Does God Deceive?

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

The Bible repeatedly affirms that God is truthful and does not lie or tempt people to sin. The mercenary prophet Balaam informed Balak, “God is not a man, that he should lie” (Num. 23:19).[1] Samuel said to Saul, “The Glory of Israel does not lie” (1 Sam. 15:29). David called Him “the God of truth” (Ps. 31:5), while the apostle Paul stated without qualification that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). According to James, “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (1:13).

Despite these affirmations, the Bible sometimes describes God as deceiving individuals and/or as enticing them to commit self-destructive and even sinful acts. Micaiah’s vision of the heavenly assembly pictures God instigating and authorizing the deception of King Ahab (1 Kings 22:19–22). The Lord initiated the heavenly meeting with the question, “Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth-Gilead and going to his death there?” (v. 20). As the scene unfolded, a spirit volunteered to entice Ahab by being “a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets” (v. 22). Putting His stamp of approval on the proposal, the Lord commissioned the spirit to carry out the assigned task. In summarizing what he had seen, the prophet stated flatly, “The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours” (v. 23).

In a similar vein Jeremiah attributed the false prophets’ message to divine deception. He lamented, “Ah, Sovereign Lord, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats” (Jer. 4:10). In Ezekiel 14:9 the Lord made clear that a prophet who compromises the faith and cooperates with idolaters is the object of divine deception. “And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.” According to 2 Samuel 24:1 the Lord’s anger against Israel prompted Him to entice David to take a census of the people, an action David later confessed as sin (vv. 10, 17) and one that brought severe divine judgment down on the nation (vv. 11–16). Paul predicted that God will send unbelievers “a powerful delusion so that they will believe [Satan’s] lie” and “be condemned” for their wickedness (2 Thess. 2:11–12).

How does one reconcile the apparent contradiction between verses that affirm God’s truthfulness and those that picture Him deceiving individuals? Some interpret the data along dualistic lines, proposing that God has a demonic or dark side.[2] Others propose that God, rather than causing or actively promoting such deception, only allowed or permitted it,[3] as if this indirect involvement somehow absolves God of complicity in the deed and preserves His moral and ethical purity. Through theological sleight of hand, some advocates of this approach even make Satan the culprit.[4] But these approaches do not reflect sound exegesis.

This article seeks to resolve the tension through an exegetical analysis of passages that describe God deceiving individuals and a survey of passages that affirm His truthfulness.[5] The article’s thesis is this: God is truthful in that He keeps His unconditional promises to His people and fulfills His sovereign decrees and oaths. God’s commitment to truthfulness, however, does not mean that He never uses deceit as a method of judgment on sinners. But He does so without compromising His truthful character and commitment to righteousness.

Divine Deception and Enticement to Evil

Micaiah’s Vision

When Micaiah the prophet was summoned before Ahab, a royal official told the prophet to confirm the message of the court prophets, who were unanimously assuring the king of victory in an upcoming battle (1 Kings 22:13).[6] Though Micaiah vowed he would relate only what the Lord told him (v. 14), he too assured Ahab of victory (v. 15). Suspecting that Micaiah was being less than sincere (v. 16), the king pressed Micaiah for the truth. The prophet then described Israel as being scattered like sheep without a shepherd, indicating that Israel would be defeated in the upcoming battle and lose its royal leader (v. 17). When Ahab complained to his guest Jehoshaphat about Micaiah’s uncooperative attitude (v. 18; cf. v. 8), the prophet proclaimed the word of the Lord to the king. His prophetic message contained a report of a heavenly scene Micaiah had witnessed (vv. 19–22) and a summary statement denouncing Ahab’s prophets and pronouncing the king’s demise (v. 23).

In his vision Micaiah saw the Lord seated on His throne flanked by His heavenly assembly (v. 19). The Lord initiated matters by asking, “Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth-gilead?” (v. 20). After various suggestions were offered, a spirit approached and volunteered to carry out the Lord’s wishes. When the spirit said, “I will entice him” (v. 21), the Lord asked for a more detailed description of the proposal. The spirit explained that he would “be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets” (v. 22a). The Lord then authorized the deception[7] and sent him on his way (v. 22b). Micaiah concluded that the Lord had put “a lying spirit in the mouths” of the false prophets, and that the Lord had “decreed disaster” against Ahab (v. 23). It is difficult, if not impossible, to deny that the Lord was the source of this deception. His initial question set the agenda as one of deception and He authorized the spirit to carry out the proposed deceit. Verse 23 directly attributes the deceptive plot to the Lord and relates it to His sovereign decree to destroy Ahab.[8]

The verb פִּתָּה (the Piel stem of פָּתָה, “to be simple”) is a key word in this account. It appears in the Lord’s initial question (v. 20), the spirit’s proposal (v. 21), and the Lord’s commission (v. 22). Elsewhere the Piel form of this verb appears in a variety of contexts and carries various nuances, including “to deceive, entice, seduce, allure, trick, persuade.” In the human realm it is used of a woman enticing a man (Samson in both cases) to divulge a secret (Judg. 14:15; 16:5), of sinners enticing an individual to join them (Prov. 1:10; 16:29), of someone supposedly tricking another (by pretending to be a friend) so he can spy on him (2 Sam. 3:25), and of a false witness deceiving a court with lies (Prov. 24:28). Israel attempted to deceive the Lord by lying to Him and pretending to be loyal when they were actually disobedient (Ps. 78:36–37). In Hosea 2:14 the Lord, taking the role of a romantic lover, announced He would “allure” or “seduce” Israel after leading her back into the wilderness. (The verb has this same sexual nuance in Exodus 22:16.) The passive Pual is used in Proverbs 25:15 of a king being persuaded by one who is patient. In 1 Kings 22:20–22 the nuance “to entice” or “to deceive” fits best for פִּתָּה because a lie (the assurance of victory; vv. 6, 11–12) is the means whereby the spirit accomplished his mission.

