The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Did Abraham Lie?

This is a bit of an older thread and I need to state that I have not changed my opinion on the matter.

However, I heard something recently that if true (which I am going to look into).
James Jordan’s position is not alone in his beliefs.

I was told John Calvin, John Gill, Augustine, James Montgomery Boice, Matthew Henry and Johnathan Edwards are in Jordan’s corner.


Here is a list of the theologians mentioned, along with the works where they address the incident of Abraham and Sarah, specifically regarding whether Abraham lied. Each source either defends Abraham as not lying or treats his words as technically true but perhaps unwise or lacking in trust, rather than sinful deception.

1. John Calvin
• Work: Commentary on the Book of Genesis (specifically on Genesis 12 and Genesis 20)
• Position: Calvin acknowledges Abraham concealed the truth but maintains it was not an outright lie. He calls it a “pretense” and a “deficiency of faith,” not a falsehood.
• Quote:

“She is in truth my sister, the daughter of my father… It appears, therefore, that he did not fabricate a falsehood, but that the declaration, though true, was not ingenuously made.”

2. John Gill
• Work: Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (Commentary on Genesis 20:12)
• Position: Gill argues that Abraham told the truth. Sarah was his half-sister, and Abraham’s words were not a lie, though the situation involved a prudent concealment.
• Quote:

“This was no lie, but a truth… for she was the daughter of his father, though not of his mother.”

3. Augustine of Hippo
• Work: City of God, Book XVI, Chapter 19
• Position: Augustine explains Abraham’s statement as technically true. He notes that while it may seem deceptive, it was not a lie because Sarah was truly his sister.
• Quote:

“For she was in truth his sister, being the daughter of his father, not of his mother… it was not a lie, but a concealment of part of the truth.”

4. James Montgomery Boice
• Work: Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Volume 1 (Genesis 1–11) and Volume 2 (Genesis 12–36)*
• Position: Boice describes Abraham’s act as a lapse in faith and a failure to trust God, but not a moral falsehood. He emphasizes the cultural and ethical complexity of the situation.
• Quote (paraphrased summary from his commentary):

“Abraham’s problem was not so much dishonesty as distrust. What he said was technically true. His fault lay in fearing man more than God.”

5. Matthew Henry
• Work: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Genesis 12 and 20)
• Position: Henry calls Abraham’s strategy a weakness in faith, but not a lie. He affirms the factual basis of Abraham’s claim.
• Quote:

“Though it was no lie, it was a prevarication… it was a weakness in Abraham, and a blemish in his conduct.”

6. Jonathan Edwards
• Work: While Edwards doesn’t comment extensively on this specific text in his sermons or treatises, in his Miscellanies and History of Redemption, he speaks more broadly about God’s providence in redemptive history.
• Position: Edwards does not explicitly call Abraham’s act a lie; rather, he views these events as providentially used by God to demonstrate divine protection and covenantal faithfulness.
• Reference: The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 1 (History of the Work of Redemption)
• Summary: Edwards’ focus is not on moral analysis but on how God uses even flawed human choices for redemptive purposes.