RUAH is probably one of the most difficult biblical ideas to define, if indeed there is one definition for it. Our concern here is with two of its combinations, ruah Y and ruah Elohim. While our chief interest is the investigation of such expressions that speak of the coming of the spirit of God upon a man, it may not be unadvisable to look carefully at those passages too where ruah Y and ruah Elohim occur not in that specific relationship to man.
Quite clearly, in a number of places in the Bible, notwithstanding the usual translations, ruah Y does not mean Spirit of Y, but is to be translated as a wind of Y, meaning, a wind caused by Y. When the sons of the prophets came to greet Elisha, after his master Elijah had been taken from him in a whirlwind, and offered to go and look for Elijah, they did not say, as the Revised Version has it: “lest peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.”1II Kings 2:16. Cf. also the J.P.S. translation. It is most unlikely that the Spirit of the Lord would ever engage in such antics. They were speaking of a very real wind of God, caused by him especially to carry Elijah away, that might have dropped the prophet at some distant spot in the mountain or in some valley. Similarly, when the trusted Obadiah hesitates to go on Elijah’s errand to Ahab to announce the prophets reappearance, it is not that he fears that “the Spirit of the Lord” shall carry Elijah “whither I know not.”2I Kings 18:12; cf. the Revised Version and the J.P.S. translation. What Obadiah is afraid of is that Elijah might disappear again, carried away as if by a mighty wind from God. The experience with which the prophet Ezekiel was so familiar was not that he was carried by a spirit, but—as language and style prove—that he was taken up and put down again by an actual wind. Therefore, when the hand of God was upon him and—as we are told in the opening verse of chapter 37—he was “carried out” and “set down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,” this was not done “in the spirit of the Lord” but through the instrumentality of a wind brought on by God.3The J.P.S. translation has: and the Lord carried me out in a spirit. This is ingenuous. It separates Y from ruah and connects it with the verb vayisoenee which seems to be without a subject. However, there is no need for such distortion of the syntax. As so often in the Bible, the subject is assumed and quite clearly it is Y of Yad Y, immediately preceding the verb. B’ruah is not “in a spirit.” The prefix, beth, is instrumental. Ezekiel was carried out by a wind from God.
The usage in these passages is not different from the one in Hosea,4Hos. 13:16. that, announcing the punishment of Ephraim, makes mention of an east wind, which will come from the wilderness to dry up his fountain, and calls it, ruah Y, a wind of Y. The familiar passage in Isaiah, which declares all flesh to be grass and all its goodliness to be “as the flower of the field” also speaks of ruah Y, which blows upon it and causes the “grass” to wither and the “flower” to fade. Most definitely what is meant here is not the spirit of God. Neither is much gained here by rendering the phrase under discussion as the breath of the Lord.5Isa. 40:7. Cf. the Revised Version and the J.P.S. translation. Why should the breath of the Lord cause grass to wither and flower to fade? It is much simpler and more meaningful to understand the ruah here as a wind sent by God. This applies also to the way in which the phrase is used in chapter 59 of Isaiah. There, too, distress will not come in like a flood, “which the breath of the Lord driveth,” but like one that is driven by a mighty wind, a wind of God.6Vs. 19. See the J.P.S. translation; cf. also the forced and unconvincing translation in the R.V.