This account raises at least three pertinent questions. First, after Micaiah vowed he would declare only the Lord’s word (v. 14), why did he give the king a false message of victory (v. 15b)? The most reasonable answer to this question is that the false message of victory was, in a sense, the Lord’s word.[9] As already noted, the following vision makes it apparent that the Lord, by commissioning the spirit to be a “lying spirit in the mouths of all his [Ahab’s] prophets,” was the ultimate source of the false prophecy. He instigated and authorized the ruse. Therefore it was entirely consistent with God’s program that Micaiah should proclaim this same deceptive message. Only when the king insisted on the truth (אַמֶת, “truth,” was used by Ahab in v. 16, but not by Micaiah in v. 14), did Micaiah give him an accurate prophecy of how the battle would turn out. Micaiah’s actions support the thesis that the deception was authorized by the Lord, for otherwise this prophet of the Lord, who had consistently spoken the truth in the past (cf. v. 8), would not vow to speak only God’s word and then turn right around and give a false prophecy. The key here is that Micaiah did not necessarily vow to tell the truth, but only the word of the Lord, which in this case was a false oracle of victory!

A second pertinent question concerns the identity of the spirit. Who was this spirit that volunteered for this mission of deception? Verse 21 simply calls him הָרוּחַ, “the spirit.” He seems to be a member of the “host of heaven” (צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם, v. 19), a phrase that consistently refers elsewhere to the heavenly luminaries (stars and planets[10]) that populate the divine/heavenly assembly in both mythological and prescientific Israelite thinking (see, e.g., Job 38:7; Isa. 14:13). Does the context provide any other clues to his identity? Perhaps. The significance of the article prefixed to רוּחַ is uncertain, but it could contain a clue to this spirit’s identity, especially when interpreted in light of verse 24.[11] It is possible and probably even likely that the article is used in a generic or dramatic sense and should be translated, “a spirit.” In the latter case it would show that this spirit was vivid and definite in the mind of Micaiah the storyteller.[12] However, if one insists that the article indicates a well-known or universally known spirit, the following context provides a likely referent. Verse 24 tells how Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face and then asked sarcastically, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord [רוּחַ־יהוה, lit., ‘the spirit of the Lord’] go when he went from me to speak to you?” Elsewhere when the phrase “the spirit of the Lord” refers to the divine spirit (rather than the divine breath or mind; Isa. 40:7, 13), the spirit energizes an individual or group for special tasks[13] or moves someone to prophesy.[14] This raises the possibility that the deceiving spirit of 1 Kings 22:20–23 is the same as the divine spirit mentioned by Zedekiah in verse 24.[15] This would explain why the article is used on רוּחַ; he can be called “the spirit” because he is the well-known spirit who energizes the prophets. If so, the irony of the passage is profound. God sent His spirit to deceive Ahab by being a lying spirit in the mouths of the king’s prophets. Zedekiah correctly argued that he was an instrument of the divine spirit; what he failed to realize was that the spirit was using him to deceive, not to convey the truth.

Third, did Micaiah’s revelation of the truth negate the deception? After all, it seems God deceived Ahab, but then turned right around and informed him of the deception. In this case can it be said God deceived the king? One could interpret this turn of events as proof that God really wanted to move Ahab to repentance, rather than lead him to his demise.[16] However, it is important to remember that Micaiah did not volunteer the truth; Ahab insisted on it. There is nothing in the passage to indicate God was planning to reveal the truth to Ahab, or that He felt compelled to do so. Ironically Micaiah’s proclamation of the truth, rather than indicating that God was trying to move Ahab to repentance or that He was compelled to be truthful, shows how effective the divine deception had been. Ahab asked for the truth and received it, but he still insisted on believing the oracle of victory. Why? Because his own self-will (cf. vv. 3–4a) was corroborated by the deceiving message of the prophetic majority. Ahab had consistently rejected the prophetic word in the past; he viewed prophets like Elijah and Micaiah as troublemakers rather than instruments of God (18:17; 22:8). When Ahab killed Naboth, God decreed his demise; even when Ahab exhibited genuine sorrow for his sin, God merely changed the chronology, not the certainty, of Ahab’s downfall (21:27–29). Ahab’s downfall was certain because it had been sealed by divine decree (chap. 21). The divine deception recorded in chapter 22 facilitated the decreed judgment.

In conclusion God Himself instigated and authorized the deception of Ahab, as indicated by the Lord’s initial question to the assembly (22:20), His commission to the spirit (v. 22), and Micaiah’s willingness to prophesy a lie after he had vowed to speak only the word of the Lord (vv. 14–15). If the spirit of verses 20–23 can be identified with the divine spirit that energizes prophecy (v. 24), this thesis is further corroborated. The introduction of the truth, rather than ameliorating the deception, shows how effective it was. Even when faced with the truth, Ahab insisted on charging into battle, for the lying spirit working through the prophetic majority had convinced him he would be victorious.

