Ask Pastor Dave

Questions have been coming in and I am grateful for them. I will not, however, be able to answer all the questions that came in. I will hold on to them, however, for a later date and attempt to answer them in the next round of Ask Pastor Dave posts. Today I will be addressing two questions:

1. What does Ezekiel 14:9 mean when it says that God deceives, and how is it fair that God punishes a false prophet whom He also deceives? This is an important question to wrestle with because it calls into question the trustworthiness and justice of God. Essentially the question asks, “does God lie.” We need to wrestle honestly with this question, as difficult as it is. I will do the best I can here to address the nature of the question and the specifics of this text. First, let us establish the trustworthiness of God. Second, let’s understand the context of this passage. Third, let’s attempt to reconcile the differences between the claims of this passage and the larger theological claims of the Bible about God’s trustworthiness.

First, let’s affirm that the Bible states plainly God is trustworthy. In numerous passages the Old Testament Scriptures, of which Ezekiel is a part, claim that God does not lie. To quote a few passages:

“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).

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

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

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

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

One of the major themes of the Old Testament is that God accomplishes all that he says he will do. He fulfills all that he promises. We can trust God because He keeps His word.

In light of these claims of the Bible as a whole, then, we need to wrestle how God can also be said to bring about deception. In order to do justice to this difficulty, however, we need to understand the context of this passage in Ezekiel. Context is crucial for discerning difficulties in the Scriptures. So what is Ezekiel addressing in this passage.

The context has in view God’s burning anger against Judah. In chapter 12 he begins to outline the coming destruction, symbolizing its fate by calling on Ezekiel to play out different aspects of it. Then in chapter 13 he turns directly to confront the false prophets who lie about what God has said. These wicked men make evil good and good evil. They capture weak souls and even kill some of God’s people. God’s pronouncements on them in chapter 13 are serious. The judgment continues in chapter 14, but here in the beginning of the chapter it turns from the false prophets to those who consult them. Some would attempt to deceive God by consulting his prophets to hear from him, while they yet harbor idolatry in their hearts. God says he will answer such people when they do this, but he will “set his face against” them (v. 6-8). The whole book of Ezekiel is about exposing their hubris.

Ezekiel confronts the destruction of the temple and aims to offer both an explanation of it and call to return to the Lord in light of it. The people of Israel had assured themselves that because they were God’s people and they dwelled within the shadow of God’s temple they were untouchable. Their prophets declared their invulnerability and assured Israel of safety and peace. In light of such confidence, they people had no worries about their idolatry. Yet even when the Temple falls Israel cannot understand what is happening. So God sends Ezekiel to warn, explain, and call to repentance.

This is the context in which God speaks these difficult words of verse 14:9. We should note that even as he says he is responsible for their deception, chapter 13 tells us they themselves have sought out to deceive. This is a duality that we see elsewhere in Scripture. So, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 9:12), and yet Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:32). There is a dual responsibility that is at play here. The prophets seek to deceive, and God gives them a deception. But God’s deception is part of a judicial sentence. As D.A. Carson writes:

God’s “deception” of the prophets is part of his judicial sentence. Yet it is a peculiar “deception,” for God’s revelation is already there in public Scriptures to be read and studied; moreover, he now openly tells the prophets of his judicial hand upon them. If they had an iota of spiritual sensibility, the warning would drive them to self-examination and repentance. But no: the sentence is pronounced, and they are deceived. Such prophets lie to the people, and the people like the lies and listen to them (cf. Ezek. 13:19). (For the Love of God)

The context reveals this is all part of a larger plan for God to expose the hubris within the hearts of Israel, but nonetheless we have to wrestle with exactly what it means for God to deceive. How can God be God and still lie?

It’s important that we recognize that all language about God is at some level analogical. That is to say God is always condescending to make himself known to us, the language about him is an analogy in human speech to give us some connection to what God is like. So the Bible talks about God’s anger, but his anger is not to be understood as a direct parallel to our anger. Even the Bible gives us qualifiers on God’s anger, “righteous,” “holy,” etc. God’s anger is both like ours and yet different from ours. We may say true things about God through analogical language and yet we must also understand that there is a degree of difference. Systematic theologians talk about this in terms of God’s communicable attributes. He parallels our character and attributes, but it is not exactly the same. So might God’s description of himself as “deceiving” be an analogical description? I am not sure, but it’s a possibility.

