Pages

Monday, August 27, 2018

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. 

26 comments:

  1. To play devil’s advocate...

    Who’s to say God doesn’t lie to his people? And how could we know if he lies (or directs others to) to those who aren’t his people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A variation on the Cartesian demon.

      Delete
    2. You need to believe that God does not lie. This is corroborated throughout history (personal and universal). It is a reasonable step of faith.

      If we had an absolute and infallible knowledge we could not be justified by faith, because faith would be excluded.

      God has no free will, he can not choose to lie, it is an ontological impossibility.

      Delete
    3. Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
      ---
      If we had an absolute and infallible knowledge we could not be justified by faith, because faith would be excluded.
      ---

      I disagree. Faith does not need ignorance in order to be faith. In fact, Hosea 4:6 seems to say quite the opposite.

      Delete
    4. Fallible knowledge is not ignorance. What you know is more than what you dont know.

      If you have an absolute knowledge about something you have no chance of being wrong, and therefore you do not need faith at all.

      This seems clear to me.

      Delete
    5. Conhecereis a Verdade

      "If we had an absolute and infallible knowledge we could not be justified by faith, because faith would be excluded."

      No human being has absolute or infallible knowledge. That's obvious. However, that doesn't mean we cannot be justified by faith. How does the latter follow from the former? How would faith be "excluded" if we did not have "absolute and infallible knowledge"?

      "If you have an absolute knowledge about something you have no chance of being wrong, and therefore you do not need faith at all."

      Not having "absolute knowledge" does not imply that we have "zero knowledge" if that's what you're getting at. Surely one needs "some" knowledge if one is to exercise faith in God? Knowledge that there is a God for starters. Knowledge that Jesus is who he said he is. And so on.

      "God has no free will"

      In the sense that God isn't the ultimate source of his own will? In the sense that God couldn't have chosen otherwise? That seems unlikely because we can imagine God having created other possible worlds rather than our own.

      "he can not choose to lie, it is an ontological impossibility."

      That trades on what we mean by "lie" in our use of the concept vs. what the Bible means when it talks about lying and deception (such as per Steve's post).

      Delete
    6. Your questions are not for me. Read again, you did not understand :)

      Delete
    7. Interesting you say I'm the one who didn't understand when I was seeking clarification from you! :) Perhaps the truth isn't I didn't understand what you said, but you aren't clear in what you said.

      Delete
    8. steve said: “A variation on the Cartesian demon.”

      Do you mean in the sense that both the hypothetical atheist I postulated above and the infernal deciever of Descartes fame both reduce to situations where someone can mindlessly mumble “justify that” ad infinitum?

      That’s how I’ve always approached the issue with non-believers when they bring it up. But I must admit until recently I’ve never had the patience to entertain those types of thought-experiments for long. Too much historian, not enough philosopher.

      Delete
    9. Hi faith alchemist,

      Of course, I'm not Steve, but my guess is the "lying God" is a variation on the Cartesian demon inasmuch as both may trick us into believing things that aren't true.

      A related example is atheist philosopher Stephen Law's evil God.

      Delete
    10. I remember Law. He’s the guy who embarrassed himself a few years back discussing the historical Jesus. Or so I remember.

      Delete
  2. I think God can and does deceive both believers and non-believers via non-verbal providence. Providence that we interpret in an incorrect way or make fallacious inferences from. But, I don't think God ever lies in the sense of making propositional statements and promises (i.e. verbal revelation) that are untrue or for which He will knowingly be unfaithful. I also agree that God can use secondary agents to do the deceiving or lying. As in the case where God sent/permitted a lying spirit to propositionally deceive Ahab. Since God wasn't making the statement, the lying spirit's propositional lie doesn't stain God's character.

    Here's a possible example. I think God intended to give the impression in Scripture that the earth is young [cf. Exo. 20:11], even though He knows it isn't and He doesn't propositionally teach it is young in Scripture. He knew that some would eventually figure out that Scripture doesn't positively teach a young earth, but for various providential and historical purposes He inspired Scripture to give that impression. One of many reasons is to give some non-elect people a (poor/bad/incorrect) rationale for rejecting Christianity.