In all these passages, ruah Y is either a wind, miraculously caused by God, or simply a very powerful wind. It is to be noted that in contexts of this nature it is always ruah Y and never ruah Elohim. Only in the opening verses of Genesis do we find, ruah Elohim, where most certainly it does not mean a wind of Elohim. A hovering ruah is no wind. Once again the biblical usage here seems to agree with what we have found as we discussed the knowledge of God. There, the manifestation of divine power, of mastery over nature, or the execution of judgment, brought the knowledge that He was Y. Here, too, ruah that indicates might, or divine mastery over nature, or the power of punishing judgment is called ruah Y and not ruah Elohim. This is further supported by what we find as we turn to our main investigation in this chapter, to the passages that speak of the ruah of God that descends on a man. In that context, and in its simplest form, ruah Y stands for the infusion of supernatural physical strength into a mere man. As Samson was approaching the vineyards of Timnah and a young lion was charging at him, “the ruah of Y came mightily upon him and he rent him as one would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand.”7Judg. 14:6. See also Ibid. vs. 19. On another occasion, when Samson was delivered up into the hands of the Philistines bound and helpless and the Philistines were gleefully getting ready to avenge themselves on him, “the ruah of Y came mightily upon him, and the ropes that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands dropped from off his hands.”8Ibid. 15:14. In these cases ruah Y equipped an individual with great personal prowess and physical power in order to save himself in dangerous situations and from personal enemies. But ruah Y may accomplish much more than that. It may inspire a person with courage and authority of leadership to save an entire people. When the Midianites and the Amalekites and “the children of the east” pitched their tents in the valley of Jezreel in order to do battle against Israel, “the ruah of Y clothed Gideon” and he became the leader of his people against its enemies.9Ibid. 6:34. The same is said of Jephtah.10Ibid. 11:29. The nature of the effect of ruah Y on a person is made clearer in what is said about Othniel the son of Kenaz: “And the ruah of Y came upon him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and Y delivered Cushan-rishatayim king of Aram into his hand.”11Ibid. 3:10. Ruah Y inspires not only strength and courage for leading a people in war against an external enemy but also equips a man with the strength and authority of personality that are needed to head a people in the conduct of its internal domestic affairs. Not merely physical but also moral and spiritual strength that are inseparable from the office of a shofet in ancient Israel, the authority of leadership, were granted to a person by “the coming upon him” of ruah Y. This comes to expression even in the case of Samson. When the Bible says of him that “the ruah of Y began to move him in Mahaneh-Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol,”12Ibid. 13:25. this—of course—does not mean some miraculous increase of bodily strength alone, but some divine inspiration that reached his entire personality to be God’s chosen instrument in Israel’s struggle against the Philistines. This is even clearer in the case of David. After his secret anointment to kingship by Samuel, the Bible says: “and the ruah of Y came mightily upon David from that day forward.” And almost immediately afterward we read: “Now the ruah of Y departed from Saul.”13I Sam. 16:13–14. The ruah of Y gave David intrinsic kingship, a strength and dignity of personality, a purposefulness of living, a sense of vocation that a man destined to be king needed. With the ruah of Y goes also success in enterprise and action. All this was taken from Saul. He still held on to the royal office but the ruah of Y had departed from him. The charisma of kingship was taken from him.
We may perhaps see an actual definition of ruah Y in what is said by Isaiah about the shoot that shall come forth out of the stock of Jesse.
And the ruah of Y shall rest upon him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and might,
The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Y. (11:2)
The ruah of Y includes all this. However, it is most interesting to note that within ruah Y the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of knowledge and the fear of God, are not separated from the spirit of counsel and might. The one upon whom ruah Y descends unites within himself wisdom and might, the fear of God and effective counsel. But are not those exactly the qualities that the man of action, when he is the God-chosen leader, would have? And indeed, it is as such that the function of “the shoot out of the stock of Jesse” is described by Isaiah.
And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes,
Neither decide after the hearing of his ears;
But with righteousness shall he judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the land;
And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth,
And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins,
And faithfulness the girdle of his reins. (11:3–5)
The function of the Messiah is not essentially different from that of the Judges in early Israel. What the shoftim were doing in the context of contemporary history in Israel, the Messiah is destined to perform on the much more exalted level of universal history. In the same tradition Micah says of himself:
But I truly am full of power by the ruah of Y,
And of justice, and of might,
To declare unto Jacob his transgression,
And to Israel his sin. (3:8)
Here, too, ruah Y pours power into the prophet and it is a power that fills Micah with justice and might. Indeed, one whose task it is to declare unto Israel their transgressions, may need all the power with which ruah Y alone may provide him.
We may then say that all the cases we have discussed have something in common: the ruah that comes upon a man and infuses him with power, be it physical or spiritual, that bestows upon a person authority and leadership, as well as the effectiveness of such wisdom—imbued strength and authority, is referred to as ruah Y.
