LTR 1 (Spririg 1983) 25.
6 Werner Elert. The Chriscim~ Ethos, tr. C. J. Schindler, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957) 259.
7 Ronold J. Sides, "Conflict of Dutles, Interest." Dictionary ofCh~.istian Ethics, ed. C. F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1973) 123.
8 Sidcr 123.
9 Llert 123.
10 Elett 257.
11 Ralph H. Alexander, "Lying," Diu~ioriuiy of Chrihriun Eflrics 401.
12 Jacub 89.