The Problem of Divine Deception

 

Introduction

In my day job, I use any number of tools to maintain and repair the equipment that passes through my shop. Each of these tools fit into my tool box so that they will always be at hand to complete whatever task that I might encounter.

In that toolbox one will find all manner of tools: wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, electronic testing equipment, and even a hammer.

A Video Response

Hammers are interesting tools because they are used to hit things. Sometimes those things need just a light tap, other times they need a good, solid wallop. Sometimes I’m using my hammer to knock things together and, other times, I’m using it to knock things apart.

My hammer is a useful tool, when it is applied correctly, with the right intent.

Human reason is like a hammer: it can be used to knock together facts into coherence and, sometimes,—especially among unbelievers—can wield it in such a way that it destroys everything it touches.

This is especially true when we run into apparently contradictory element in Scripture where matters don’t always meet our expectations. One of those instances is God’s use of deception.

The God who...Deceives?

It can bother some people when God, who is often proclaimed to be incapable of lying, seems to engage in dishonest behavior, or gets accused of deceiving people.

In a recent video, The Non-Alchemist (NA) rehashes an old blog post wherein he goes after the alleged instances of divine deception. 

He begins,

As you probably already know, the character of Yahweh has been attacked from many different angles…what with his endorsement of slavery, commands of genocide and all. But upon reflection, I think there are actually more ways to poke holes in the supposed moral perfection of this generally capricious deity than people might think. While I have a few different ideas in mind, I’ll be limiting myself to discussing just one in this post – The problem of divine deception. (Link removed)

I have serious questions about the matter of any allegations of “endorsement” of slavery (see here or here) and the “commands of genocide” are simply nonsensical (see my response to Christian apologist and philosopher Randal Rauser). To make such allegations one has to assume any number of false premises to make such an argument, not to mention think utterly anachronistically. But, setting that aside, what is this “problem”?

He continues, 

You see, Yahweh doesn’t just leave individuals to their own devices with a tear in his eye and love in his heart, oh no….He’s sometimes actively involved in misleading people…On purpose.

NA gives us a few examples, first—borrowing heavily from atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg’s chapter in the book of essays, Skeptical Theism, he points to God’s direction of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, found in Genesis 22. On that incident, Wielenberg writes,

…the most natural reading of the story has it that God’s command creates in Abraham the belief that God is going to make him sacrifice Isaac.[1](emphasis added) 

And what if he did? The very statement ignores the fact that Abraham was the client-servant and that God was his patron.[2] In this kind of relationship, there is a steep disparity between the parties, ie God and Abraham, and God had given Abraham a gift that he couldn’t get from anywhere else: a son with his beloved Sarah. In that culture, such gifts came with strings attached, and the gift of a son to a woman who was believed to be beyond child-bearing years was bound to come with definite implications and consequences.[3] Rather than this being some “monstrous request” from a “capricious deity” (contra NA), it was something that was well within the right of the patron (God) to request the return of a gift from his client (Abraham). This is a fact that explains why we see almost no hesitation on Abraham’s part because he is a loyal client servant, having declared his allegiance and made covenant to God (Genesis 15).

We may balk at this because we are individualists and live in a dignity culture, a culture in which persons are perceived as social equals, so such practices are alien to us but there is nothing “deceptive” about it, in fact such is expected, if you know what you’re looking at. 

NA (via Wielenberg) wants to make this about what God knew what he was going to do and how it would be perceived in Abraham’s psyche. Of course, if you’re reading the story in Genesis 22, you already get an inkling at what Abraham is expecting, if you’re paying attention that is:  

Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there to worship; then we’ll come back to you.”(Gen. 22:5, CSB, emphasis added)

Excuse me for noticing but it seems like Abraham was in on the gag, if it is proper to call it that. This is because, as a client, Abraham was expected to show gratitude, and failing to respond to God’s request would be seen as a rejection of his patronage and result in harsh penalties, possibly even the death of his son, which he had received from God.[4] 

Interesting how the author of Hebrews sees the event: 

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. He received the promises and yet he was offering his one and only son, the one to whom it had been said, Your offspring will be traced through Isaac. He considered God to be able even to raise someone from the dead; therefore, he received him back, figuratively speaking. (Hebrews 11:17-19, CSB)

Interesting how the inspired interpreter didn’t see a problem that required any “wiggle room”, but fit fully within the confines of such a test of Abraham’s loyalty.

Maybe you shouldn’t be getting your theology from atheists.

These Folks Ain’t Loyal

The paraphrase of the Chris Brown song, there is always a question of loyalty in any relationship. So great is the need for loyalty that an entire industry has arisen around the testing of loyalty because we have become so untrustworthy.

The question should be, since there is such an insistence on loyalty, fidelity, trustworthiness, why is anyone insulted by the fact that God would actively test one’s loyalty, much less demand it?

This is why, I’m confused when NA writes,

…should we really expect anything less from a being who has no problem using signs and wonders from other religions to test his “beloved” people? (Deut 13:1-3) 

I'm confused because Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says,

If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, “Let us follow other gods,” which you have not known, “and let us worship them,” do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul. (emphasis added)

First, let’s recognize that NA is misrepresenting the Deuteronomy passage in that this isn’t about outsiders, it’s about insiders. This is clear by the phrase “among you”. With that being noted, what exactly is the objection here? Aside from the fact that it’s a clear warning?

The problem is that we are seeing this as merely a religious act. That’s not at all how the ancients would have seen this. In fact, when they do begin to segregate the various aspects of their lives, that’s where doubt is given the ability to creep in, and soon those tendrils of doubt creep in, they tear apart the structure and devolve into disloyalty.  

Deception, as a tool in God’s toolbox, then becomes the tool for rooting out disloyalty, because one cannot see what is truly going on beneath the surface. To that end, the All Knowing One, lays a trap for his enemies to expose them and bring them to shame.[5]

For the atheist—the one who lives in opposition and disloyalty to God—to assert that God is somehow wrong or morally deficient to require, much less test the loyalty of his people is laughable. In fact, it brings to mind Paul’s rebuke of his interlocutor:

[Who] are you, a mere man, to talk back to God? (Romans 9:20, CSB)

Once again, NA seems to think that such facts as the Scriptures recording the fact that God can and will use the tool of deception to test the loyalty of his people and expose the disloyal—both then and now—is somehow a meaningful objection to inspiration…he’s sadly mistaken.