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.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Defending the Open View, Interpreting Violent Pictures and Troubling Behaviors
Verse: Judges 9
Related Reading
How do you respond to Matthew 26:36?
At the last supper Jesus said to Peter, “Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” This is probably the most frequently quoted verse by defenders of the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge against the open view. How, they ask, could Jesus have been certain Peter…
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…
What is the significance of Numbers 16:20–35?
After Israel’s sin under the leadership of Korah, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Separate yourselves from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment” (vs. 21). Moses and Aaron pleaded with the Lord to only judge those who were most guilty. In response, the Lord modifies his judgment and gives…
What happens to babies who die?
The Bible does not directly address the issue of what happens to babies who die before being able to make a decision for or against Christ. People have thus had to arrive at conclusions about this matter on the basis of other beliefs they hold to be true. The majority of evangelicals today assume that…
Is it true you’re an “Open Theist” and that you don’t think God knows the future perfectly?
I am an “Open Theist” – though I honestly don’t care for the label, because as I’ll show, the uniqueness of this view isn’t in what it says about God but in what it says about the nature of reality. (I think it would be better to call us something like “Open Futurists.”) In any…