    Or imagine a person named Susan who is equally interested in being a lawyer and in being a doctor. She prays to God to miraculously provide tuition and open a door for her to go to school at University X to get a degree in Medicine, OR to do so at University B to become a lawyer. Say she got the money and was accepted at University X with many doors and opportunities opening up to her. She then infers that God really does want her to become the pediatrician she's been dreaming to be since she was 8 years old. When in actuality, God really only wanted her to go to University X to get her MRS Degree (i.e. find the husband she's supposed to marry). In her case, it was never God's intention for her to actually get a degree in medicine, though He "deceived" her into thinking it was so as to get her to meet her "Mr. Right" at the right time and place. For whatever reason she fails to complete her degree. She goes through life sometimes feeling like she failed God, but is convinced that He has nevertheless been gracious in providing for her a loving husband and 3 adorable children. Unbeknownst to her, had she become a doctor, she would have been shot and killed at the age of 24 while working in an Emergency Room, never having been married or borne and raised children.

    I'm reminded of theologian John S. Feinberg's book Deceived by God and the situation with his wife. Or John Wesley's casting lots as to whether he should preach against Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Jeremiah 20:7 also comes to mind: "O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived." At the very least, Jeremiah thought he'd been deceived by God, and I think the passage is clear that his complaint is not sinful, nor is the complaint anywhere contradicted.

      I think some of it can be explained by the fact that there's self-deception that goes on. I.e., Jeremiah expected God to do certain things and God didn't, but God never said He was going to either. However, it's plain that he allowed Jeremiah to hold to that false belief and did not correct it even though He could have done so. Thus, it certainly feels like God deceived Jeremiah. At the very least, it feels like trickery either way.

      And yeah, I think God does do this even today. Not just in the examples you've given, but also in my own life.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. You said it better and more succinctly than I did.

      Delete
  3. I think there's an additional factor here in the story from Scripture. The lying spirit spoke through one of Ahab's prophets. Remember the king of Judah's response to them - "Isn't there a prophet of Yahweh available?". So these guys were recognizibly not prophets of Yahweh. So what was Ahab doing listening to them in the first place? It sort of reminds me of the contention over Pharaoh. Yes, God hardened his heart but only after Pharaoh did it first. Here Ahab is asking for trouble to begin with by having these sychophants as his prophets & counsellors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς

    "The un-lying God" or "God, who cannot lie" (NASB)
    The construction there in Titus 1:2 points to the nature of God as the one who by nature cannot lie.

    "there was no guile or deceit in His mouth" -1 Peter 2:22

    God cannot lie or deceive; God cannot sin or do wrong.

    But He ordained (decided beforehand to allow sin and sinful beings into existence and allows them to do sin, lying, and evil.)

    The passages in 1 Kings 22, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Jeremiah are when God decides to judge and allows / sends an evil spirit to do the lying / deception. Like all those passages in 1 Samuel when God allows an evil spirit to come upon Saul; and when God allows Satan to attack Job in Job chapters 1-2 and when God allowed a messenger of Satan to attack and buffet the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.

    Jeremiah 20:7 is Jeremiah's interpetation and feelings because of his circumstances.

    As John Piper says, "God is not a sinner; but He sovereignly decides that sin be." (come into existence and that Lucifer fell, Adam and Eve's sin/fall, and all other sins after that are under His sovereignty; but God does not actually do the sin itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thing is, we have two sets of passages to consider, so we can't just treat one set as the standard of comparison. I've run through several possible harmonizations. And I also explored the notion of what it means to deceive someone. There are different ways that can happen, not all of which morally implicate the "deceiver".

