An Evil Spirit from the Lord

[2PhiloVoid]

While we're at it, the whole Saul saga presents one of the harshest pictures of God in the OT. God (via Samuel) tells Saul to slaughter everything associated with the Amalekites- "man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Saul does it, except he spares the king, some fine livestock, and valuables. The Lord rejects Saul for not obeying and regrets making him king. There are so many problems with this account.

.... I was wondering if and when someone would check the Amalekite context, which is why I said what I said in earlier posts.

 

[public hermit]

Remember what God allowed Satan do to Job.

Who, by the way, recorded that conversation between God and Satan?

 

[ozso]

Who, by the way, recorded that conversation between God and Satan?

I figure it was revealed to the author, the same as "God said, let there be light" was revealed to Moses.

 

[BPPLEE]

While we're at it, the whole Saul saga presents one of the harshest pictures of God in the OT. God (via Samuel) tells Saul to slaughter everything associated with the Amalekites- "man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Saul does it, except he spares the king, some fine livestock, and valuables. The Lord rejects Saul for not obeying and regrets making him king. There are so many problems with this account.

One explanation I was given was that everyone and everything was infected with venereal disease.
Another is that their blood was mixed with the Nephilim

 

[ozso]

One explanation I was given was that everyone and everything was infected with venereal disease.
Another is that their blood was mixed with the Nephilim

That's the impression I always got. Something very virulent needed to be eradicated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One explanation I was given was that everyone and everything was infected with venereal disease.
Another is that their blood was mixed with the Nephilim

I have not heard these explanations before, but from my understanding, the Amalekites were put on the 'chopping block' because they were apparently inhospitable and treacherous toward the Israelites as they came out of Egypt.

Exodus 17:8 and Deuteronomy 25:17 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3, 6-7, 15 are the key verses in this, for what it's worth.

By today's sensibilities, they were just being mean and were stigmatized and whacked for it. Maybe their culture deserved it? I don't know.

 

[BPPLEE]

I have not heard these explanations before, but from my understanding, the Amalekites were put on the 'chopping block' because they were apparently inhospitable and treacherous toward the Israelites as they came out of Egypt.

Exodus 17:8 and Deuteronomy 25:17 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3, 6-7, 15 are the key verses in this, for what it's worth.

By today's sensibilities, they were just being mean and were stigmatized and whacked for it. Maybe their culture deserved it? I don't know.

Haman from the book of Ester who plotted to kill the Jews is said to be a descendant and such are the consequences of not following God's instructions
Haman is described as an "Agagite" (Esther 3:1), possibly linking him to the Amalekites, historical enemies of the Israelites, which adds a layer of symbolic enmity in the narrative.

 

[Fervent]

Who, by the way, recorded that conversation between God and Satan?

The historicity of Job is one of those questions that is basically wide open. It bears strong similarity to a genre of literature from the day that we call theodicy cycles, which were essentially presented as trials of the gods with the goal of explaining why they allowed their followers to suffer. Job differs significantly for a couple of reasons, because what that opening does is turn it on its head by putting God on trial with Job as His champion and the stakes were whether or not God's words would prove true. Ancient literature is plagued with semi-realistic stories being presented in legendary or mythical garb as the concept of truth seems to have been less rigid than we treat it today and so a lot of the literature blends the lines. So there is at least a decent chance that the entire poem is a fictitious account intended to make a theological point about how God differs from the other gods in the Ancient Near East pantheon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Haman from the book of Ester who plotted to kill the Jews is said to be a descendant and such are the consequences of not following God's instructions
Haman is described as an "Agagite" (Esther 3:1), possibly linking him to the Amalekites, historical enemies of the Israelites, which adds a layer of symbolic enmity in the narrative.

That's interesting to know. Somehow Haman's relation to the Amalekites in all of that failed to register with me earlier on, so I'm glad you brought it up. It sort of reinforces the idea that sometimes, perhaps, certain cultures may promote and proliferate treachery over a long term.

