Divine Deception in 1 Kings
First Kings 13 is the story of
the “man of God” who prophesies against Jeroboam. He is told not to eat or
drink while in Jeroboam’s territory but deliver his prophecy and leave. Yet, an
“old prophet” tells him that he has received a revelation from YHWH and invites
the man of God back to his house for food and drink (13:14-19). He then pronounces
the death sentence because the man of God disobeyed the order (13:20-22). This
is a very intriguing story. Some have immediately labelled the “old prophet” a
false prophet, but this is not at all the case in the story. He is not called a
false prophet; on the contrary, he receives messages from YHWH. The implication
is that his lie to the “man of God” is also a divine revelation (13:18), while
his revelation that the “man of God” will die is clearly from YHWH (13:20).
First Kings 22:5-23 contains the
prophecy of Micaiah, who reveals the vision of the divine council that he had
seen. In his vision, we have a very interesting image of YHWH sanctioning a
heavenly spirit to be a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets and to deceive
Ahab (22:20-23). Why YHWH sends forth this lying spirit is not explained, but
the implication is that the spirit makes the prophets predict Ahab’s success to
lure him into battle where he might be killed. It should be noted that Ahab’s
prophets are prophets of YHWH; therefore, the lying spirit inspires prophets of
YHWH to give a false prophecy.
It is natural that researchers
may consciously or unconsciously give precedent to their own tradition. Thus,
the examples of deception in the Hebrew Bible might be justified or considered
less egregious than those in “pagan” writings. Yet if we simply look at the
various examples neutrally, we can note two things. First, these are not the
only examples in the Hebrew Bible, another being 1 Sam 16:1-3 in which Samuel
is told by YHWH to deceive Saul about his mission to anoint David. Second, all
these provide a range of instances of divine deception in one form or another.
The cross-cultural examples help us to interrogate the biblical examples and
ask questions that might not occur if we considered only the biblical material.
From our contemporary situation,
our view of morality may differ from that of past readers of the Hebrew Bible.
We are not always prepared to accept or condone actions in the Bible if we
think they offend against this view. Whereas past readers might have justified
the divine deceptions noted here, it is not clear that they are so different from
those in the cross-cultural examples. In every case the divine act of deception
is justified (directly or by implication) in context. The Mesopotamian gods had
their reasons for destroying humans by a flood, just as YHWH does in the Noah
story. The Norse gods are concerned to protect their own home but also the
world of human habitation when they make promises they do not intend to keep,
an action that can be supported by a moral argument. The Mayan gods, who take
away human far-sightedness, act in a way very parallel to the deity in the Adam
and Eve story, where humans gain certain divine knowledge and as a result are
denied immortality. In both cases, humans gain a divine characteristic but are
prevented from gaining equality with divinity.
It is interesting that in every
case, one can see a transcendent goal in the divine deception. In 1 Kgs 13, the
prophet is given a divine message, but he must follow his divine instructions,
and he is tested to see whether he will do so. In 1 Kgs 22, YHWH evidently
wants to put Ahab in mortal peril or at least make him choose whether to go to
war or not. So Ahab is placed in the position that the choice is entirely his; he
does not have to go to war, but there is nothing to prevent him because of the
prophetic message. Yet, the same applies to the Mesopotamian flood or the
building of fortifications for the Norse gods, or the creation of humans by the
Mayan divinities. The Pythian oracles may seem to be misleading, but in each
case they allow the people involved to make a free decision. Croesus did not
have to go against Cyrus. The Athenians had a choice in how to defend themselves.
The examples may vary in moral seriousness, but we cannot set the biblical
examples against the “pagan” ones; they have an unsettling similarity in a
number of cases.
What all the examples bring to
our attention is the making of decisions. In a number of cases, the decision
involves making a choice among several less-than-ideal possibilities. The
decisions are not black and white but a series of grays. This seems to me to be
one of the main lessons to be drawn from most of these examples. (Lester L.
Grabbe, “Heavenly Porkies: Prophecy and Divine Deception in 1 Kings 13 and 22,”
in Partners with God: Theological and Critical Readings of the Bible in
Honor of Marvin A. Sweeney, ed. Shelley L. Birdsong and Serge Frolov
[Claremont Studies in Hebrew Bible and Septuagint 2; Claremont, Calif.:
Claremont Press, 2017], 108-10)
