# 1 Samuel 28 and the Witch/Medium: What spirit did she bring up?



## Romans922

Who does the witch of En-dor call up? This is a poll, I will give 3 options and the fourth will be other.

The text follows (NKJV).

11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you _are_ Saul!” 13 And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.” 14 So he said to her, “What _is_ his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he _is_ covered with a mantle.” And Saul perceived that it _was_ Samuel, and he stooped with _his_ face to the ground and bowed down. 15 Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me and does not answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do.” 16 Then Samuel said: “So why do you ask me, seeing the LORD has departed from you and has become your enemy? 17 And the LORD has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons _will be_ with me. The LORD will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.” 20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, and was dreadfully afraid because of the words of Samuel. And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten no food all day or all night.​


----------



## Leslie

Given that the spirit read Saul the riot act and urged him to repent, how could it be any evil spirit? The devil's favorite pastime is not bringing people to repentance.


----------



## Herald

I like what Matthew Henry has to say about this passage:



> We have here the conference between Saul and Satan. Saul came in disguise (v. 8), but Satan soon discovered him, v. 12. Satan comes in disguise, in the disguise of Samuel's mantle, and Saul cannot discover him. Such is the disadvantage we labour under, in wrestling with the rulers of the darkness of this world, that they know us, while we are ignorant of their wiles and devices.
> 
> I. The spectre, or apparition, personating Samuel, asks why he is sent for (v. 15): Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up? To us this discovers that it was an evil spirit that personated Samuel; for (as bishop Patrick observes) it is not in the power of witches to disturb the rest of good men and to bring them back into the world when they please; nor would the true Samuel have acknowledged such a power in magical arts: but to Saul this was a proper device of Satan's, to draw veneration from him, to possess him with an opinion of the power of divination, and so to rivet him in the devil's interests.
> 
> II. Saul makes his complaint to this counterfeit Samuel, mistaking him for the true; and a most doleful complaint it is: "I am sorely distressed, and know not what to do, for the Philistines make war against me; yet I should do well enough with them if I had but the tokens of God's presence with me; but, alas! God has departed from me." He complained not of God's withdrawings till he fell into trouble, till the Philistines made war against him, and then he began to lament God's departure. He that in his prosperity enquired not after God in his adversity thought it hard that God answered him not, nor took any notice of his enquiries, either by dreams or prophets, neither gave answers immediately himself nor sent them by any of his messengers. He does not, like a penitent, own the righteousness of God in this; but, like a man enraged, flies out against God as unkind and flies off from him: Therefore I have called thee; as if Samuel, a servant of God, would favour those whom God frowned upon, or as if a dead prophet could do him more service than the living ones. One would think, from this, that he really desired to meet with the devil, and expected no other (though under the covert of Samuel's name), for he desires advice otherwise than from God, therefore from the devil, who is a rival with God. "God denies me, therefore I come to thee. Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo." --If I fail with heaven, I will move hell.
> 
> III. It is cold comfort which this evil spirit in Samuel's mantle gives to Saul, and is manifestly intended to drive him to despair and self-murder. Had it been the true Samuel, when Saul desired to be told what he should do he would have told him to repent and make his peace with God, and recall David from his banishment, and would then have told him that he might hope in this way to find mercy with God; but, instead of that, he represents his case as helpless and hopeless, serving him as he did Judas, to whom he was first a tempter and then a tormentor, persuading him first to sell his master and then to hang himself. 1. He upbraids him with his present distress (v. 16), tells him, not only that God had departed from him, but that he had become his enemy, and therefore he must expect no comfortable answer from him: "Wherefore dost thou ask me? How can I be thy friend when God is thy enemy, or thy counsellor when he has left thee?" 2. He upbraids him with the anointing of David to the kingdom, v. 17. He could not have touched upon a string that sounded more unpleasant in the ear of Saul than this. Nothing is said to reconcile him to David, but all tends rather to exasperate him against David and widen the breach. Yet, to make him believe that he was Samuel, the apparition affirmed that it was God who spoke by him. The devil knows how to speak with an air of religion, and can teach false apostles to transform themselves into the apostles of Christ and imitate their language. Those who use spells and charms, and plead, in defence of them, that they find nothing in them but what is good, may remember what good words the devil here spoke, and yet with what a malicious design. 3. He upbraids him with his disobedience to the command of God in not destroying the Amalekites, v. 18. Satan had helped him to palliate and excuse that sin when Samuel was dealing with him to bring him to repentance, but now he aggravates it, to make him despair of God's mercy. See what those get that hearken to Satan's temptations. He himself will be their accuser, and insult over them. And see whom those resemble that allure others to that which is evil and reproach them for it when they have done. 4. He foretels his approaching ruin, v. 19. (1.) That his army should be routed by the Philistines. This is twice mentioned: The Lord shall deliver Israel into the hand of the Philistines. This he might foresee, by considering the superior strength and number of the Philistines, the weakness of the armies of Israel, Saul's terror, and especially God's departure from them. Yet, to personate a prophet, he very gravely ascribes it once and again to God: The Lord shall do it. (2.) That he and his sons should be slain in the battle: To-morrow, that is, in a little time (and, supposing that it was now after midnight, I see not but it may be taken strictly for the very next day after that which had now begun), thou and thy sons shall be with me, that is, in the state of the dead, separate from the body. Had this been the true Samuel, he could not have foretold the event unless God had revealed it to him; and, though it were an evil spirit, God might by him foretel it; as we read of an evil spirit that foresaw Ahab's fall at Ramoth-Gilead and was instrumental in it (1 Kings xxii. 20, &c.), as perhaps this evil spirit was, by the divine permission, in Saul's destruction. That evil spirit flattered Ahab, this frightened Saul, and both that they might fall; so miserable are those that are under the power of Satan; for, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest, Prov. xxix. 9.



