The nature of God is such that He never would do anything that is out of
harmony with His divine essence. Being infinite in all of His attributes
(including goodness and compassion), He never would mistreat anyone, manifest
partiality or injustice, or do something that may be legitimately indicted as
wrong (Genesis 18:25). “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways
are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is
He” (Deuteronomy 32:4). That being the case, how does one explain the
following: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing
spirit from the Lord troubled him” (1 Samuel 16:14); “And it happened on the
next day that the distressing spirit from God came upon Saul” (1 Samuel 18:10;
cf. 19:9; Judges 9:23)? Did God supernaturally afflict Saul with a demonic
spirit that, in turn, overruled Saul’s ability to be responsible for his own
actions?

At least three clarifications are worthy of consideration. First, the Bible
frequently refers to acts of deserved punishment that God has inflicted upon
people throughout history. For example, He brought a global deluge against the
Earth’s population (Genesis 6-9) due to rampant human wickedness and depravity
(6:5). God did not act inappropriately in doing so, not only because the
people deserved nothing less, but also because He repeatedly warned the people
of impending disaster, and was longsuffering in giving them ample opportunity
to repent (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:9). The Bible provides instance after
instance where evil people received their “just desserts.” God is not to be
blamed nor deemed unjust for levying deserved punishment for sin, even as
honest, impartial judges in America today are not culpable when they mete out
just penalties for criminal behavior. Retribution upon flagrant, ongoing,
impenitent lawlessness is not only right and appropriate; it is absolutely
indispensable and necessary (see Miller, 2002).

In this case, Saul was afflicted with “an evil spirit” as a punishment for his
insistent defiance of God’s will. He had committed flagrant violations of
God’s commands on two previous occasions (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:11,19). His
persistence in this lifelong pattern of disobedient behavior certainly
deserved direct punitive response from God (e.g., 31:4). 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).

A second clarification regarding the sending of an evil spirit upon Saul is
the question of, in what sense the spirit was “from the Lord.” To be honest
and fair, the biblical interpreter must be willing to allow the peculiar
linguistic features of ancient languages to be clarified and understood in
accordance with the way those languages functioned. Specifically, ancient
Hebrew (like most all other languages, then and now) was literally loaded with
figurative language—i.e., figures of speech, Semitisms, colloquialisms,
and idioms. It frequently was the case that “[a]ctive verbs were used by the
Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the
thing which the agent is said to do” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 823, emp. in orig.;
cf. MacKnight, 1954, p. 29). Similarly, the figure of speech known as
“metonymy of the subject” occurs “[w]here the action is put for the
declaration concerning it: or where what is said _to be done_ is put for what
is declared, or permitted , or foretold as _to be_ done: or where an
action, said _to be done_ , is put for _the giving occasion_ for such action”
(Bullinger, p. 570, italics in orig., emp. added). Hence, when the Bible says
that the “distressing spirit” that troubled Saul was “from the Lord,” the
writer was using an idiom to indicate that the Lord allowed or permitted
the distressing spirit to come upon Saul. George Williams commented: “What God
permits He is stated in the Bible to perform” (1960, p. 127).

In this second case, God did not directly send upon Saul an evil spirit;
rather He allowed it to happen in view of Saul’s own propensity for
stubborn disobedience. Gleason Archer commented on this point: “By these
successive acts of rebellion against the will and law of God, King Saul left
himself wide open to satanic influence—just as Judas Iscariot did after he had
determined to betray the Lord Jesus” (1982, p. 179). One need not necessarily
suppose that this demonic influence overwhelmed Saul’s free will. Satan
can have power over us only insofar as we encourage or invite him to do
so—“for what God fills not, the devil will” (Clarke, n.d., 2:259).

It is particularly interesting to note how the Bible links the frequent
attempts at subversion by Satan with the redemptive scheme of God to provide
atonement through the Christ. David, an ancestor of Christ, had to face Satan
in the form of this “evil spirit” that sought to harm him through Saul, even
as Jesus Himself had to face Satan’s attempts to subvert Him (Genesis 3:15;
Matthew 4:1-11; cf. Matthew 2:16; Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 12:4). Williams
went on to observe: “This explains why so many of those who were the ancestors
of Christ were the objects of Satan’s peculiar cunning and hatred” (p. 153).

A third consideration regarding the “evil spirit” that came upon Saul is the
fact that the term “spirit” (_ruach_) has a wide range of meanings: air (i.e.,
breath or wind); the vital principle of life or animating force; the rational
mind where thinking and decision-making occurs; the Holy Spirit of God
(Gesenius, 1847, pp. 760-761), and even disposition of mind or attitude
(Harris, et al., 1980, 2:836). Likewise, the word translated “evil” (KJV),
“distressing” (NKJV), or “injurious” (NIV margin) is a word (_ra‘a_) that can
mean “bad,” “unhappy,” or “sad of heart or mind” (Gesenius, p. 772). It can
refer to “a variety of negative attitudes common to wicked people, and be
extended to include the consequences of that kind of lifestyle” (Harris, et
al., 2:856).

In view of these linguistic data, the “evil spirit” that came upon Saul may
well have been his own bad attitude—his ugly disposition of mind—that he
manifested over and over again. Here is a persistent problem with which so
many people grapple—the need to get their attitude straight regarding God’s
will for their lives, and the need to have an unselfish approach to life and
the people around them. We can be “our own worst enemy.” Such certainly was
the case with Saul—and he bore total responsibility for his own actions. He
could not blame God or an external “evil spirit.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
summarize this point quite adequately: “His own gloomy reflections—the
consciousness that he had not acted up to the character of an Israelitish
king—the loss of his throne, and the extinction of his royal house, made him
jealous, irritable, vindictive, and subject to fits of morbid melancholy”
(n.d., p. 185). Indeed, all people ultimately choose to allow Satan to
rule them by their capitulation to their own sinful inclinations, desires, and
decisions (cf. Genesis 4:7; Luke 22:3; Acts 5:3).

In view of these considerations, God and the Bible are exonerated from
wrongdoing in the matter of Saul being the recipient of an evil spirit. When
adequate evidence is gathered, the facts may be understood in such a way that
God is shown to be righteous and free from unfair treatment of Saul. Like
every other accountable human being who has ever lived, Saul made his own
decisions, and reaped the consequences accordingly.

As early Christian writers and theologians have noted, God permits such afflictions either for our chastisement or to allow us the opportunity to turn back to Him in repentance. Thus, even when facing a 'distressing spirit', the appropriate response is humility and seeking God's mercy.