Is there a common denominator in those cases in which the spirit that comes over a person is referred to as ruah Elohim?
When Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel “dwelling tribe by tribe” and beheld the vision of the goodly tents of Jacob, he was prophesying concerning the future destiny of the Jewish people. At the opening of the vision it is said: “and the ruah of Elohim came upon him. And he took up his parable.”14Num. 24:2. Is it possible that ruah Elohim, when it attaches itself to a human being, means prophetic inspiration? So it would seem from this and numerous other passages in the Bible. When Saul, who went on his famous search of his father’s asses and found a kingdom, left Samuel and met, as predicted, a “band of prophets,” the Bible says of him: “and the ruah of Elohim came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them.”15I Sam. 10:10. Later, when kingship was taken from him, it was ruah Y that departed from him; when he too was among the prophets, it was ruah Elohim that inspired him. At one occasion, Saul sent his men to capture David, who had escaped to Samuel in Ramah. They were defeated by a company of prophets, who were prophesying at the time. For when the men watched the prophets, they themselves were engulfed by the spirit of the moment, so that the Bible reports: “the ruah of Elohim came upon the messengers of Saul and they also prophesied.” Finally, when Saul himself came to get David, the same thing happened to him too. He too, was overwhelmed by ruah Elohim and prophesied, says the text.16Ibid. 19:20 and 23. Quite clearly, ruah Elohim stands for prophetic inspiration. When the ruah of Elohim came upon Azariah the son of Oded or when the ruah of Elohim clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, they went with their message to king and people as the prophets of God.17II Chron. 15:1; 24:20.
There are, however, a number of points still left which require further clarification. In the case of Eldad and Medad, who did not cease to prophesy in the camp, Moses said: “Would that all the people of Y were prophets, that Y would put his ruah upon them.”18Num. 11:29. One should not see in this an exception that contradicts the rule. Although it is Y who is asked to put his ruah upon them so that they may be inspired to prophesy, this ruah is not called ruah Y. Since Y is Elohim, both ruah Y and ruah Elohim are put upon men by Y. “His ruah” in this context may very well mean ruah Elohim, which normally is the cause of prophecy. As “His ruah” may stand for the specific significance of ruah Y and ruah Elohim, so, too, “My ruah” may mean either ruah Y or ruah Elohim. Of both these manifestations of divine ruah God may say, My ruah. We find the phrase carrying both connotation of power and authority or prophetic vocation. Of his servant and elect God says:
I have put My ruah upon him,
He shall make the right to go forth to the nations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
He shall make the right to go forth according to the truth.
He shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the right in the earth;
And the isles shall wait for his teaching. (Isa. 42:1–4)19Cf. also Zech. 4:6 where “My ruah” stands for ruah Y, signifying effective mightiness of the spirit.
All the elements of what we have found to be components of ruah Y are present in this text: leadership and judgment, wisdom and might, effectiveness and success of accomplishment. My ruah here is ruah Y. On the other hand, speaking of the time when Israel will know that God is in their midst and that Y is their Elohim, Joel also uses the expression, “My ruah,” and this is what he has to say about it:
And it shall come to pass afterward,
That I will pour out My ruah upon all flesh;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions. (3:1)
“My ruah” in this context is ruah Elohim, which bestows prophetic powers on human beings.