I'm guessing the Lord wanted Saul to put a final end to that Amalekite potential. Not a nice idea to ponder over these days, is it?

 

[Fervent]

I'm guessing the Lord wanted Saul to put a final end to that Amalekite potential. Not a nice idea to ponder over these days, is it?

It can certainly cause a bit of squirming, but such challenges to me ultimately raise a simple question...one God presented to Job, and had a severe impact on my contemplation of the cross. "Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" Do we dare to judge God, or do we trust that He knows what He is doing?

 

[public hermit]

So there is at least a decent chance that the entire poem is a fictitious account intended to make a theological point about how God differs from the other gods in the Ancient Near East pantheon

I think there's a good chance it's meant to convey a theological point and not necessarily meant to be taken as a historical account of happenings.

I agree with scholars who argue the poetic section likely stood alone and the prose sections (prologue/epilogue) were added later. If you take the large poetic section by itself, it ends in a properly apophatic tone. "Where were you Job...?" And, given that bit of insight, Job doesn't know and can no longer speak to the justice or injustice of what God is doing. It's brilliant on its own.

The prose sections don't make the issue any clearer, they actually complicate things, but they do ensure Job is rewarded in this world for his troubles, which is terrible theology from our point of view. It also seems to tacitely affirm the fallacious position of Job's friends.

The prose sections read like an attempt to correct a "missing piece," which makes sense in a context where it was assumed justice was retributive and played out in this life. "Job suffered, yes, but he was rewarded with more stuff in this world. See, God is just!" It's fascinating, though, that Job contemplates something like a resurrection, which will eventually take the place of that older outlook.

 

[JSRG]

I have often wondered about this myself. It seems strange that it was an evil spirit "from the Lord "

Looking into the Hebrew, "evil" seems, while not a wrong translation a possibly misleading one. The Hebrew word in question can refer to moral evil, but can also refer to evil in the sense of calamity or unpleasantness (which the English word evil can also be used for, actually, though it isn't used for such often now). This would fit with what happens here, because the spirit is afflicting Saul.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Intended" refers to something planned or purposed, while "allowed" means something is permitted or given permission. I will stick to "allowed" mainly for the reason that God does not partner with evil. He "allows" testing, deception or torment to not only build character in a human being, but also to separate the wheat from the tares. We are told over and over that persecution will come our way and we are to stay on course. Jesus Christ of Nazareth also said that. " few" will find their way. Free will is always at play.
Something to think about , indeed.
Blessings

"Allowed" for a purpose sounds to me more like partnering with evil. "Intended" for a purpose is simple and straightforward use of somebody else's bad intent. And it is simple logic to see that it comes by way of First Cause.

 

[Fervent]

I think there's a good chance it's meant to convey a theological point and not necessarily meant to be taken as a historical account of happenings.

I agree

I agree with the scholars who argue the poetic section likely stood alone and the prose sections (prologue/epilogue) were added later. If you take the large poetic section by itself, it ends in a properly apophatic tone. "Where were you Job...?" And, given that bit of insight, Job doesn't know and can no longer speak to the justice or injustice of what God is doing. It's brilliant on its own.

I'm not sure I agree, though I'm not one who bothers much with original construction since to me it is the canonical form that matters.

The prose sections don't make the issue any clearer, they actually complicate things, but they do ensure Job is rewarded in this world for his troubles, which is terrible theology from our point of view. It also seems to tacitely affirm the fallacious position of Job's friends.

I see it as quite the contrary, the prose sections give us the verdict before the trial ever begins, Job is innocent(blameless). The trial cycle goes accuser, rebuttal, accuser, rebuttal, accuser, rebuttal...oath of innocence. In Uritic trials that was a legally binding oath, essentially it was believed that if a deity was sworn by falsely they would strike the person down themselves. We then have an interuption with Elihu, which is somewhat ambiguous but given the fact that he is subtly contradicted by God despite there being some overlap I find it likely he was intended as speaking out of turn. But God confronts Job in the end and confirms the verdict of innocence despite Job confessing his ignorance. But the real drama is between God and Satan, because Satan's torture of Job is meant to show that God's assessment of Job is false and there are no righteous individuals.