Jeremiah and the False Prophets

A careful reading of 1 Kings 22 demonstrates that the Lord can and did, at least on this one occasion, use false prophecy as an instrument of judgment. This does not mean He simply allowed a false message to be spoken; on the contrary He can and did (at least this time) instigate and authorize deception through a false prophetic message. Keeping these facts in mind may illuminate some difficult statements made by Jeremiah.

Jeremiah was in constant conflict with false prophets. God had commissioned Jeremiah to preach a message of judgment to the rebellious people of Judah. His opponents, the false prophets, preached a message of hope and prosperity (Jer. 6:13–14; 8:10–11; 14:13; 23:17) which misapplied so-called Zion theology, the belief that Zion was inviolable because it was the Lord’s dwelling place.

At the height of the struggle Jeremiah’s faith wavered and he accused the Lord of deceiving him. “O Lord, you deceived me [Piel of פָּתָה] and I was deceived [Niphal of פָּתָה];[17] you overpowered me and prevailed [יָוֹכל]” (Jer. 20:7). The language of this lament is similar to that of the Lord’s commission to the lying spirit in Micaiah’s vision, “you will succeed [יָוֹכל] in enticing [פָּתָה] him” (1 Kings 22:22). The following verses indicate that Jeremiah was fearful he was an agent of divine deception and he was concerned that others viewed him as such (“be deceived,” Jer. 20:10, translates the passive Pual of פָּתָה).[18]

Of course Jeremiah’s charge was unfounded in this instance. But it is important to know why he was wrong. Based on 1 Kings 22, it would not be correct to say to Jeremiah, “You should not accuse God of deception, because He would never do such a thing.” Rather, a theologically perceptive response would be, “Jeremiah, it is true that God sometimes deceives prophets, but He is not doing that in your case. You stood in the heavenly assembly and were commissioned to preach your message. Your message is consistent with the covenant principle that sin will be punished. Judah is sinful and God’s punishment is coming.” In other words Jeremiah’s accusation was wrong because He was the Lord’s commissioned prophet preaching a message that was thoroughly consistent with divine revelation, not because his idea of divine deception was incongruous with the nature and activity of God.

In Jeremiah 4:10 the prophet lamented that the Lord had “completely. .. deceived” Judah and Jerusalem by “saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.” The verbal construction “completely deceived” is emphatic (an infinitive absolute plus the finite verb of the same verbal root). The verb הִשִּׁיא (Hiphil of נָשָׁא) is used elsewhere of the serpent deceiving Eve through half-truths and lies (Gen. 3:13), of a king or god misleading people into false confidence (2 Kings 18:29 = 2 Chron. 32:15 = Isa. 36:14; 2 Kings 19:10 = Isa. 37:10), of an ally deceiving a partner (Obad. 7), of false prophets instilling their audience with false hope (Jer. 29:8), and of pride and false confidence producing self-deception (Jer. 37:9; 49:16; Obad. 3).[19] In Jeremiah 4:10 the translation “deceive” is quite appropriate, for, if Jeremiah was correct, God once more used a lie to accomplish His purpose.

According to Jeremiah, the Lord, as in the case of Ahab, used a misleading message of deliverance to deceive people and expedite their decreed demise (cf. Jer. 4:28).[20] This message of peace is readily recognized as the main thesis of the false prophets (cf. Jer. 6:13–14; 8:10–11; 14:13; 23:17), which, as noted, was based on a misapplication of so-called Zion theology. However, elsewhere the Lord, in contrast to Jeremiah’s statement in 4:10 and in accord with Deuteronomy 18:22, seems to have disavowed any connection with this false message. In Jeremiah 14:14 the Lord said, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.” In verse 15 God reiterated that He had not sent these false prophets. Similarly in 23:16 He said, “They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.” In 23:18 He denied that these false prophets stood in His council and saw or heard His word. In 23:32 God declared, “I am against those who prophesy false dreams,. .. [They] lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them.”

How should this tension be resolved? Kaiser’s answer is to dismiss Jeremiah’s charge of divine deception in 4:10 as inaccurate and unfounded, as in 20:7.[21] McKane suggests that perhaps Jeremiah simply meant that God in His providence had allowed the false prophets to win over the people without actually instigating or approving of their deceit.[22] However, these solutions may cut but not untie the interpretive knot. The situation may be more complex and these proposed solutions too simplistic.

Perhaps Micaiah’s experience is instructive. Ahab’s prophets were prophesying a lie that originated with God Himself and was inspired by a lying spirit. At the same time it seems that only Micaiah was aware of the proceedings in the heavenly council and knew the truth. While Ahab’s false prophets were unknowing agents of divine deceit, they had not been directly commissioned or commanded by the Lord to proclaim this message of victory.

In the same way perhaps the false prophets who opposed Jeremiah could be agents of divine deceit without being commissioned by the Lord. They had not, like Jeremiah, stood in God’s council and received from Him a truthful message to proclaim to the people. The Lord had not spoken directly to them or sent them as His messengers. Their messages of false hope originated in the warped theology of their own minds. However, even in view of all this, it is still possible that they, like Ahab’s prophets, were unknowing agents of divine deception.[23]

While the Lord condemned them for their actions and regarded their activity as sinful and worthy of punishment, this does not preclude His involvement in that activity, for, as will be seen in the following sections, David’s words to Saul (1 Sam. 26:19) and David’s own experience in numbering the people (2 Sam. 24:1) reveal that, in cases where an underlying sin prompts God to judge the sinner, God can instigate additional wrongdoing and still hold the offender responsible for his behavior.