Contrast Saul's seeking a medium with the Mount of Transfiguration.



> Matthew 17:1-3 And six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.



Our Lord was on a high mountain; symbolic of being in heaven, where God resides. No medium was sought, yet the symbol of the Law (Moses), and of the one to make straight the way of the Lord (Elijah), appear. They appear in the light; whereas Saul sought Samuel in the darkness. They appeared on a high mountain in the presence of the King of Kings; whereas the apparition of Samuel was summoned from below and in the presence of a minister of Satan.


----------



## dannyhyde

*Dr. David VanDrunen Sermon*

Dr. David VanDrunen preached on this recently. Here is the audio: http://christurc.org/audio_files/sermons/2008-07-27-vandrunen-am.mp3


----------



## Romans922

I read Henry and I believe I disagreed with him. Here's why.

1) The narrator says (not Saul, not Saul's men, not the witch), but the narrator the author of the book of Samuel says, "The woman saw Samuel..." Now if it were Saul or the witch, then we could be skeptical. Like when David in the previous chapter says he has put men of Judah to death, we can be suspicious that he may be lying and in fact is to Achish, because David (a man) says it, but here it is the AUTHOR who says, 'the woman saw Samuel.'

2) It says the woman cried out (v. 12) because she was afraid (v. 13a). It is hard to fake genuine terror, and this woman is frightened (at least Saul thinks so), perhaps she was a fake and she had never seen anything like this before. And so here she is terrified of what she sees. Or she could be so terrified because of what happens that she knows that she is dealing with a power that is far beyond her. Whatever is the case, she shows here with her actions that this is not normal. [this doesn't prove anything, but it shows the possibility at least].

3) The test of a true prophet is what? If what they say comes true, right? What does this 'Samuel' figure (whoever he may be, I think he is Samuel himself) say to Saul?

"16So why do you ask me, seeing the LORD has departed from you and has become your enemy? *[Yes that is true, He had done that]* 17 And the LORD has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. 

*Everything said here is consistent with Scripture and the prophecy Samuel made to Saul earlier in the book.*

19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons _will be_ with me. The LORD will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

*This comes true, in chapter 31, Samuel dies and Israel is defeated. They join Samuel in the grave.*

So the test of prophecy holds.

4) This is the easiest rendering of the text. Any other interpretation seems to have to make things up, if you read Matthew Henry (not that I ever like to disagree with him) he states things that are not clear in the text and he assumes things. But the interpretation of Samuel is the easiest interpretation to come to. 

5) People believe that this can't be Samuel because it says that she calls him up. And so some believe it that it must be Satan/devil because he comes up from the pit. But that seems like eisegesis. It doesn't say he comes up from the pit of hell or anything like that. It says he comes up. Well the Old Testament is not silent about God's people who are dead being in the grave (Psalm 88 for example), why couldn't this be Samuel coming up from the grave? It would make sense since then Saul and his men would be joining Samuel (in the grave). 