The prose sections read like an attempt to correct a "missing piece," which makes sense in a context where it was assumed justice was retributive and played out in this life. "Job suffered, yes, but he was rewarded with more stuff in this world. See, God is just!" It's fascinating, though, that Job contemplates something like a resurrection, which will eventually take the place of that older outlook.

I can see how someone could get that impression given the way they are used, but the point isn't about Job being rewarded for his suffering...and there is an interesting point to be made in that everything returned to him double...except his children. Which some take as indicating that the oringal lot were never lost to him, though they died.

 

[RDKirk]

It appears that Job's knowledge of God has been derived solely from observation of creation, not from direct revelation, prior prophesy, or scripture. God never refers to any prior promises to patriarchs, or even to Adam. Rather, God refers to the wonders of creation that Job could have seen or heard about even a continent away from the Hebrew patriarchs.

In this way, Job testifies to Psalm 19, Acts 15, and Romans 1: That God reveals Himself sufficiently in creation itself so that no man has an excuse not to acknowledge His existence and essential virtue.

But Job goes a step further, and this may be the salvationally essential step: He recognizes that he cannot reach God on his own, but needs a mediator who can "lay hands on us both."

Job doesn't know the name of Jesus, but Job knows he needs Jesus.

 

[Paul4JC]

Saul already had a disposition against God, as did Ahab in 1Kings 22:23, as did Pharaoh in Exodus when his heart was hardened. God just accommodated them in their rebellion, allowing demons to take them further to their own destruction.

 

[Fervent]

It appears that Job's knowledge of God has been derived solely from observation of creation, not from direct revelation, prior prophesy, or scripture. God never refers to any prior promises to patriarchs, or even to Adam. Rather, God refers to the wonders of creation that Job could have seen or heard about even a continent away from the Hebrew patriarchs.

There's more than just that, God refers to Uritic myths about creation with His reference to Leviathan(and possibly Behemoth). This is often overlooked because it is part of a different creation narrative than Genesis gives us and especially a different explanation of the origin of evil(as Leviathan is a chaos beast). So it speaks to God using the understanding of those He is dealing with.

 

[public hermit]

Saul already had a disposition against God, as did Ahab in 1Kings 22:23, as did Pharaoh in Exodus when his heart was hardened. God just accommodated them in their rebellion, allowing demons to take them further to their own destruction.

Well, that's a pitiful account. Are these "objects of destruction" created for that purpose?

 

[Rose_bud]

"Now the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, “See now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skillful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better." 1 Sam. 16:14-16

Enter David, who plays the lyre and makes Saul feel better.

What is this evil spirit from the Lord that departs (or relents from tormenting Saul) when good music is played?

Another observation
At first the evil spirit leaves when David plays. But later it appears Davids tunes no longer seem to have an effect, to the point that he is dodging spears and finally David flees.

I find that the author is playing on the relation between the Spirit of the Lord is on David and not on Saul. A reflection of the deeper spiritual dynamic that was given to both.

verse 13...the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David.

verse 14....the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil a spirit from the Lord tormented him.

The Spirit of the Lord (which is on David) and not on Saul is echoed in Davids departure from Saul.

 

[RDKirk]

There's more than just that, God refers to Uritic myths about creation with His reference to Leviathan(and possibly Behemoth). This is often overlooked because it is part of a different creation narrative than Genesis gives us and especially a different explanation of the origin of evil(as Leviathan is a chaos beast). So it speaks to God using the understanding of those He is dealing with.

I think we can be sure Job had been taught a different creation account than Genesis, and still had that account in his mind as he came to know God.

And the same was true of the Philippian jailer.