So how do we deal with the issue of God sending an “evil spirit” to torment Saul?
Well homeroos, as usual, let’s take a look at the original Hebrew.
The phrase here is RUACH RAAH.
RUACH means “spirit”.
RAAH means “evil”.
Now according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, to translate that phrase as “evil spirit” is incorrect.
Instead of saying “evil spirit”, it should be rendered as “a spirit that brings forth evil”.
You may be thinking “That’s not much of a difference?”
But I’d say there’s a HUGE difference.
An “evil spirit” is a spirit whose intrinsic nature is wicked.
On the other hand, a “spirit that brings forth evil” is one whose actions cause evil to come about.
In other words, the word “evil” in this context is a noun, NOT an adjective.
It’s NOT modifying the type of spirit being described.
Now, understand, I didn’t just pull that notion out of my rear end.
Do you remember who I referenced in the past as probably the greatest scholar of our times when it comes to the books of Samuel?
He’s a Japanese professor named Dr. David Tsumura and he’s my source for what I just told you.
This is a normal Hebrew language structure and we encounter it in other areas of the Hebrew Bible as well.
For example, check out this verse from the book of Proverbs.
“Don’t be envious of evil people,
and don’t desire to be with them.”
-Proverbs 24:1
Again, the translators aren’t correctly capturing the nuance of the Hebrew.
This verse isn’t talking about men whose very nature is evil.
It’s talking about normal men (like you and me) who commit evil.
At first glance, it may seem like I’m making a fuss out of nothing, but this distinction is important.
For example, if your kid does something bad, it doesn’t mean he or she is bad.
It’s just that his or her behavior was bad.
The same thing could be said of guns for example.
The gun or weapon itself isn’t inherently evil.
It only depends on how it’s used.
If used in self-defense, it’s a good thing.
If used to murder, it’s a bad thing.
Ya feel me?
I do agree there is a difference between someone who does evil, assumingly on occasion or even maybe by accident or being lured into it, and people who are just, plain evil.
In other words, those who do evil things but don’t really want to, and those who do evil thing because they like to.
But, on the other hand (being Jewish, I always have an “other hand”) I have also learned that people don’t mean what they say, they mean what they do, so doing evil does indicate they are evil.
So, nu? Which is which?
I would say that people do evil because we are born with the Yetzer Hara (evil iinclination) and don’t develop the Yetzer Tov (good inclination) until we are old enough to know Torah (this is a Talmudic thing). So, we all do evil because of iniquity (an innate desire to do evil), which is only overcome by knowing God and choosing to do as God wants us to do. But, because our nature is not so nice, we fail now and then. The difference, therefore, is whether or not we do evil because we want to or because we are in a situation where we cannot overcome our Yetzr Hara, which I think I can say Freud described as the Id.
(Monsters of the Id! Morbius forgot about monsters of the Id!))
How’s that for a round-about discussion?
I wouldn’t disagree with you.
I also think over time it is our habits, what we do day in and day out that will form our identity, and whether it will be a Godly or ungodly one.