We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Judges 9:23?

“…God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Schechem; and the lords of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” (cf. 1 Sam. 16:14; 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Some compatibilists cite this passage to support the view that evil spirits always carry out the Lord’s will (though they contend that God is good for willing it and the spirits are evil for carrying it out). I argue that this conception is unintelligible and the interpretation of this passage that supports it is unnecessary.

We should first note that this passage does not imply that evil spirits always carry out the Lord’s will. We must be careful not to read universal implications into specific historical narratives.

Second, the word “evil” in this passage (ra’) can simply mean “troubling” or “disastrous.” It does not have to be interpreted as referring to a morally evil spirit. Hence this passage may simply mean that as an act of judgment God sent a spirit whose job it was to trouble or bring disaster to Abimelech.

Third, even if we conclude that the spirit in this verse was morally evil, the verse may be interpreted as teaching that as an act of judgment God allowed the spirit to do what it wanted to do to Abimelech (see How do you respond to Exodus 21:12–13?). It doesn’t warrant the conclusion that evil spirits always carry out God’s sovereign plan.

If this were the case, we’d have to accept that God is in conflict with himself when Jesus rebukes demons. Jesus would be carrying out the Father’s will in casting out demons who are allegedly present in a person’s life because God willed it. Yet Jesus said that he couldn’t be casting out demons by Satan, the prince of demons, because a kingdom can’t be divided against itself (Matt. 12:25–38). The same logic forces the conclusion that Jesus couldn’t cast out demons by the power of God if the demons were themselves present by the will of God. God’s kingdom, like Satan’s kingdom, can’t be divided against itself.

Related Reading

If God shouldn’t get blamed when free agents do evil, why should he be thanked when they do good?

Scripture tells us that every good gift comes from God the Father who “does not change like shifting shadows” (Ja 1:17).  I interpret this to mean that God is always good and that he’s always working for good. In all circumstances, Paul said, “God is working for the good” (Rom. 8:28). We live and move…

Three Arguments Against Determinism

There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from doing and that when people don’t believe they are free…

How do you respond to Isaiah 46:9–11?

The Lord says, “I am God, and there is none other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention.’” To distinguish himself from the dead idols Israel was…

What do you think of the “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement?

If asked what Jesus came to do and how he did it, most contemporary western Christians would automatically say something like, “Jesus took the punishment from God that I deserved.” This is what’s usually called “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement, for it emphasizes that Jesus was punished by God in our place. His sacrifice…

What is the significance of Hosea 8:5?

The Lord asks, “How long will they [Israel] be incapable of innocence?” The Lord’s continual striving with Israel regarding their lack of innocence suggests that this question was not merely rhetorical. If God knows the future to be eternally settled, however, he could not in earnest ask this (or any other) question about the future.…

Topics:

How do you respond to 1 Peter 1:1–2?

As I read it, I Pet 1:2 is the thematic statement for the whole chapter. As I will show in a moment, the rest of the chapter unpacks this statement, so the rest of the chapter should be used to interpret this statement. In the rest of the chapter we find that believers… * have…