      Delete
    2. Ken wrote:
      ---
      ...and when God allows Satan to attack Job in Job chapters 1-2...
      ---

      I don't meant to single this phrase out and change the subject a bit, but I do have to point out that God doesn't ever say He *allowed* Satan to do what he did to Job. God actually says *HE* did it Himself. In Job 2:3, God says: "He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason." Furthermore, when Satan goes after Job, it's described as *GOD* stretching out His hand against Job (see both Job 1:11 and Job 2:5; additionally Job 1:12 describes the same action as Satan stretching out his hand). Job identified all that happened to him as coming from God (Job 1:21, Job 2:10) and the passage specifically says in so doing he did not sin (Job 1:22, Job 2:10). Finally, the author of Job attributes all of this to God (Job 42:11, "And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him").

      I do understand the idea we have of being so cautious about accidentally attributing evil to God, but the Bible isn't anywhere near as cautious about that as we are.

      Delete
    3. Yes, because God is more powerful than Satan and Satan was complaining that he could not get to Job and do things to him - I just don't have a problem with using the word "allowed" like many Reformed folks seem to have problems with - God actively decided to take off His protections and He gave permission for Satan to do the evil things he did to Job, but God did not allow Satan to kill him. All of the allowing / sending / ordaining / sinning was under God's sovereignty - that is why the text also says that God "did it" - because He allowed it.

      IMO, there is no other way to harmonize the Sovereignty of God over evil. For God to ordain evil, it has to mean that God decided beforehand that it would be; and to give permission for evil to exist, but to allow that Satan, evil spirits, and sinful man to be the ones who actually do the evil, since God cannot actually do the evil / sin.

      But I don't mean "allowed" as the way that most Arminians use the word (passively, with no involvement; no foreordaining or sovereign decision by God)

      Delete
  5. I think the principle of interpreting obscure passages in light of the clearer passages is helpful. The clearer ones, the one's about God's holy character- that He does not sin (James 1:13-14; 1 John 1:5) nor lie or deceive are more helpful for our spiritual life and worship and helps us trust God as good and holy and wise and sovereign; and that God allows sin, decides to let evil spirits, the Devil, and evil humans do evil things in His sovereignty and wisdom, is more helpful. (and sends / allows evil spirits to deceive as judgments on evil people, etc.)

    This article was helpful also: It was helpful to me when I read it back in 2008.
    https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-lie

    ReplyDelete
  6. Piper on Ezekiel 14:9 -
    "When God says, “I have deceived that prophet” (Ezekiel 14:9), he means that he can and does govern a sinful prophet’s mind so that the prophet believes a lie; but God does it in such a way that he himself is not lying. God is able to superintend a thousand circumstances and influences so that a sinful prophet will think a lie, without God himself lying or in any way compromising his perfect truthfulness."

    Also, I think the context of that passage communicates the same principle as in 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Kings 22 - a judgement on obstinate sin and idolatry:

    7 For any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel, who separates himself from me, taking his idols into his heart and putting the stumbling block of his iniquity before his face, and yet comes to a prophet to consult me through him, I the Lord will answer him myself. 8 And I will set my face against that man; I will make him a sign and a byword and cut him off from the midst of my people, and you shall know that I am the Lord. 9 And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. 10 And they shall bear their punishment—the punishment of the prophet and the punishment of the inquirer shall be alike— 11 that the house of Israel may no more go astray from me, nor defile themselves anymore with all their transgressions, but that they may be my people and I may be their God, declares the Lord God.”
    Ezekiel 14:7-11

    The passage indicates that the prophet being deceived by God is when an evil man who has taken idolatry deep into his heart and comes to consult with the prophet - and implied is "yet the prophet speaks something good to that evil man" (that is implied) - the prophet says "don't worry, judgment is not coming" - that is deception to the evil man, because judgment is coming on Israel, Judah, Jerusalem, the temple, etc. (context of whole book).

    It cannot mean that a prophet could write Scripture and that some of the written prophesy many have some deception in it - which is what the enemies of the gospel and Christianity could potentially take that passage to mean. (atheists, Muslims, skeptics, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aside from some of the verses already mentioned, like Titus 1:2, " God, who cannot lie"; = "God is not able to lie".
    and Hebrews 6:18 - "it is impossible for God to lie"
    Piper emphasizes many other passages on the trustworthiness of God's word:

    Let the word of God about the word of God stand firm:

    “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19).

