Here is the direct link to this week's study:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/06d/less09.html

Let the study and discussion of this week's lesson topic begin.

The Memory Text says, "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Genesis 22:12).

Didn't Abraham have another son before he had Isaac, as brought out in a previous lesson?

Then why is Isaac referred to as Abraham's "only son"?

Sunday's study has an interesting title, Lying Through Silence.

How does one tell a lie through silence?

Maybe Ishmael didn't count because he was ill-conceived.

Because of Abraham's suppression of the truth, God said to Abimelech, "Behold, thou art but a dead man." I would say that's an injury.

But what I find most interesting is what God said in Gen 20:6: "Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her."

Because Abimelech acted with integrity in the matter, God kept him from sinning. Why doesn't God do this all the time?

I found this interesting:

"Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment." {PP 309.3}

We must consider if a greater injury results from telling the truth or from omitting it.

In this case, murder vs adultery.

Are we in a position to make this determination?



But then

Full disclosure is not always possible, or advisable. But does that excuse "white lies" now and then?

Of course you misunderstood me. The quote says:

"Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment." {PP 309.3}

Notice that the quote does not say, "by which injury may result to oneself," but "by which injury may result to others". So even if Abraham might be murdered, this wouldn’t have been a valid reason for omitting the truth if by this omission injury might result to others. Besides, the omission of truth must not be equivalent to a lie (white or whatever color).

Let’s exemplify. Suppose the police is persecuting Christians. If no one is at risk, you don’t need to raise your hand and say: "Hey, I’m a Christian. You must arrest me!" But suppose you are in a group of people and the police arrives and says: "Are there any Christians here?" Keeping silent would be equivalent to saying "No," therefore the omission of truth would be a lie. Or suppose the police says, "We know there is a Christian here. If this Christian doesn’t present himself, everybody here will die." The omission of truth would result in injury to others, therefore the Christian must reveal that he is a Christian, even if this results in injury to himself.

Actually, that is what I meant. Murder and adultery injure the perpetrator even more than the victim.

I see what you're talking about, but I'm not sure I really understand the underlying principles.

How about Rahab?