Why Did God Send an Evil Spirit to King Saul?
Share
1 Samuel 16:14 and 18:10 record incidents where God sent Saul an “evil spirit,” which many critics of the Bible offer as evidence of Scriptural inconsistency. How can this be the inerrant word of God if a supposedly good God sent an evil spirit to one of his people? After all, God chose and anointed Saul as king of Israel
What was this “evil spirit” really, and how can one argue that God’s grace and mercy were still present in his relationship with Israel’s first, ill-fated king?
Studying “Evil” and “Spirit”
1 Samuel 16:14 says that “the Lord’s Spirit left Saul. Then the Lord sent an evil spirit to Saul that caused him much trouble.” The words of 18:10 are similar: “an evil spirit from God came forcefully on Saul.” We need a deeper understanding of the Hebrew words used here and what they meant to an eleventh-century Hebrew audience.
Ra, a Hebrew term used frequently and variously in the Old Testament, describes actions or thoughts which are questionable. They are “morally, ethically, or physically” unrighteous and ungodly. For the word evil, the NLT has chosen tormenting, while the ESV opts for harmful. The Hebrew word for spirit – ruach – often evokes "God's creative and sustaining power, as well as His presence and influence in the world and in individuals.”
The people of Saul’s time would have viewed ruach as a critical part of life, the oxygen they breathed, “where God's Spirit is both present in creation and beyond it. The term is deeply embedded in the Hebrew worldview, which sees the physical and spiritual realms as interconnected.”
There can be no question that this distressing, harmful, or evil spirit was sent to Saul according to God’s will. But how can one reconcile the Lord’s choice of Saul with the later decision to torment him? Moreover, does this mean that evil comes from God?
Saul’s Disobedience Examined
According to Richard McDonald, Saul was a repeat offender who rejected and defied the will of God multiple times. While a modern audience might not understand the significance, early audiences would have grasped the gravity of Saul’s offenses. He burnt an offering which was for the high priest alone to offer (1 Samuel 13:9) and failed to completely destroy his enemy, the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15).
Moreover, they might have remarked that, following Samuel’s rebuke, Saul did not repent; he did not tear his clothes in anguish. In 1 Samuel 13:12, Saul responded to Samuel saying he felt compelled or forced to give the burnt offering. He made an excuse, essentially, suggesting that he had little choice.
The Hebrew aphaq conveys the idea of strength and self-control, qualities which were highly prized by the people. Aphaq is the ability to “hold back emotions, such as anger or tears, and can imply the exertion of strength to contain or restrain oneself or others.”
Firstly, Saul did not act with self-control, but betrayed his fear, impatience, and disobedience. Secondly, even though this trait was prized by the people of Israel, God does not want us to contain our emotions in our relationship with him. As the Psalms demonstrates, we are expected to cry out to God when we are in trouble. Saul was not a man after God’s heart (1 Samuel 13:14). There is such a thing as good self-control, by which one determines not to sin in response to strong emotions, but Saul exercised disobedience and independence from God.
As king, Saul was supposed to lead the people in faith and obedience, to submit to Almighty God and then lead as he was led. “Samuel rebuked him for misunderstanding God’s requirement, for being rebellious and insubordinate, for rejecting God’s Word.” Samuel had tried to lead Saul spiritually, but Saul believed he knew better. The consequences were not immediate, God does show patience towards his people. But eventually his patience comes to an end. God’s desire, says McDonald, is that the consequences would help us see our sin and lead us to repentance before that happens.
Saul behaved as though there were different rules for him as king. As one writer notes, Samuel’s rejection of Saul and his loss of favor with God “demonstrates the peril of rejecting divine counsel. Saul’s position did not excuse him from accountability; rather, his high calling demanded fidelity.”
Temptation from God?
The problem many readers have with these passages is reconciling a good God with the choice to send an evil spirit that would tempt the king he appointed for Israel. McDonald reminds us that “God uses the entire spiritual world for his purposes” as seen in the times Satan has been permitted to cause strife (in Job for instance). The disturbance in Saul’s soul was judgement leading, ideally, to repentance. God will not tempt a person, but he might employ those spirits which would revel in such work, though God’s intention is not to harm. Revelation 1:18 tells us that Christ “holds the keys of death and Hades.” God is not evil, and Satan cannot act unless the Father allows him to. There must be a reason.
“God judges sin in this life for the purpose of repentance [...]. This judgment is not vindictive — he doesn’t do it to entice us to sin more. He does it because he loves us.” Some argue that Saul’s violence was God’s fault because of this distressing spirit, as though it drove him insane; and yet, we know that we are responsible for our choices.
Consider United States law: Susan J. Lewis explains “the insanity defense is used in only 1 percent of all criminal proceedings, and its success rate is only 25 percent of that 1 percent.” In her article, she describes the different definitions of “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity” as the plea is understood in courtrooms across the United States. In spite of the various nuances, more than 99% of people are responsible for their own actions when committing a crime such as attempted murder, as Saul tried to kill David on more than one occasion.
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). When there are multiple influences in our lives, we can choose. Even if the Lord allows Satan to introduce chaos, he will also introduce us to alternatives. Samuel represented that godly alternative which Saul ignored. God even sent Israel’s king another means of experiencing his peace.
The Mercy of God
“Whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him” (1 Samuel 16:23). Richard McDonald reflects: “Saul found grace and mercy from God’s wrath through David’s music” with the intention of guiding Saul towards repentance and a restored relationship with God, even though he had lost God’s favor as king.
Saul decided that David was useful to him in this capacity. David’s music worked, but only for a time. Saul chose to dwell on mistrust and jealousy, rather than the Lord’s kindness and the joy of hearing beautiful music, a gift given to him specifically to help him heal from the pain of suffering God’s discipline.
“Saul chose to be jealous of David’s success and to be suspicious of his intentions.” Saul was, in essence, rejecting God’s mercy “and he gave himself to his own evil desires.” In a context where there are multiple interpretations of events – multiple influences – we can lean into the negative and destructive or the righteous and peaceful. God’s Word still offered Saul direction; Samuel was still there to offer guidance. And Saul, though challenged by the distressing spirit, still knew right from wrong. His jealousy drove him to rage, indicating (were he to reflect) that his perspective was sick. Certainly, the people loved David and their partiality stung Saul, but had he really exercised aphaq, Saul would have not have allowed jealousy to consume him. He would have appreciated David’s military skill for the sake of Israel.
God was not quick to judge Saul: he was given opportunities, but proved that “his heart was unbendingly disobedient.” There are limits to God’s patience, “but even in judgment he extends mercy to believers and unbelievers so they will repent.” Saul did not repent. He claimed many times to no longer mean harm to David, but he did not acknowledge sin, confess it, and repent fully. His promises to do no harm led to short-lived restraint only, not full surrender to God.
Rely on the Lord, Fully
In the opinion of one biblical scholar, “the narrative aligns with a biblical worldview in which God remains absolutely sovereign and may utilize even adverse spiritual forces to accomplish His will.” We know from the fullness of Scripture that God is just and merciful, and we know this because of the testimony of Christ’s own life. Satan came to torment Jesus, and Jesus resisted. While Christ was perfect, he was still human; he was weakened in the wilderness as he prayed and fasted, anguished in the Garden where he sweated blood as he prayed for the cup to be taken away.
He was not tempted by God, but was still allowed to face hurdles which would be overwhelming without total trust in his Father. He nurtured this trust through daily relational habits of prayer and service in God’s name. Resistance to sin, even in the midst of terrible chaos, is possible. But at these times in our lives, we do not rely on total self-control. We totally rely on the Lord.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/nullplus
