Divine deception

in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (Tit 1:2).

so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us (Heb 6:18).

And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, Yahweh, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel (Ezk 14:9).

19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you” (1 Kgs 22:19-23).

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false (2 Thes 2:11).

On the face of it there's a point of tension between these two sets of statements. God is not a liar, but a deceiver. How can that tension be resolved? Let's consider some possibilities: 

1. Lying is typically verbal deception whereas there are nonverbal forms of deception. Admittedly, that doesn't seem to be morally significant, but it's not a contradiction. Yet I'll granted you that it's a is pretty superficial explanation.

2. God never lies to his people, but he sometimes deceives the wicked. 

3. Apropos (2), it's possible that God does lie, but only to the wicked. The context of Tit 1:2 and Heb 6:18 concerns God's relation to his own people. So perhaps the point of contrast is not that God never lies, but that he never lies to his own people. And that explains his modus operandi in relation to the wicked.

On the other hand, it's possible that these passages state a universal principle, and the contextual distinction is just a special case of that universal principle. But that leaves the prima facie point of tension unresolved.

4. It might be a distinction between mediate and immediate agency. God doesn't lie, but he sometimes delegates the task of deception to secondary agents. Whether that's a morally significant distinction is a different issue, but it's not a contradiction. Again, though, that's a pretty superficial explanation.

5. However, we can approach this from a different, rather neglected angle. Let's consider the nature of deception. In general, deception involves a relation between the deceiver and the deceived. Sometimes the deceiver makes the primary contribution but sometimes the deceived makes the primary contribution while the deceiver's contribution is incidental. Let's consider some examples:

i) In our culture, two males teenage or adult kissing on the lips is generally an indication of homosexuality. There are, however, exceptions. There are families in which a father will kiss his teenage son or adult son on the lips or vice versa. Likewise, there are families in which two brothers (teenagers or adults) will kiss each other on the lips. In that context, while that's a sign of affection, this is by no means an erotic kiss.

There may also be exceptional situations in which two biologically unrelated straight men kiss each other on the lips. Suppose your best friend is dying. You're by his deathbed as he's about to expire. You kiss him on the lips just before he dies. Or maybe you do that right after he expires. A parallel example would be a military setting where a wounded soldier is dying.

Now, to an onlooker who doesn't know the relationship or the circumstances, this appears to indicate homosexuality. The onlooker is deceived by what he sees. Does that makes the individuals who convey that impression deceivers? Only in a very roundabout sense. Their actions aren't directed at the onlooker, but a family member (or dying friend or comrade). There's no intention to deceive the onlooker. That's a side effect. 

In addition, the source of deception in this case is primarily due to the onlooker's preconception. How he misinterprets the situation. The onlooker's projection.

ii) Suppose, in response to a hostile question, I say homosexuality is sinful, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other, join a church, or be ordained. The hostile questioner will infer that I'm a bigot. I'm motivated by homophobia. It's impossible for me to have any rational or ethical justification for my position.

What the questioner has done is to filter my answers through his biased, preconceived narrative about Christians. In a sense, he's deceived by my answers because he assumes the worst about my motives. In that respect, it's possible for truthful statements to be deceptive. However, that's not because the Christian respondent had the intention to deceive. The deceptive effect is an incidental consequence of the questioner's prejudice. 

iii) Suppose someone asks me if I'm a Calvinist. If I say yes, that's a truthful answer, yet it may be deceptive inasmuch as he and I don't mean the same thing by that designation. He has a preconceived notion of what Calvinism represents. A twisted caricature of Calvinism. It might be better for me to say, "Before I answer that question, I think we need to define our terms. This is what I mean by Calvinism". 

It's possible to deceive someone by speaking or acting in a way that has that adventitious effect. The deception is largely due to their own assumptions and inferences. My statement or action creates that ancillary impression in combination with what they contribute to the observation. 

I'm not saying that's necessarily what's meant when Scripture says that God sometimes deludes the wicked. The point, though, is that by simply putting some people in a certain situation, given their malicious mindset, they will, in a way, be self-deceived by what they see and hear because their warped outlook places the worst construction on that incident.