6) The means or the how this happens doesn't really have any bearing on who this 'Samuel' is. Obviously Saul is disobeying the Lord, but because he goes to a witch, because he does something contrary to the law (Leviticus 19, 20; Deut. 18), does that mean God can't use it to bring his judgment to his anointed one? No. Does God not permit Satan's servants (ungodly, non-Christian men) to bring the word and save sinners like you and me? So how Saul comes to the witch and calls for Samuel is a problem (sin), but that doesn't prove that it isn't Samuel. 

I'll stop there for now I guess. I believe it is Samuel.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


----------



## OPC'n

It had to be Samuel. The Bible states that it was Samuel and doesn't allude to it being anything or anybody else (I don't believe the Bible tries to trick us and make us dream up all sorts of fanciful ideas), and what Samuel said would happen did happen....proof of a real prophet.


----------



## larryjf

Not only does Scripture tell us that the woman saw Samuel, she also seems quite surprised by it...
_v12 - When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. _


----------



## toddpedlar

Got to be Samuel, for the reasons already outlined above; basically I just don't see any reason that isn't massively contrived to believe otherwise. There's no more reason to believe it isn't Samuel than to believe it was Jacob Marley.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I agree with Calvin:
*Not Samuel*; if God refused to speak to Saul through _legitimate_ means (Samuel when alive),
neither would he speak to him through _illegitimate_ means (Dead Samuel).


----------



## larryjf

Contra_Mundum said:


> I agree with Calvin:
> *Not Samuel*; if God refused to speak to Saul through _legitimate_ means (Samuel when alive),
> neither would he speak to him through _illegitimate_ means (Dead Samuel).



What would that imply about Baalam's Ass?


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Calvin:
> *Not Samuel*; if God refused to speak to Saul through _legitimate_ means (Samuel when alive),
> neither would he speak to him through _illegitimate_ means (Dead Samuel).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would that imply about Baalam's Ass?
Click to expand...


Balaam's ass did not take on a human persona. In other words, it did not claim to represent a human being. It was a divine act of God. The humorous part of that narrative is that Balaam engaged his donkey in dialog.


----------



## BobVigneault

I believe the woman was a fake though she was probably the play thing of a demon who made her think she could communicate with the dead.

I don't believe that she conjured up Samuel. I do believe that God was demonstrating to Saul and the witch that nothing is hidden from Him and God was revealing a message to each:

To Saul he simply reminded him that he blew it and there would be no second chance or escape through prayer OR witchcraft.

To the witch he revealed that she did not really control the spirit world, that God sees and knows all things and that she was just a tool.

The appearance was probably just a phantasm meaning that the witch saw and heard a ghostly image but it was really just a message, the medium wasn't important. Could have been an angel, could have been just a God induced illusion or vision. God's sovereignty is the atmosphere surrounding this entire story.


----------



## larryjf

Herald said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Calvin:
> *Not Samuel*; if God refused to speak to Saul through _legitimate_ means (Samuel when alive),
> neither would he speak to him through _illegitimate_ means (Dead Samuel).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would that imply about Baalam's Ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Balaam's ass did not take on a human persona. In other words, it did not claim to represent a human being. It was a divine act of God.
Click to expand...


What i was trying to get at was, can we call Baalam's Ass a "legitimate" means of speaking any more or less than we can Dead Samuel?

In other words, neither the Ass nor Samuel were normal methods God used.


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would that imply about Baalam's Ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balaam's ass did not take on a human persona. In other words, it did not claim to represent a human being. It was a divine act of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What i was trying to get at was, can we call Baalam's Ass a "legitimate" means of speaking any more or less than we can Dead Samuel?
> 
> In other words, neither the Ass nor Samuel were normal methods God used.
Click to expand...


Were they legitimate? My opinion is that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is unlawful and, therefore, illegitimate. The communication from Balaam's donkey, while not normal, was not unlawful; it was therefore legitimate.


----------



## Herald

btw this poll is refreshing. I am normally in the majority. I kind of like being in the minority. It appeals to my feisty nature.


----------



## BobVigneault

You guys are too caught up on the legitimacy of these moments.

Is it ever legitimate to tell a father to sacrifice his son? Yes, if you a the Sovereign law giver, creator and sustainer of the universe.