There seems to be, however, some exceptions to the rule. In two cases ruah Elohim does not mean prophecy. Both refer to the great biblical artist, Bezalel, who was responsible for the workmanship in connection with the setting up of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness. Of him God said to Moses that he had “filled him with the ruah of Elohim, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.”20Exod. 31:3 and 35:31. While there is no mention here of prophecy, neither is this a case of a man being infused with “counsel and might,” with the kind of wisdom and understanding that make for authority and leadership over people. The ruah Elohim bestowed upon Bezalel was artistically creative imagination and ability. May this be subsumed under prophetic inspiration? In rabbinical tradition Bezalel was inspired not unlike a prophet.21Cf. Onkelos, ibid. 35:31. We may also note that whereas in the case of prophecy it is said that the ruah Elohim comes upon a person, Bezalel is filled with ruah Elohim. Be that as it may, according to our definition the term, ruah Y, would certainly be out of place in the case of Bezalel. He was neither a shofet nor a leader of men, neither a man of great physical strength and courage or of authority over men. As an inspired artist, he was essentially a man of the spirit. We shall then expand our definition of ruah Elohim and say that, when it attaches itself to a human being, it usually means prophetic inspiration but it may also include the divine gift of artistic creativity.22Naturally, the ruah Elohim ra’ah that occasionally plagued Saul (cf. I Sam. 18:10; 19:9) was not the spirit of prophecy. It is to be noted that of the ruah Elohim ra’ah, the evil spirit that frightens Saul, it is said that it came el Saul, to Saul, whereas on the occasions when the ruah Elohim caused him to prophecy, as in all cases of prophecy, the preposition is al. The prophetic inspiration comes upon a person. It is nonetheless significant that even of the ruah Elohim ra’ah it is said that it came to Saul and he “prophesied in the midst of the house.” It is reasonable to assume that he did not prophesy, but showed the external signs of prophetic possession by the spirit without any meaningful prophetic message. He acted like one possessed in a rage of mental disbalance. Cf. Hos. 9:7. See also Concluding Notes on this chapter.
There are, however, a number of passages where ruah Y does refer to prophecy. In order to see more clearly their specific nature, we shall list them together. Once again we have to refer to an event in the life of Saul, which we have mentioned before. When Samuel predicted the various signs that Saul would encounter on his way home, after his search for the lost asses of his father, he also said to him:
And the ruah of Y will come mightily upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.23I Sam. 10:6.
Here it is the ruah of Y that brings about prophecy. One of the great prophecies of Isaiah is introduced with the words:
The ruah of the Lord Y is upon me;
Because Y hath anointed me
To bring good tidings unto the humble. (61:1)
Similarly, when Ezekiel tells how he was called upon to prophesy, he reports:
And the ruah of Y fell upon me, and He said unto me: Speak.24Ezek. 11:5.
The false prophet, Zedekiah, who smote Micaiah on the cheek, also refers to the spirit of prophecy as ruah Y, when he says:
Which way went the ruah of Y from me to speak unto thee?25I Kings 22:24.
While these cases seem to be exceptional, it is possible that a careful reading of the sequence of events, as they are told in the story of Saul, may contain a hint for their deeper understanding. When Samuel predicts that Saul will prophesy, he uses the term, ruah Y; but when the Bible describes what actually happened, saying: “And it was so,” what we are told is that the ruah of Elohim came mightily upon Saul. Now, if we look again at the four exceptions, we see that in every one of them it is an individual who refers to prophetic inspiration as ruah Y, Samuel predicting the future, Isaiah and Ezekiel telling about their personal experiences, Zedekiah mocking Micaiah about his prophetic qualifications. On the other hand, the anonymous author always refers to prophecy as the result of the coming of ruah Elohim upon man. We may guess, perhaps, the significance of this usage, if we reflect once more on the difference between ruah Y and ruah Elohim. The difference between them seems to be consistent with what we have found in the previous chapter in our discussion of the knowledge of God. The manifestation of divine might and power, of judgment and supreme authority, brings the knowledge that He is Y; the revelation of divine providence and care, of God’s nearness and concern communicates the knowledge that Y is Elohim. It is consistent with this distinction that the divine ruah, which bestows power and authority, should be referred to as ruah Y, whereas the one that inspires prophecy should be called ruah Elohim. The most intimate closeness between God and man is that which exists between God and the prophet. In the moment of prophetic ecstasy, man and God are nearest to each other. It is not divine power and transcendence that are in evidence, but divine love and immanence. It is ruah Elohim that makes man a prophet. However, the actual nature of the prophetic communion with God is the great mystery. It is conceivable that the prophet himself is unable to give an adequate account of it after the actual experience. He is left with a certainty; but not necessarily with an intelligent grasping of what happened, so that he might be able to describe it explicitly. In such a situation one is careful with the word and approaches with awe and respect. It is the biblical author alone who can testify that the ruah Elohim came upon a person. Human beings, speaking of the event, dare not draw as nigh. They hesitate to designate it with such exactitude. It is not for them to make the clear distinction. It is sufficient unto them to use the term ruah Y, which in its comprehensive sense includes the specific meanings of ruah Elohim as well as ruah Y; for Y, He is Elohim.26In our opinion II Chron. 20:14 is no exception to the rule. It is true that normally a declaration like that made by Jahaziel would be considered a prophecy; in the light of all the other passages that we have analyzed, however, the statement that the ruah of Y came upon him is an indication that his experience was not a prophetic one. It may very well be that Jahaziel was suddenly overcome with a sense of courage and certainty concerning the outcome of one particular confrontation with Ammon and Moab. On that one occasion he might have spoken to the people with the same sense of authority and vocation that also imbued a Jephtah or some of the other Judges in their time. And, indeed, his words are only concerned with the momentary crisis of a threatening war.