David’s Warning to Saul

After David spared Saul’s life for the second time, David pleaded his innocence before the king. David was not sure why Saul wanted to kill him, but he suspected an outside influence. He reasoned with the king as follows: “If the Lord has incited you against me, then may he accept an offering. If, however, men have done it, may they be cursed before the Lord” (1 Sam. 26:19a). From David’s perspective one option was that the Lord Himself had “incited” the king to seek his life.[24] If this were the case, David assumed an offering (מִנְחָה) should be made to the Lord, and so he prayed that the Lord would find it acceptable.[25]

David did not indicate who would make this offering. Perhaps he was acknowledging, at least theoretically, that he had done something wrong, in which case Saul was God’s instrument of judgment and David himself needed to seek divine favor.[26] However, David’s protestations of innocence before and after this (vv. 18, 23–24), combined with Saul’s confession of sin (v. 21), militate against this interpretation. David’s reference to the possibility of God’s instigating Saul’s hostility must be interpreted in light of the entire preceding narrative. Because of Saul’s blatant rebellion the Lord had decreed the demise of the king and his family (15:26–29; cf. 13:13–14). Shortly afterward, the Lord withdrew His personal spirit from Saul and dispatched an evil (or injurious) spirit to replace him (16:14–16, 23; 18:10; 19:9).[27] David was brought to Saul’s court to bring relief to the king when he was tormented by this spirit (16:23). On two occasions this spirit incited Saul to attempt to kill David. Of course the Lord was with David (18:12) and Saul’s attempts failed.

This evil spirit was an instrument of divine judgment on a man whose demise had been unconditionally decreed. This spirit’s activity made it apparent to all that Saul was unfit to rule and was the object of divine disfavor. David knew from personal experience that there was a divine force behind Saul’s destructive behavior, so it is understandable that he would consider this option when addressing the king’s motives. David undoubtedly also realized that this divine force was an instrument of judgment. (After all, he had been anointed to replace Saul as king and had experienced the power of the divine spirit; 16:12–13.) When one is the object of divine judgment, it is appropriate to appease the angered deity with an offering, as David advised.

To summarize, David’s warning to Saul suggests that he may have realized, probably from personal experience, that God was inciting Saul to seek his life. Far from exonerating Saul, this divine enticement to evil was a sign of divine disfavor against an underlying sin and necessitated an offering of appeasement.

The Lord’s Inciting of David to Sin

Ironically David later became the victim of the same kind of divine deception he had seen Saul experience. According to 2 Samuel 24:1, “the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited” (Hiphil of סוּת) David to take a census of the people, against the advice of Joab and the other military commanders (vv. 2–4). Later, recognizing he had sinned, David confessed his wrongdoing to the Lord (v. 10).[28] The Lord gave David three forms of punishment from which to choose—three years of famine, three months of being pursued by enemies, or three days of plague (vv. 11–13). The king chose the plague, which was the most intense, but also the shortest in duration (v. 14). The plague killed 70,000 people (v. 15), but was finally stopped when David built an altar and sacrificed to the Lord (v. 25).

Why was the Lord angry with Israel? It is almost certain that His anger was prompted by Israel’s sin. In other cases where “the anger of the Lord burned” against His people it was their sin that prompted His rage.[29] But if His anger was prompted by sin, why did He not immediately pour out His judgment on the land? Why did He first incite David to sin? Was that really necessary or fair? Did it not compound matters, sending a wrong signal that David was the culprit, rather than the people (note David’s prayer in v. 17)? Unfortunately the text offers no certain or completely satisfying answers to these questions. But one fact is apparent—the passage attributes David’s sinful action directly to the Lord. Furthermore the Lord’s action was not arbitrary; it originated in His anger, which one can safely assume was prompted by Israel’s sin. Apparently Israel’s sin started a chain reaction by igniting God’s anger, which in turn prompted His use of deception in bringing judgment on the objects of His anger.

The parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21 further complicates matters. This chapter makes no mention of the Lord’s anger or involvement in the incident. Instead “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel” (v. 1). The word translated “Satan” actually means “adversary.” It is used here without the article. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it usually refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere. (In Numbers 22:22, 32 the angel of the Lord assumed the role of an adversary to Balaam.) When referring elsewhere to the spiritual entity known as Satan, the noun has the article and is used as a title, “the Adversary” (Job 1:6–9, 12; 2:1–4, 6–7; Zech. 3:1–2). Thus the adversary in 1 Chronicles 21:1 could well be a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel incited or persuaded David to number the people so he could assess his military strength.[30]

However, many prefer to take the noun in 1 Chronicles 21:1 as an isolated instance of a proper name and to translate it “Satan,” perhaps because subsequent revelation shows that the devil delights to incite people to sin. Though it seems unlikely that Satan is the referent here, some writers attempt to use this passage to solve the “problem” of divine deception in 2 Samuel 24:1. In this approach 1 Chronicles 21:1 shows that Satan was the real culprit who incited David to sin. In this line of reasoning 2 Samuel 24:1 indicates that God, because He was angered by Israel’s sin, merely allowed Satan to tempt David, and that Satan, not God, was the deceiver and instigator.[31] However, arguing that God simply permitted Satan’s activity hardly does justice to the demands of 2 Samuel 24:1, which clearly depicts the deception as prompted by divine anger and makes no mention of any instrument. Rather than being the key to solving the theological puzzle, 1 Chronicles 21:1 offers a more limited perspective of the episode by focusing on the instrument of divine deception.[32] The best way to harmonize the two verses is to recognize the active role that both the Lord and His instrument of deception played in the event.

