3

In 1 Sam 16:14-23 (RSVCE), David Plays the Lyre for Saul, the passage opens

14 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

God is said to be infinitely good, intelligent, wise, just, holy, etc. [cf. The Nature and Attributes of God | New Advent].

Given these perfections of God, what is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"?

Needless to say, in keeping with the criteria for acceptable questions and answers, this question is not eliciting personal opinions but scholarly and/or authoritative exegesis.

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
  • "… which was not of the Lord …" (1 Sam. 16:14 JST) – ShemSeger Oct 29 '14 at 21:26
  • 2
    It means that God used an evil spirit as an agent to move Saul to either repent, or as a means to open the door for David to be called in to play for him. The good God was able to use what is bad to create a better good in the end. – Steve Oct 29 '14 at 21:28
  • http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ unless you want a specific denominations point of view. – The Freemason Oct 30 '14 at 17:05
  • 1
    Duplicate of Why is a distressing spirit called from God? – curiousdannii Oct 31 '14 at 02:26
  • 1
    @fms ...apparently this is one place in Holy scripture where the translators made choices with the 'into English', that could have been translated in other ways better suited, and attributing the evil spirit to the Lord wasn't the choice the translators should have made,....this occurs in several places in the H. Scriptures,...where the translators made the choice into English wording, however, the roots reveal that another option of the evil spirit not being attributed to the Lord was the better choice, but the translators did not choose this alternate,... – Hello Oct 31 '14 at 02:55
  • @ffms hi, sorry not to have more or refs rght now to give, I know I read about this, it falls into same category where translators interpreted Job's troubles as 'from the Lord', or Paul's thorn as 'from the Lord', even thought the text in Paul's case reveals outright that the 'messenger was from Satan', not from the Lord.\ – Hello Oct 31 '14 at 03:53
  • @fms re Job's situation,..we can piece together 'who did it' or 'who dunnit', from the description of the trouble,.we are told other places that the 'thief comes to steal kill and destroy, Jesus is speaking, = The thief is Satan, we are told, and in Job's situation we know he was stolen from, his family killed and his prosperity and social status destroyed, so therefore we see the M.O Method Opperendi of the Satan himself, in the trouble upon Job. = – Hello Oct 31 '14 at 03:56

2 Answers2

5

Different translations describe the spirit in different ways:

  • NIV, KJV, NASB, ISV - Evil
  • ESV - Harmful
  • NLT - Tormenting
  • YLT - Spirit of Sadness

However all these translations agree that this Spirit was sent from the Lord. So to stay with your question, how could a loving God send an evil spirit to torment?

He could for the very same reasons he sent a worldwide flood: it was His divine way to deal with the sin of that time, of that moment. Saul was rebelling and this was his de facto punishment.

Dave Miller, Apologetics Press:

As Keil and Delitzsch maintained: “This demon is called ‘an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah,’ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment” (1976, 2:170). John W. Haley added: “And he has a punitive purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil” (1977, p. 142). Of course, the reader needs to be aware of the fact that the term for “evil” is a broad term that need not refer to spiritual wickedness. In fact, it often refers to physical harm or painful hardship (e.g., Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 17:14). source

Habakkuk had this very same question for God when it was clear that God was allowing the wicked nation of Babylon to punish Judah. God responded with this:

Habakkuk 1:5 ESV Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.

...and then gave Habakkuk his rebuke for Babylon:

Habakkuk 2:8 ESV Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you, for the blood of man and violence to the earth, to cities and all who dwell in them.

Basically, God's great plans extend beyond the painful moment. God had a plan to rescue Judah from Babylon/Persia just like God had a plan for Saul in sending the evil spirit, even though neither made sense at the time. If you continue reading the chapter in 2 Samuel you'll see that it is through this evil spirit that Saul has his first encounter with his royal successor, David.

LCIII
  • 9,387
  • 15
  • 64
  • 111
-4

Evil spirits are not sent by God, nor does God give revelations through the evil spirits which sometimes trouble men. He cast these evil spirits out of heaven long ago for their rebellion against Him.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that the evil spirit was not sent from God. The prophet Joseph Smith corrected this passage in an inspired revision of the Bible to say, “An evil spirit which was not of the Lord troubled him” (JST, 1 Samuel 16:14 footnote c; emphasis added).

To say that God sent an evil spirit contradicts Christ's own teachings on the Sermon on the Mount:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matt. 7:17-18; emphasis added)

This does not answer the question of why the sixteenth chapter of 1 Samuel reads that the Spirit came from the LORD four times (vv. 14, 15, 16 & 23), but it is the authoritative position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that it is not meant to communicate that God sent an evil spirit.

The best guess I could make is that this is meant to communicate that the Lord allowed an evil spirit to torment Saul, much like the Lord allowed Satan to torment Job:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD." (Job 1:12; emphasis added)

ShemSeger
  • 8,865
  • 5
  • 31
  • 83
  • The JST never saw publication, but select excerpts can be found in the footnotes of the KJV Bible published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints, or on lds.org. – ShemSeger Oct 29 '14 at 21:33
  • 2
    What manuscript evidence do they have for adding a not? – curiousdannii Oct 29 '14 at 21:39
  • None. Joseph Smith was a prophet, he revised the King James Version of the Bible through divine inspiration from God, the same way all the prophets of the Old Testament received scripture. – ShemSeger Oct 29 '14 at 21:43
  • Interesting. I thought the restoration was limited to new books. Would LDS believe the Hebrew text did ever include the not? – curiousdannii Oct 29 '14 at 21:46
  • I don't see the "not" in the link to the JST you provided. Am I missing something? – Susan Oct 29 '14 at 21:50
  • The JST is in the footnotes—which popup in a little window, if you can't click on "from the LORD" then you need to scroll up to the top of the page and click "Show Footnotes" in the right column. – ShemSeger Oct 29 '14 at 21:54
  • @curiousdannii don't think of the JST as a purer translation of the original texts, it was inspiration, the same as what came to those who penned the original texts. It's modern revelation correcting the doctrine, not the words. One can only speculate on the original wording of the Hebrew texts. – ShemSeger Oct 29 '14 at 22:12
  • 2
    @ShemSeger this doesn't just "correct" doctrine it changes the words. – Frank Luke Oct 30 '14 at 13:52
  • @FrankLuke, A necessary change to correct an obvious error. It is preserving the doctrine that is most important. Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God, he had authority to do so. – ShemSeger Oct 30 '14 at 14:15
  • This answer is attracting a lot of down votes, I've edited it to clarify that it is the position of the LDS Church, as well as provide some biblical arguments. – ShemSeger Oct 30 '14 at 16:05
  • 1
    It's only an "obvious" error to the LDS church. Protestants and Catholics recognise many places with transmission errors, but not in this verse. – curiousdannii Oct 30 '14 at 21:38