CHAPTER 3
Concluding Notes
Let it be clearly understood that according to our interpretation, only the expressions ruah Y and ruah Elohim have the meanings which we outlined. As indicated in our text, such expressions as, “My ruah” or “His ruah” may have differing meanings, depending on the context in which they occur. It would seem to us that a great deal of misunderstanding in biblical exegesis is due to the fact that Bible scholars have not recognized that ruah Y or ruah Elohim are termini technici, as it were. Thus they identify every kind of ruah which somehow emanates from God with the Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Lord. Characteristic of such misunderstanding is Davidson’s quotation (Theology of the Old Testament, p. 121) from Job (26:13) as: “By the Spirit of God the heavens are made bright,” whereas in the text we have, “by His ruah”! “His ruah” here has nothing to do either with ruah Y or ruah Elohim, which are the mark of the charisma of the leader or the prophet. It is equally incorrect to quote Isaiah 30:28, as an example of ruah Y, as Snaith does (The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, p. 144). “His ruah”—we have discussed the passage in our text—is neither ruah Y nor ruah Elohim, though logically it is God’s no less than the earth is His and all the powers of nature are His. Neither is it permissible to identify ruah hokhmah with ruah Y or ruah Elohim. Snaith is altogether wrong trying to describe ruah-adonai on the basis of passages in which the term ruah occurs, but not the specific formula ruah Y or ruah Elohim (cf. p. 157). In all such cases one must determine the meaning by the internal evidence of the context.
No less serious are the misunderstandings caused by not distinguishing between ruah Y and ruah Elohim. Mowinckel, for instance, discussing the Spirit of the Lord (op. cit., p. 16) writes:
Diese Verstellung dient in der alten Zeit und bei der älteren vulgär-profetie eben als Erklärung der extra-ordinären, ekstatischen Phänomen des Nabi’ismus oder bei den “begeisterten” Helden der wilden “Landnahme” Zeit. Nicht so sehr die Worte des Nabi als vielmehr sein “rasendes” Gebähren und die Kampfeswut eines Samson wurden von dem Geiste Y abgeleitet; erst eine viel spätere Zeit hat in dem Geiste Y das inspirierende Medium eines höheren religiösen und sittlichen Lebens gesehen.
It is not proper to treat the inspiration of the hero and the “ravings” of the early prophets as one phenomenon. The “inspiration” of the hero is his acquisition of superhuman strength which is normally brought about by ruah Y (for the only apparent exception in the story of Saul, see our comments below); in the language of the anonymous biblical narrator the prophets are always inspired by ruah Elohim. See our discussion of this point. Nor is it proper to say that it was more the “ravings” of the prophet which were ascribed to the Spirit of God, rather than what he had to say. The formula is: and the ruah Elohim descended upon him and he prophesied. The condition of trance, in which the early prophets were thrown by their experience, seems to be incidental. Nowhere is ruah Elohim (or ruah Y) directly connected with it.
Davidson (op. cit., p. 125) does catch a glimpse of a possible distinction between ruah Y and ruah Elohim. He is, however, unable to attach any importance to it, because for him—as we saw in our concluding notes on Chapter 1—Y stands for the God of Israel in a specific sense. As we have pointed out, he reverses the relationship between Y and Elohim in those places where Y is declared to be the Elohim. But he who does this cannot appreciate the distinction between ruah Y and ruah Elohim.