The Lord’s Deceiving of a Compromising Prophet

Ezekiel 14:9 seems to describe another situation in which the Lord incited an individual (in this case a hypothetical prophet) to sin and then judged him for his disobedience. If this is the case, the issue of fairness is raised. Why would God incite someone to sin and then hold that individual accountable for his wrongdoing?

The preceding verses provide the context in which this divine deception occurs. Some Israelite leaders came to Ezekiel seeking an oracle from the Lord (v. 1), probably in an effort to get divine guidance or assurance about some plan or endeavor. However, the Lord revealed to Ezekiel that these men were not pure worshipers of the one true God. They were actually syncretists, who attempted to hold on to Yahwism while at the same time worshiping idols (vv. 2–3). The Lord refused to tolerate such compromise (vv. 4–6). Such idolaters would not receive the oracle they requested, but rather would receive an “answer” from the Lord in the form of severe judgment (vv. 7–8).[33] Verse 9a then envisions a situation in which a prophet is persuaded, or “enticed” (Pual of פָּתָה), into cooperating with the idolaters and delivering an oracle. In the second half of the verse the Lord declared that He Himself had “enticed” or would “entice” (Piel of פָּתָה) the prophet and then destroy him along with the idolaters.

What is one to make of this? Coming to grips with the passage theologically requires resolving syntactical and lexical questions. Should the verb פִּיתִי in verse 9b be taken as present perfect or “prophetic”? It is common to translate the form as a present perfect, “I have deceived.” In this case the Lord is declaring that He really was behind the deception mentioned in the first half of the verse.

Two theological explanations then emerge. First, perhaps the “enticing” referred to here is similar to the divine testing described in Deuteronomy 13:1–5. In this passage Moses envisioned a situation in which a miracle-working prophet encouraged the people to follow other gods. Moses warned Israel to reject the message and execute the messenger, for the prophet’s appearance on the scene was really a test sent by God to see if the people were truly loyal to Him. (“The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul,” v. 3b). In this case God was not tempting His people with the motive of making them sin (cf. James 1:13–15), but He was putting temptation in their path with the motive of revealing their true character. This may be the point of Ezekiel 14:9. God tested the prophet to see if the prophet would remain true to his calling. (This, of course, assumes that the prophet recognized, perhaps by divine revelation [cf. Ezek. 14:3], the idolaters as such when they came to him.) If he demonstrated a compromising character and capitulated (was “enticed,” or persuaded, to compromise), one can say that the Lord Himself had “enticed” him, at least indirectly, by giving him a test to reveal where his allegiance really lay.

If the verb “entice” in verse 9 is taken as a present perfect, there is a second possible explanation of this difficult text. Like other verses describing divine deception, possibly this prophet’s deception was a form of divine judgment on an underlying sin. Like the idolaters who came to him, he had a compromising spirit. Rather than denouncing their idolatry, as the Lord instructed Ezekiel to do (14:4–6), he was willing, for whatever reason, to give them an oracle. (Once again, this assumes that the prophet recognized the idolaters as such.) In this case the Lord would deceive the prophet by giving him an oracle and then judge him for delivering it. If this explanation is correct, then the divine deception envisioned here, as in related verses, was an aspect of God’s judgment on an underlying sin.[34] When a prophet has a compromising spirit and wants to peek over the cliff of syncretism, the Lord will entice him to lean too far and then push him over with the rest of the crowd that is so enamored with idolatry.

However, the present perfect interpretation of the verb is not the only option. On the basis of syntactical parallels in verses 4b and 7b (in which a “prophetic” perfect follows “I Yahweh”), Allen (following Mosis), argues for a future tense translation. Allen takes the Piel as factitive and translates, “I will show him [that prophet] to be misled.”[35] In this case the Lord was not deceiving the prophet; He was only showing through judgment that he was deceived. In this writer’s opinion Allen is partly correct. The parallels do favor the future tense, but usage of the Piel of פָּתָה elsewhere does not adequately support the lexical nuance he ascribes to the verb. It may be preferable to translate the clause, “I will deceive that prophet.” In this case the deception in verse 9a is distinct from the divine deception in verse 9b. When a prophet is enticed into compromising with idolaters, the Lord will then deceive him as part of His judgment on him. The repetition of the verb פָּתָה highlights the appropriate nature of the punishment.

The Lord’s Deceiving of the Egyptians

Divine deception is not limited to sinners within the covenant community of Israel. According to Isaiah 19:13–14 God also deceived the leaders of Egypt in order to facilitate that nation’s defeat. Verse 13 relates how the Egyptian leaders acted foolishly and misled their people because they themselves were “deceived” (Niphal of נָשָׁא). Then verse 14 attributes this deception directly to the Lord, who had “poured into them a spirit of dizziness.”[36] As in most if not all the instances of divine deception already discussed, God’s deceiving work is an aspect of His judgment on a sinful object of His displeasure.[37]

Affirmations about God’s Truthfulness

Before one can confidently affirm that God does sometimes utilize deceit, verses that affirm His truthfulness must be examined, for they might seem to contradict the statements and implications of the passages examined above. Some verses affirm that God does not lie or deceive, and others characterize Him and His words as truthful. These passages show that God is absolutely faithful to the promises He makes to His people and that He fulfills His decrees. However, these verses must not be pressed beyond their contextual limits and taken to mean that God must always speak the “truth” or that He is incapable of deceiving.