The intent clearly is that if you seek a lying vision God will give you what you seek. And yet God is said in Scripture never to lie. John Piper suggests that there is a difference between God’s ordaining that lying happen and God’s actual lying, but this text seems to suggest that God is actually the one deceiving the false prophets. The truth is I don’t know exactly what to make of this text. The text makes clear that God is not guilty of sin in this passage. After all, the duplicity is found in the “hearts” of those who come to seek God’s wisdom while loving their idols. God merely grants them what they want. Perhaps analogical language is the best way to explain the text. It makes the distinction clear even while it doesn’t necessarily resolve the particular details of the tension.

2. Who has been the most influential theologian in your own life? It’s simply not possible to articulate all the ways in which you have been influenced and who all has influenced you. I have had the joy of serving under, studying alongside, and reading from a number of quality theologians. The biggest influences were probably men that very few know, men who faithfully served their congregations and disciple me. These are the theologians I have been more influenced by than I could ever reveal.

Steve Burchett was my pastor in college. He took me when I was very raw, immature, and ignorant and began to prepare me for the future of ministry. He taught me how to read the Bible, promoted the importance of good theological study, and shaped my growth as a Christian in general. I know I would not be who I am today as a believer if it weren’t for Steve. Steve first introduced me to the discipline of systematic theology. I recall reading through Wayne Grudem’s text with him and learning more about God and the things of God in a single chapter of that book than I had ever known. He also first introduced me to the ideas of Calvinism, of which I was very reticent. Eventually, he helped me see the textual, theological, and philosophical support for it.

John Frame has shaped my entire theological methodology. His books and articles have been foundational. My reading of The Doctrine of God was earth-shaking for me, and then The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God gave me an approach to doing theology. I had the privilege a few years ago of getting to develop a relationship with Dr. Frame. I have benefited greatly over the years from his continued help in thinking through issues and approaches. I am far more indebted to Dr. Frame than I am to any other established professional theologian. I have benefited particularly from his theological generosity too. Dr. Frame’s willingness to learn from a host of traditions, to refuse the reductionist and simple explanations, and to engage in plenty of gracious criticism of his own tribe. I have learned to read more widely and diversely because of him and be willing to be critical of myself and my own traditions that I might better conform to God’s Word and not simply except what has “always been.”

Mark Driscoll can be one of the most frustrating contemporary pastors. I have long since parted ways with Driscoll in a number of areas, but early on in my pastoral ministry he greatly influenced me. He shaped my perspective on missional living, on practical theology, and on the importance of more gritty ministry. My ministry at Revolution was often served by the experiences and lessons of Driscoll in his church in Seattle. His book Death by Love is one of the best examples of the practical nature of theology that I have ever read, and the team of guys he has trained, raised up, or hired out there continue to be a wealth of resources for me. Mike Wilkerson and Justin Holcomb are great counselors whose experiences have helped me wrestle through difficult counseling cases of my own. As frustrated as I am with Driscoll’s recklessness, I am nonetheless thankful to God for him and the influence he had on me early on.

Frank Tallerico has been more than just my pastor, he’s been one of my best friends. I enjoyed serving under him while he was senior pastor at Bigelow. While there I learned more about Biblical Counseling, pastoral ministry, and patience than I could have ever learned in reading books. Frank modeled well for me what it means to be a good pastor. In the midst of personal attacks he modeled Christ-like faithfulness. In the midst of transition and change he modeled trust in God. He has continued to be one of my best friends, loving me, challenging me, holding me accountable, and shaping my theology in a myriad of ways. He has been my teacher, my friend, my spiritual mentor, and my pastor. I cannot overstate Frank’s value in my life. Of all the theologians I have benefited from in my life Frank is top of my list.