Jesus reminded his critics that if you were to quiet his worshippers then the rocks themselves will cry out. God is not restricted in anyway when it comes to revelation. God speaks through his Word these days so I don't expect a donkey is going to reveal much, neither is an angel and neither is phantasm of Samuel.


----------



## BobVigneault

Btw, I voted 'other' because the witch called up no one and the appearance of Samuel was only a vision.


----------



## SolaScriptura

The Bible says that I'm not to murder someone in my anger... that doesn't mean it is impossible for me to do so. In the same way, the Bible doesn't say that the dead are not able to be contacted... it says we are not to attempt to do so. I bring up that particular point because there are a few "illegitimate" things mentioned in the Bible that seem to "work" - meaning they are things forbidden, but nonetheless seem to elicit some genuine "spiritual" response. Only a pragmatist would try to argue that just because something works it is therefore good and proper. So don't be afraid on those grounds to concede that in this particular case the dead may in fact have been contacted.

My thought is that this passage isn't really about Samuel. The passage is about Saul, in continued rebellion against God, resisting God's nullification of his office. While he (and the witch) were obviously using an illegitimate means, nonetheless, God in His sovereignty used it as an opportunity to rebuke him through the prophet.

I really don't know why people think that citing this as "illegitimate" or "unlawful" somehow means God couldn't use it for His purposes. In fact, just sitting here I can think of numerous times in Scripture where someone's "unlawful/illegitimate" actions are the means God uses. There's no necessary reason why this would be any different.


----------



## larryjf

Herald said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Balaam's ass did not take on a human persona. In other words, it did not claim to represent a human being. It was a divine act of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What i was trying to get at was, can we call Baalam's Ass a "legitimate" means of speaking any more or less than we can Dead Samuel?
> 
> In other words, neither the Ass nor Samuel were normal methods God used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where they legitimate? My opinion is that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is unlawful and, therefore, illegitimate. The communication from Balaam's donkey, while not normal, was not unlawful; it was therefore legitimate.
Click to expand...


I disagree with the presumption that if something isn't illegal it's legitimate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The relevant texts are 1Sam.15:35; 19:18,22,24;
and especially 28:6 "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets."

In other words, Saul sought for legitimate means to have God speak to him. He prayed, he went to worship, he sought the will of God through the intermediaries God had provided--priests and prophets. And God literally would not speak to him.

Did God permit Saul to know the *truth*, via the medium? Yes, though why Saul should have expected a speaker of unreliable pronouncements to give him insight only shows how far he had fallen.

God influenced Ahab through a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his false prophets.
God can do what he likes.

God can speak through an ass, but 1) people aren't typically trying to access secret knowledge through verbalizing animals, and 2) there was no God given LAW against accessing the verbalized thoughts of animals, 3) Balaam wasn't trying to get his donkey to talk to him.

There was Law against witchcraft. Ex.22:18; Lev.19:31; 20:27; Dt.18:10-11

Saul had harried mediums out of the land (1Sam.28:3,9), in accord with the Law's prohibition. Saul knew these were agents of evil standing against Jehovah. But he somehow thinks one of these creatures will be able to compel Samuel's attendance?

If God wasn't going to speak through legitimate means to Saul, even though he sought them out (recall God even spoke truth to Ahab, when he sought out Micaiah), I don't believe that he gave Saul even a message of judgment through his ghostly prophet, summoned buy a medium.

I think it was a demonic seance, and it was attended by a demon. But I don't think that anyone _should have been inclined_ to believe the word of a demon, a medium, or any "spirit" message produced in that environment.


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> What i was trying to get at was, can we call Baalam's Ass a "legitimate" means of speaking any more or less than we can Dead Samuel?
> 
> In other words, neither the Ass nor Samuel were normal methods God used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where they legitimate? My opinion is that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is unlawful and, therefore, illegitimate. The communication from Balaam's donkey, while not normal, was not unlawful; it was therefore legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with the presumption that if something isn't illegal it's legitimate.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that. I said that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is UNLAWFUL and, therefore, illegitimate. Saul's seeking out the witch of Endor was an unlawful act.