Affirmations that God Does Not Lie or Deceive [38]

In Numbers 23:19 Balaam informed Balak, “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” Balaam was referring specifically to the following oracle/blessing, which speaks of God’s presence with His people (v. 21) and their invincibility through His power (vv. 22–24). Balaam recognized the oracle’s unalterable character and acknowledged his inability to thwart it through sorcery or divination. This blessing, or prediction of Israel’s success, was an extension of the Lord’s unconditional promise to give Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:16; 17:8; 22:17) and thus shares in the binding quality of that promise. (God’s oath to Abraham is called a “blessing” in Gen. 28:4.) The introduction, in which Balaam affirmed that God would not change His mind or lie, formally marks the blessing as a decree. Both נָחַם, “to change one’s mind,” and כִּב, “to lie,” here mean “to retract” (an unconditional promise). The verb כִּב has this same sense in Psalm 89:35: “Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness—and I will not lie to David.” While the verbs refer to the way God typically acts when He has issued a decree, the general principle here applies to the specific blessing to follow.

First Samuel 15 tells how the prophet Samuel rebuked Saul for his rebellion and told Saul that the Lord had rejected him as king (v. 23). Saul confessed his guilt and pleaded for forgiveness, but Samuel repeated the Lord’s decision (vv. 24–26). Samuel then added, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one who is better than you. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind” (vv. 28–29). Samuel’s rejection of Saul’s plea for forgiveness shows that this rebuke was an unconditional decree (v. 28).The concluding words, emphasizing that the Lord will not lie or change His mind (v. 29), formally mark Samuel’s declaration as unconditional. The Lord had decreed Saul’s demise and nothing could alter His decision. Once again the affirmation refers to the way God typically acts when He has issued a decree.[39]

Passages that Speak of God and His Word as Truthful

Many passages refer to God’s truthfulness in a broad sense.[40] God is true or truthful in the sense that He is a just Judge (e.g., Pss. 89:14; 96:13; Isa. 65:16), a reliable object of worship (in contrast to the pagan idol-gods, e.g., Jer. 10:10), a faithful Defender of His people’s interests (e.g., Gen. 24:27; Exod. 34:6; Deut. 32:4; Pss. 30:9; 31:5; 33:4; 40:11; 54:5; 57:10; 61:7; 71:22; 86:15; Isa. 38:18–19), and a reliable source of fixed and beneficial instructions about how to live (e.g., Pss. 19:9; 25:5, 10; 26:3; 43:3; 86:11; 119:142, 151, 160; Dan. 9:13).

More pertinent to this study are verses that affirm the reliability of God’s prophetic decrees, unconditional promises, and oracles of deliverance (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:28; 22:31 [=Ps. 18:30]; Ps. 12:6; Prov. 30:5; Isa. 45:19). It is important to note that the statements in view are specifically identified and limited by their context and that the recipients of these promises and guarantees are God’s needy and/or faithful people. When David declared, “Your words are trustworthy” (2 Sam. 7:28), he was referring to God’s unconditional promises like the one God had just made to him (cf. vv. 5–16). When David affirmed, “The word of the Lord is flawless” (22:31), he probably had in mind those oracles of deliverance and victory that energized him for battle and assured him of success because of his allegiance to the Lord (vv. 21–28 affirm God’s faithfulness and vv. 30–46 emphasize the Lord’s enablement in battle).[41] When David called the Lord’s words “flawless” and compared them to purified silver (Ps. 12:6), he was referring specifically to the oracle of deliverance for the oppressed in the preceding verse (v. 5). In Isaiah 45:19 the Lord, when affirming that He speaks the truth, seems to be referring to His sovereign decrees about Israel’s future that He had given to encourage His people and motivate them to trust Him. Taken collectively, these passages show that God’s faithful and/or needy people can take Him at His word and be certain that His decrees and promises will come to pass. But this does not preclude the possibility that God, when judging sinners, might resort to deception. In short, the affirmations of God’s truthfulness, while bringing His people great assurance, must not be pressed beyond their proper contextual and theological bounds.

Summary

Does God deceive? The biblical evidence suggests that this question be answered with a qualified yes. God is truthful—He is a reliable God, fulfilling His decrees and keeping His promises. However, the texts surveyed also depict another aspect of God’s character that is often overlooked or denied. When God gives sinners over to judgment, He sometimes uses deceit to facilitate their demise. When sinners start down the path of disobedience, God may even give them a push toward destruction by inciting them to commit deeds that ignite severe divine judgment.

