What does it mean that it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18)?

Hebrews 6:17 tells us of “two immutable [unchanging] things in which it was impossible to lie”: (1) The immutability of His counsel; (2) The confirmation of His oath.

Why are men put on oath in the law courts of the land? It is because they are capable of lying. The psalmist said in his haste that “all men are liars” (Ps. 116:11), and men have not altered. In happy contrast to this we are told that it is “impossible for God to lie.” God cannot do these things that would be the negation of His being, nature and holiness. God cannot swear by one higher than Himself, so He swears by Himself. He said to Abraham. “SURELY… I will bless thee.” Why add the word surely? On the Divine side there was no need for it whatever. No word can add to God’s trustworthiness. His word is His bond. It is immutable, unchangeable, divine. God confirmed His word by an oath, most graciously given for our sakes, seeing we are naturally “slow of heart to believe” (Luke 24:25).

We may rely implicitly on God’s word, which cannot deceive, change, nor alter. “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18).

But our Hindu friend expressed a wish that, in order to forgive him, God would set aside His law. Impossible! You may ask perhaps, Cannot God do anything that He likes? Certainly, anything He LIKES. But remember, He must ever act in consonance with His own nature. He cannot do those things that are a contradiction of His nature and being. For instance, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18).

Now for God to depart from His just laws in order to forgive would be in the nature of a lie. In other words He would have to set aside His own words and decrees to do such a thing as that. He would cease to be consistent. That could not possibly be.

The confounding moral infinitude (that is, absoluteness of perfection) with extension, which I have noticed is a very great blunder. But then I freely own that in strictness we cannot speak of attributes in God (moral ones). It is only a human way which (speaking reverently) divides God into parts. God cannot be or do evil: to say this is a limitation of power is only a delusion. If I say that He cannot do what He pleases, for He cannot do evil, the "cannot" applies to "what He pleases," not to the power of God. As to acts of power, He can do everything. It is morally impossible that there should be in Him the contrary of what He is, that is of good and right. But this is not limiting power or anything; it is denying a limit to goodness, and saying it is absolute. Infinite goodness means merely goodness always perfect as goodness. That this is after an imperfect thought as to God I admit, because it takes one characteristic by itself (that is through our finite nature), for nothing in God is characteristic (that is, special and in part). It has been noticed elsewhere how thus Christ had no character, but was always what He ought to be wherever He was. Perfect goodness He was, but not goodness by itself as we conceive it. He was firm and severe where He ought, and good in that; He was tender and affectionate where He ought, and good in that; He was seemingly hard and deaf to seed, and unchanged in goodness in that - in all love to His Father, and obedience. The divine nature in man which produced one produced all, perfect in each place in relation because perfect in itself.

C.C. — Yes; but how can God consistently save anybody? The answer is, Through grace. He has a righteous way to do this. Some things God cannot do — it is impossible for Him to lie; it is imposible for Him to violate His holiness; He cannot infringe on His righteousness. In everything that He does His own character and nature must be maintained.

Hence the only true absolute good is free. It is love, God Himself, and that in fact in the highest sense where there is no obligation at all, but where the responsible one had failed. If God, though surely sovereign, gives a promise, I expect Him to fulfil it, though I do not deny higher reasons may lead to its not being accomplished. But as a general promise, I reckon on it, because in that act He has been pleased to put Himself in relationship. If there be a higher claim, it may fail, but is in His own sovereign knowledge. But I can say, It is impossible for God to lie, because when He has given His word, He has been pleased to oblige Himself. He might for higher reasons destroy the one to whom the promise was made, and it would fail; but He cannot be inconsistent with what He is. But it is important to remember, what moralisers seem anxious to forget, that the knowledge of good and evil came to man in and by that in which he fell.

Look at that lonely old man, without a foot of ground to call his own, and yet the inheritor of it all! We will see when we come to the eleventh chapter that he had his eyes on a better inheritance, even a heavenly. But look at him here, without a thing to call his own, yet what did he have? O brethren, he had God's word and God's oath; and so have we; a strong consolation for us who have fled for refuge to lay hold of — not upon some present possession, not upon something that we can hold up to the world and say, See our wealth, or our glory — but upon the HOPE set before us. These are evidently the "two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie" — His word, confirmed by His oath. Abraham had these, and so have we. It has been suggested that these two things are our Lord's eternal priesthood and kingship — His Melchizedec priesthood. While these do abide eternally, and are the witness of the perpetuity of all our blessings, they are not what is immediately before us here, and we would be obliged to ignore the oath and promise of God given to Abraham.

These considerations sufficiently prove the fallacy of the notion that the accomplishment of Christ's work was the hidden part of the mystery referred to in Eph. 3, although that was clearly necessary as a preparation for it. The truth is, as we have seen, that "the mystery of Christ" was unrevealed, not partially but as a whole, till the Spirit was sent down from heaven by the risen and ascended Lord; and this, not merely to render an inward witness more clear and vivid than heretofore, but to be the vicar of Christ, the ever-abiding Paraclete (John 14:16). To confound Him with the "strong consolation" of Heb. 6 is virtually, though not intentionally, to reduce the person of the Holy Ghost to the effect which He produces. The other Advocate is quite distinct from the consolation which He administers through enabling us to lay hold on the hope which entereth into that within the veil. And as Heb. 6 is referred to, it may be added, that the context is assuredly decisive, not only that the promise and the oath are distinguished by the Holy Ghost, but that they are the two immutable things whereon the "strong consolation" is based. "For when God made promise … He sware … Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it (or interposed) by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie," etc. Nor can I conceive with what propriety God Himself, the pledger, could be called an immutable thing, in which it was impossible for God to lie; whereas the phrase is perfectly applicable to the promise and the oath.

(Vv. 16-18). Moreover, it was not for Abraham's sake only that God gave this twofold guarantee, His Word and His oath. Thus the principles on which God acted towards the fathers of old are applied to the children of faith now that “we might have a strong encouragement.” God, in His condescending grace, to convince the heirs of promise of the unchangeable character of His Word, confirmed His promise with an oath, even as men do in their dealings with one another. As He could swear by no greater, He swore by Himself. Thus, by two immutable things, His Word and His oath, in which it was impossible for God to lie, He gives strong encouragement to all those who have fled to Christ for refuge from judgment, to lay hold on the hope set before them, instead of turning back by reason of the difficulties on the way. The allusion is to the city of refuge for the manslayer. The Jews had murdered their own Messiah and brought themselves under judgment. The believing remnant, separating themselves from the guilty nation, fled for refuge to the living Christ in glory.