    “The Glory of Israel will not lie” (1 Samuel 15:29).

    “The word of the Lord is upright, and all his work is done in faithfulness.” (Psalms 33:4).

    “This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true” (2 Samuel 22:31).

    “Every word of God proves true” (Proverbs 30:5).

    “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Psalms 12:6).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think the principle of interpreting obscure passages in light of the clearer passages is helpful. The clearer ones, the one's about God's holy character- that He does not sin (James 1:13-14; 1 John 1:5) nor lie or deceive…"

      I agree with the principle, but I don't think Ezk 14:9, 1 Kgs 22:19-23, and 2 Thes 2:11 are obscure compared to Tit 1:2 and Heb 6:18. They're all pretty straightforward.

      There are Christians who think lying is intrinsically wrong. On that view, God can't lie because lying is intrinsically wrong, and God can't do evil. That's a valid conclusion given the premise. If, however, you don't think lying is intrinsically wrong, then God wouldn't be an evildoer if he lied. You might argue on other grounds that God never lies or cannot lie, but not for that particular reason.

      I haven't said that I think God lies. I do think it's possible that Tit 1:2 and Heb 6:18 aren't meant to be universal absolute statements, but are implicitly qualified in reference to God's dealings with his own people.

      However, I discussed other harmonizations as well.

      Delete
    2. I agree with the principle, but I don't think Ezk 14:9, 1 Kgs 22:19-23, and 2 Thes 2:11 are obscure compared to Tit 1:2 and Heb 6:18. They're all pretty straightforward.

      For me, they are more obscure only because they imply that God deceives (or lies or does evil), and that is a contradiction to the more clear verses. Or an apparent contradiction; and a question that both believers and unbelievers have when confronted with these verses. It behoves us to try and solve that apparent tension and/or contradiction.

      The same principle, IMO, on how to handle those passages in 1 Samuel 16, 18, and 19 - the phrase "an evil spirit from the Lord" came upon Saul and tormented him. It has to mean that God sovereignly allowed an evil spirit to attack Saul - not that God's Spirit is evil, etc. God sent it in the same way He sent the evil spirits in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Thess. 2 - He sovereignly allows them to attack, just as in Job 1-2 and 2 Cor. 12:7-10.

      God allowed deception and evil upon unbelievers / idolaters - in Ezekiel 14, 2 Thess. 2, 1 Kings 22;
      but God also allowed evil to attack believers - Job and the apostle Paul - 2 Cor. 12:7-10.

      The Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689 2nd London Baptist confession of faith: (3:1)
      I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

      Delete
    3. There are Christians who think lying is intrinsically wrong. On that view, God can't lie because lying is intrinsically wrong, and God can't do evil. That's a valid conclusion given the premise. If, however, you don't think lying is intrinsically wrong, then God wouldn't be an evildoer if he lied. You might argue on other grounds that God never lies or cannot lie, but not for that particular reason.

      You make a good point on the issue of - for us as humans, would it be intrinsically wrong to lie to Nazis who came your door, etc. asking for the Jews you were hiding, etc. or to lie to Muslim Jihadist terrorists in order to foil their evil actions, etc.

      In those cases, I don't think lying to them is evil. In fact, it is a good thing. How to put that together with "God is not able to lie" in Titus 1:2 and Heb. 6:18 "it is impossible for God to lie" - I confess, I don't know.

      The point is, there is no deception in God's character or actions in His written word as He intended us to understand it. But there is deception that He allows in circumstances, providence, history, in order to judge intrinsic evil; and also to allow in order to sanctify His people. (as in Job, Paul) And Peter, too - "Peter, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat" (Luke 22:31)

      Delete
    4. God can not lie when lying means moral evil, of course. It is this kind of lie that the Bible has in mind when it says that God can not lie.

      If "lying" does not mean a moral evil, that is qualitatively something else, and perhaps it would be necessary to invent another word for this act.

      Delete