Snaith does note the distinction between ruah Y and ruah Elohim and attempts to explain it. We are, however, unable to agree with him. He maintains that “Ruach-Adonai controls the prophet” (op. cit., p. 154). According to our interpretation, ruah Y sustains the hero, the man of authority, the leader; ruah Elohim inspires the prophets. Let us examine Snaith’s proofs. He writes:
Ezekiel II.2 reads, “and the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet,” and then we find immediately following, the message which was delivered to the prophet. So also Ezekiel III.24, and especially XI.5, where the spirit which enables the prophet to speak the word of prophecy is called the ruach-adonai.
Now as to Ezekiel 2:2 and 3:24, we note first that no mention is made of ruah Y. The undetermined ruah—a wind, a spirit, a power—occurs. As always in such cases, the meaning has to be elicited from the context. Having described his first momentous vision, Ezekiel continues:
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Y. And when I saw, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spoke. And He said unto me: “Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak with thee.” And ruah entered into me when He spoke unto me, and set me upon my feet; and I heard Him that spoke to me. And He said to me.…
Quite clearly the Speaker is not to be identified with the ruah. The ruah here has nothing to do with the spirit of prophecy. Lying on the ground, Ezekiel hears the Speaker. Even before the ruah enters him, the prophet is being addressed. This is the beginning of the act of prophecy. Even at the moment of the entry of the ruah, the ruah is distinguished from the Speaker. The ruah has only one function. The words of the Speaker: “Son of man, stand upon thy feet” and the subsequent statement that the spirit that entered Ezekiel set him upon his feet give a full indication of that function. Ezekiel’s falling upon his face before the vision was not a completely free act of worshipping prostration. He is physically too overwhelmed by his experience. In a condition of complete bodily exhaustion, he lies there on the ground (cf. Daniel 10:8) before God. He hears a voice that speaks but he is unable to grasp the message. “Stand up and listen” says the voice, but he has no strength left. The ruah enters and sets him up on his feet. The ruah restores the prophet’s bodily energies. The prophet may now receive the message, and the Speaker that was there all the time and spoke to Ezekiel even before the ruah approached, continues with his message. The situation is exactly the same in Ezekiel 3:24. In neither of these cases does ruah “control the prophet” nor has it anything to do with the spirit of prophecy.
In Ezekiel 11:5, ruah Y is mentioned and in connection with the actual act of prophecy. But let us look at the text and compare it with other passages which mention the spirit of prophecy. Of that occasion of prophecy Ezekiel says:
And the Spirit of Y fell upon me, and He said unto me: Speak: Thus saith Y.
This example does seem to deviate from our rule that ruah Y is an indication of mightiness and authority and not of the spirit of prophecy. This, however, is not the only departure from the norm. The entire passage is unusual and, indeed, exceptional for two reasons. Nowhere else do we find the expression, “the spirit of Y falling upon the prophet.” Usually, ruah Elohim is upon, descends on, or clothes the prophet. The expression used here by Ezekiel—especially in its Hebrew connotation—suggests almost an attack by the Spirit. Equally unusual is the phrase: “He said unto me: ‘Speak: Thus saith Y.’ ” We are familiar with: “Thus says Y”; but the formula: “Speak: Thus says Y” is unique. It gives the impression of talking to a child, making him memorize a message. It is unlike inspiration and more like a technical means of conveying a message by using the prophet as an impersonal instrument of communication. This would explain “the attack” by the Spirit of Y. It would seem to us that this was a lower form of prophecy. It was not the ruah Elohim, the spirit of prophecy, which descended upon Ezekiel. The mightiness of ruah Y fell upon him, overwhelmed him, and reduced him to an impersonal mouthpiece of the divine message. Be that as it may, the very uniqueness of the passage does not permit us to draw from it general conclusions as to the meaning of ruah Y. It certainly does not contradict our analysis of the concept.