While this use of deception may seem contrary to God’s truthful character, it is actually consistent with His justice. Psalm 18:25–26 states the general principle that the Lord always responds appropriately to people. Each individual receives from the Lord exactly what he deserves and God’s actions mirror those of the individual. God reveals Himself as faithful, blameless, and pure to those who are characterized by these qualities (vv. 25–26a), but wicked and deceptive rebels find that He is a resolute and dangerous foe who frustrates their efforts (v. 26b) and even utilizes deceit to bring them down. As Alexander, commenting on Psalm 18:26, states, “the same course of proceeding which would be perverse in itself or towards a righteous person, when pursued towards a sinner becomes a mere act of vindicatory justice.”[42]

Roberts concludes his study of the theme of divine deception with these sobering and insightful comments:

Can one trust God? Maybe, but only at the price of obedience and a genuine love for the truth, no matter how unpleasant that truth may be. Without those ingredients in one’s response to God, the divine lie remains a distinct and terrifying possibility.[43]

The present study lends support to this thesis. God’s needy and faithful people will always find Him reliable and truthful, but His enemies may discover He is willing and able to use deception and enticement to evil to hasten their journey down the pathway of destruction they have chosen to travel.

Notes

1. The New International Version is used for quotations of Scripture unless otherwise indicated.
2. James Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 77–81.
3. For example, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 256.
4. See, for example, Richard L. Mayhue’s treatment of 1 Kings 22:19–23 in “False Prophets and the Deceiving Spirit,” Master’s Seminary Journal 4 (1993): 135-63.
5. The theme of divine deception is closely related to the motif of divine hardening. However, the latter is omitted from this discussion because of space limitations. On the nature and purpose of divine hardening, see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (October-December 1996): 410-34.
6. An account of Micaiah’s encounter with Ahab is given in 1 Kings 22:1–28 and 2 Chronicles 18:1–27. For the sake of simplicity, citations are taken from the former.
7. The Hebrew text of verse 22 has two imperfects connected by וְגַם. These verbs could be translated as specific futures—“you will deceive and also you will prevail”—in which case the Lord was assuring the spirit of success on his mission. However, in this commissioning context it is more likely that the imperfects are injunctive (note the following imperatives), in which case one could translate, “Deceive, and also overpower.”
8. Despite these clear statements, some well-meaning interpreters, concerned with vindicating God’s character, deny the obvious. For example Mayhue writes, “In 22:22–23 God approved of the deceiving activity. .. which resulted in overcoming . .. Ahab in the sense that God allowed it to occur, not that He planned or approved of the dishonest means to a legitimate end” (“False Prophets and the Deceiving Spirit,” 154). Kaiser writes, “So here in 1 Kings 22:22, ‘Go and do it’ (i.e., deceive Ahab’s false prophets) signifies only permission, not a command or sponsorship” (Old Testament Ethics, 256). Kaiser compares the Lord’s statement to Jesus’ granting the demons permission to enter the swine (Matt. 8:31–32) and to Jesus’ command to Judas to do his work quickly (John 13:27). But these are hardly valid parallels. In 1 Kings 22:20 God sponsored the program; in fact He set its agenda in no uncertain terms. God, not one of the members of the assembly, brought up the idea of deceit. Simon J. De Vries correctly observes concerning this passage, “Yahweh maintains his traditional image as a deity who not only superintends historical event but actually instigates the revelatory incitement to such event” (Prophet against Prophet [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 44).
9. On this point see Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 654.
10. For example see, among others, Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; and 2 Chronicles 33:3, 5.
11. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the article with the singular noun רוּחַ can indicate something that is universally known, such as the spirit of life possessed by everyone (Eccles. 12:7) and the wind that everyone experiences (8:8; 11:5). The article can also refer to something that is specifically defined in the context, such as the spirit of prophecy in Numbers 11:17, 25a, which is defined by a following relative clause. At other times the article points to a previous referent (Num. 11:25b–26; 1 Kings 19:11; Ezek. 1:12, 20; 37:9–10). In Hosea 9:7 the article seems to be generic in the phrase אִישׁ הָרוּחַ, “the man of the spirit,” which parallels הַנָּבִיא, “the prophet.” The stereotypical prophet is in view here.
12. For discussion and examples of the dramatic sense of the article, see Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 207; E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 407; and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 243.
13. See Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 16:13–14; 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16; Isaiah 11:2; 61:1; 63:14; Ezekiel 37:1. In 1 Samuel 19:9 the phrase is followed by the attributive adjective רָעָה, “evil,” without the article. This odd construction should probably be translated, “an evil spirit from the Lord.”
14. See 1 Samuel 10:6; 2 Samuel 23:2; 2 Chronicles 20:14; Ezekiel 11:5; and Micah 3:8.
15. This view is suggested in Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 925.
16. Hamilton, “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God,” 649–63.
17. The only other appearance of the Niphal of פָּתָה is in Job 31:9, where the verb is used of a man being enticed by a woman.
18. For a helpful discussion of this point see J. J. M. Roberts, “Does God Lie? Divine Deceit as a Theological Problem in Israelite Prophetic Literature,” Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 40 (1988): 217-18. The imperfect יְפֻתֶּה in Jeremiah 20:10 may be translated as future, “he will be deceived,” or as present, “he is deceived.”
19. The Niphal stem of this verb is used in Isaiah 19:13 of divine deception. This passage is discussed later.
20. On the shift in Jeremiah’s message from conditional to unconditional judgment, see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October-December 1995): 396-97.
21. Kaiser, Old Testament Ethics, 257–58.
22. William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), 94.
23. Robert Carroll writes that Jeremiah 4:10 “recognizes behind the activity of the prophets the sinister hand of Yahweh.” He adds, “Where there is or will be terrible suffering and devastation, the activity of Yahweh is recognizable” (Jeremiah, Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 162). Carroll does not attempt to harmonize verse 10 with the passages that denounce the false prophets. He simply observes that it is “quite alien to the [Jeremiah] tradition, but in line with the theology of I Kings 22:19–23; Ezek. 14:6–11; Deut. 13:1–3” (ibid., 161).
24. The verb translated “incited” is the Hiphil of סוּת. Elsewhere the Hiphil of this verb is used of a daughter “charming” her father into giving her a present (Josh. 15:18 = Judg. 1:14), of riches enticing a man (Job 36:18), of one individual persuading or inciting another to follow a certain course of action (1 Kings 21:25; 2 Kings 18:32 = Isaiah 36:18; 2 Chron. 18:2; 32:11, 15; Jer. 38:22; 43:3), of a prophet enticing people to worship idols (Deut. 13:6), and of Satan inciting God to test Job (Job 2:3). With God as subject the word is used of His drawing an enemy away from Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 18:31) and of His wooing or attempting to lure people from destruction to blessing (Job 36:16). The word also appears in 2 Samuel 24:1, where God’s anger caused Him to entice David to sin, and in the parallel text, 1 Chronicles 21:1, in which an adversary of Israel did the enticing. These texts are discussed later.
25. “May he accept” translates יָרַח (a denominative Hiphil from יחַ), which could be rendered more literally, “may he smell with pleasure” (cf. the use of this verb in Gen. 8:21; 27:27). For another example of a מִנְחָה being an offering of appeasement see 1 Samuel 3:14.
26. See Henry P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899), 232.
27. This spirit is called “an evil spirit from the Lord” (רוּחַ־רָעָה ת יהוה), “an evil spirit of God” (רוּחַ־אַוֹּהִים רָעָה), “a spirit of God” (רוּחַ־אַוֹּהִים), “the evil spirit” (רוּחַ הָרָעָה), and “an evil spirit of the Lord” (רוּחַ יהוה רָעָה).
28. The Bible does not state why numbering the people was wrong; perhaps David was motivated by pride and/or lack of faith in the Lord’s ability to protect the land. First Chronicles 21:1, if it refers to a national adversary of Israel taking hostile action, might support this interpretation. Raymond Dillard argues that David “impugns the faithfulness of God in the keeping of His promises” (“David’s Census: Perspectives in II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21, ” in Through Christ’s Word, ed. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd III [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985], 105).
29. See Numbers 25:3; 32:13; Judges 2:14, 20; 3:8; 10:7; 2 Kings 13:3.
30. For compelling linguistic and literary arguments against taking the noun as a proper name here, see Sarah Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1993), 374–75.
31. Mayhue cites with approval this statement by John Davis: “Satan was the immediate cause of David’s action, but, theologically speaking, God was the ultimate cause in that he did not prevent the incident from occurring” (Mayhue, “False Prophets and the Deceiving Spirit,” 158–59). The phrase “he did not prevent the incident” is problematic. This explanation of God’s involvement fails to understand the active role God played in the incident according to 2 Samuel 24:1.
32. If the adversary was a hostile nation, then 1 Chronicles 21:1 recorded the incident from a human perspective.
33. Moshe Greenberg argues that untimely death is the punishment in view (Ezekiel 1–20, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 250). Perhaps the “answer” would consist of a prophetic announcement of judgment followed by the fulfillment of the divine word.
34. Greenberg seems to interpret the passage in this way. “Our passage ascribes the error of a prophet in responding to inquiry to divine misguidance. The obtuseness of the Israelites, including prophets, is culpable, and God punishes it by corrupting the spring of inspiration, leading inquirer and respondent alike to destruction” (Ezekiel, 254).
35. Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1994), 187, 193, 207–8.
36. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner suggest the noun means “confusion” (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1: א-ח, rev. Walter Baumgartner and Johann J. Stamm, trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 800).
37. Several other Old Testament passages that are relevant to this topic will not be discussed here because of space limitations and the fact that they do not use a verb meaning “to deceive” or “to entice” in describing God’s activity. These verses include 1 Samuel 2:25b (God prevented Eli’s sons from heeding their father’s warning); 2 Samuel 17:14 (the Lord caused Absalom to reject Ahithophel’s advice in order to bring about Absalom’s demise); 1 Kings 12:15 (the Lord caused Rehoboam to follow foolish advice in order to bring about the decreed judgment on the Davidic dynasty); 2 Chronicles 25:20 (Amaziah’s determination to go to war was caused by the Lord, who would judge Judah for its idolatry); and Ezekiel 20:25–26 (the Lord said He had given Israel bad laws as part of His plan to judge the nation). In each of these cases the divine action (which prompted sinful or at least unwise destructive behavior) was an aspect of a decreed or predetermined judgment.
38. The following discussion of Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 is based on this writer’s article “Does God Change His Mind?” 391–95.
39. While New Testament texts are beyond the scope of the present study, it is important to note that in Titus 1:2 the affirmation that God “does not lie” appears in a context that speaks of God’s unconditional promise.
40. Most of the passages listed in the following discussion use אַמֶת or אַמוּנָה.
41. For examples of such oracles, see 2 Samuel 5:19–24. Proverbs 30:5 seems to be dependent on the wording of 2 Samuel 22:31 (=Ps. 18:30). The flawless word of the Lord is associated with His being the Shield or Protector of His followers.
42. J. A. Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained (1873; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 81.
43. Roberts, “Does God Lie?” 220.