The Snaith quotation from Micah 3:8 proves—as we have shown in our text—our position and not Snaith’s. The passage does not speak of prophecy, but of mightiness and authority. The Spirit of Y fills Micah with power, judgment, and might to declare unto Jacob his transgressions. To declare Israel his sin requires of a man strength, courage, and authority. This is not the gift of prophecy, but the gift bestowed upon the hero-judges by ruah Y in the early history of Israel. It is in the same line of tradition. On the other hand, Nehemiah 9:30 proves nothing. The phrase there is “Thy spirit through Thy prophets.” To say that “Thy spirit” is ruah-adonai, as Snaith concludes, is begging the question. If, as we have shown, the spirit of prophecy is ruah Elohim, then “Thy spirit” in this context is ruah Elohim and not ruah Y.
The distinction between ruah Y and ruah Elohim is explained by Snaith in these words (op. cit., pp. 156–57):
At first superhumanness and abnormality is all that is required of the ruach-adonai, but gradually the idea ethicized as well as personalized. The ethicizing process can best be seen in the story of the transference of the kingdom from Saul to David. In the first part of the story, that part which deals with the choice of Saul, the two phrases ruach-adonai and ruach-elohim are used without any difference of interpretation in the variation, I Samuel X, 6, 10, XI, 6. But with the choice of David, a change appears. In I Sam. XVI it says that the “ruach-adonai lept upon David from that day forward.” According to the next verse, “the ruach-adonai had departed from Saul, and an evil ruach from adonai terrified him.” Henceforward we get the phrases ruach elohim and an evil ruach elohim used of Saul and his servants, I Sam. XVI, 15, 16, 23, XVIII, 10, XIX, 20, 23. The writers seem to have been guided by two fixed principles. They were determined to retain the phrase ruach-adonai for the king whom the Lord had chosen, i.e., for the Messianic King. They wished to avoid saying that the ruach-adonai was evil, doubtless intending elohim to be understood in the profane sense. On the changeover from Saul to David, they used the phrase “an evil ruach from adonai.” The case of I Sam. XIX, 9 is peculiarly informative as to this editorial process. The Hebrew text reads, “the ruach-adonai was evil to Saul.…” It is strange that Massoretes let this pass. For whilst they allowed to pass “an evil ruach from adonai,” they have avoided saying that ruach-adonai was evil.
Let us consider his points one by one. Is it correct to say that at first all that is required of ruah Y is “superhumanness and abnormality”? If superhumanness is “abnormality,” which of course it is in a sense, it is correct. But if what he has in mind is the “ravings” of the early prophets, of which—for instance—Mowinckel speaks, it is wrong. Ruah Y is never associated with this kind of spiritual abnormalcy. On the other hand, Snaith is right in maintaining that ruah Y applies to “the king, whom the Lord had chosen, i.e., for the Messianic King.” However, ruah Y is reserved for the Messianic King because it stands for “superhumanness,” i.e., mightiness, authority, judgment and counsel, leadership. We have shown this in our discussion in our text. The Messianic King is not a prophet, but the ideal Hero-Judge who was also sustained by ruah Y. The ruah Y which departed from Saul and “lept” upon David is the charisma of royal authority and success, not the spirit of prophecy. This has nothing to do with the “fits” of prophecy which Saul had before and after the event. As we have shown, even after the changeover from Saul to David, ruah Elohim retains its meaning of prophecy (cf. II Chronicles 15:1; 24:20, etc.). Nor is it correct to say that ruah Y is not used in reference to Saul after the changeover. Snaith is puzzled by I Samuel 19:9. How come the Massoretes let ruah Y stand, when—according to the Snaith theory—the “profane” ruah elohim was expected? Snaith would have done well to compare I Samuel 19:9 with I Samuel 18:10. Let us take a careful look at both passages.
And an evil ruah Y was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand; and David was playing with his hand. And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the spear; but he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, and he smote the spear into the wall.
And it came to pass on the morrow that an evil ruah Elohim came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house; and David played with his hand, as he did day by day; and Saul had his spear in his hand. And Saul cast the spear.
In the first passage ruah Y is mentioned; in the second, ruah Elohim. Shall we say that the terms are used indiscriminately and without any difference between them? But since this occurs after ruah Y has passed on from Saul to David, what becomes of Snaith’s theory? There is, however, an explanation. In our second quotation, ruah Elohim is followed by the phrase, “and he prophesied in the midst of the house”; not so in our first quotation. Even here we have a strict adherence to the rule that prophecy is connected with ruah Elohim. Our first quotation speaks only of Saul’s violence. It is in keeping with our findings that ruah Y, which normally stands for the communication of might and power, should mean “superhuman” violence even when it is “evil.” It is, therefore, not correct to say that after ruah Y departed from Saul, only ruah Elohim is appropriate for him. When the latter term is applied to him and his servants, it is because some form of prophecy is being described. We see this clearly in the case of his servants and his own in I Samuel 19:20–24. No matter what the value of their propehcy was ruah Elohim was responsible for it. At the same time, it should be noted that the manner of association between the human being and ruah Elohim in these passages appears to be different from the way it appears in the earlier chapters (13:23; 18:10) where ruah Elohim is ra’ah, evil. The ruah Elohim ra’ah is el, to, Saul; but in chapter 19—as everywhere else in the Bible—it is al, upon, the person distinguished by prophecy. Since the change in preposition from al to el occurs only in the cases of the “evil” spirit of God, it must be the clue to the explanation of a prophetic state caused by the “evil” ruah Elohim. It would seem—as we have pointed out in our text—that when genuine prophecy is described, the association between man and ruah Elohim is indicated by al; ruah Elohim is upon the prophet. Where, however, a prophetic condition—and this must be only the outward appearance of the prophetic trance or ecstasy, not its inner contents—is brought on by a ruah Elohim ra’ah, the spirit is to the man thus affected. (The only exception seems to be I Samuel 16:16. It should, however, be remembered that the words are those of the servants of Saul, to whom the distinction may not have been clear at all.) The appreciation of this distinction may help us to clear up the strange idea of “the evil” ruah Y or the evil ruah Elohim. We noticed Snaith’s puzzlement that the Massoretes allowed, in I Samuel 19:9, the phrase that the Ruah-Adonai was evil to Saul. Actually, the Massoretes did not read it that way. They separated ra’ah from ruah Y by the massoretic sign of the P’sik. Accordingly, they read: And there was a ruah Y; it was evil to Saul. Even more interesting is their reading of 18:10, where they place the word ra’ah between two such signs of separation and must have read: a ruah Elohim came—it was evil—to Saul. It would seem to us that in this manner not only did they mean to separate the attribute, evil, from God’s spirit, but also wished to interpret the unusual preposition el in place of al. To refer el directly to ruah implies certain difficulties. “There was spirit of Y to Saul” or “a spirit of Elohim descended to Saul” is awkward. The syntax requires the proposition al. But if we separate ra’ah from ruah and make el refer to ra’ah, then we get a tolerable sentence. The sentence becomes divided into two parts: And there was a ruah of Y; it was evil to Saul. The adjective, evil, no longer describes the spirit, but its effect on Saul. But that the effect of the ruah on Saul was evil need have nothing to do with the ruah; it might have been due to what was there in the nature of Saul. Ruah Y, which normally communicates strength and authority, was turned into violence just as ruah Elohim, which is normally the source of prophecy, was turned into “prophetic” ravings, thanks to the manner in which Saul, owing to his own failings, responded to the spirit.
There remain only the passages about the ruah which occur before ruah Y departed from Saul. Snaith believes that in them, ruah Y and ruah Elohim occur without any differentiation. We do not think so. It is true that 10:6 has ruah Y, where we might have expected ruah Elohim. We have discussed this passage together with the other three exceptions in the Bible. We also noted that when Saul’s actual experience of prophecy is described (ibid. 10), we have ruah Elohim. Chapter 11:6 does have ruah Elohim and we might have expected ruah Y. But one should read on until verse 10 where we hear the words of Saul and his men addressed to the messengers: “Thus shall ye say unto the men of Jabesh-gilead: To-morrow, by the time the sun is hot, ye shall have deliverance.” Such are the accents of prophecy inspired by ruah Elohim, and not the style of the Hero-Judge, due to ruah Y.