----------



## Herald

SolaScriptura said:


> The Bible says that I'm not to murder someone in my anger... that doesn't mean it is impossible for me to do so. In the same way, the Bible doesn't say that the dead are not able to be contacted... it says we are not to attempt to do so. I bring up that particular point because there are a few "illegitimate" things mentioned in the Bible that seem to "work" - meaning they are things forbidden, but nonetheless seem to elicit some genuine "spiritual" response. Only a pragmatist would try to argue that just because something works it is therefore good and proper. So don't be afraid on those grounds to concede that in this particular case the dead may in fact have been contacted.
> 
> My thought is that this passage isn't really about Samuel. The passage is about Saul, in continued rebellion against God, resisting God's nullification of his office. While he (and the witch) were obviously using an illegitimate means, nonetheless, God in His sovereignty used it as an opportunity to rebuke him through the prophet.
> 
> I really don't know why people think that citing this as "illegitimate" or "unlawful" somehow means God couldn't use it for His purposes. In fact, just sitting here I can think of numerous times in Scripture where someone's "unlawful/illegitimate" actions are the means God uses. There's no necessary reason why this would be any different.



Ben, I'm not arguing that God did not use the incident with Saul for His purpose. He certainly did. I am just making a simple statement that it was both unlawful and illegitimate for Saul to seek out a medium.


----------



## JonathanHunt

I also say, and have preached, NOT Samuel. I'm amazed to be in such a tiny minority.

Better brethren have already given the argumentation I follow with this passage.

I do believe she was a fraud, but I do believe she genuinely saw and heard what she believed to be Samuel, hence the shock.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Herald said:


> I am just making a simple statement that it was both unlawful and illegitimate for Saul to seek out a medium.



And you're absolutely right: It was unlawful and illegitimate for Saul to seek out a medium.

That doesn't mean that the medium didn't accomplish the "assigned task."


----------



## Romans922

So everyone who doesn't agree that it is Samuel, are you saying that the narrator, the author of the book, the one under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writing the text down is wrong?

For he says, "the woman saw Samuel..."

Are we really going to play tricks with the text to show that it isn't Samuel?


----------



## Herald

Romans922 said:


> So everyone who doesn't agree that it is Samuel, are you saying that the narrator, the author of the book, the one under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writing the text down is wrong?
> 
> For he says, "the woman saw Samuel..."
> 
> Are we really going to play tricks with the text to show that it isn't Samuel?



Andrew,

You're making an unfair accusation towards those who do not agree with you. Speaking only for myself, I am not playing tricks with the text. The text does not say exactly in what form this image of Samuel appeared. For reasons that I have articulate earlier in this thread, I do not believe the witch conjured up Samuel. It is perfectly reasonable to leave this passage up for debate. Was it actually Samuel? A demon? Am illusion? I'm not sure what it was, but at this point I am not convinced that it was Samuel himself.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Did Calvin "play tricks with the text"?

That's a pretty strong accusation against one of our historic Doctors.

The figure is "called" according to how the persons in the room appear to perceive him.

That is an entirely different question from whether what they perceive is reality.

Theologically, it most pro-Samuels (of which I would have described myself, until Calvin taught me otherwise) treat this situation as an *extremely*--perhaps ONLY--rare situation, where God sent a departed soul back to earth (even to the point of having him "rise up out of the ground") to speak to the living.

So, it is not as though taking the name-in-the-text at face value doesn't carry with it definite interpretive difficulties for its own side.


----------



## Romans922

Herald said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone who doesn't agree that it is Samuel, are you saying that the narrator, the author of the book, the one under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writing the text down is wrong?
> 
> For he says, "the woman saw Samuel..."
> 
> Are we really going to play tricks with the text to show that it isn't Samuel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> You're making an unfair accusation towards those who do not agree with you. Speaking only for myself, I am not playing tricks with the text. The text does not say exactly in what form this image of Samuel appeared. For reasons that I have articulate earlier in this thread, I do not believe the witch conjured up Samuel. It is perfectly reasonable to leave this passage up for debate. Was it actually Samuel? A demon? Am illusion? I'm not sure what it was, but at this point I am not convinced that it was Samuel himself.
Click to expand...


Sorry for my unfair accusation.

I just can't get passed, even though Calvin might be against me (there is much weight there but Scripture is above Calvin.... gasp*), i just can't get passed that the author, the one under inspiration of the Spirit, who isn't there in person to witness this (unless the author is Saul, his men or the witch, which I don't think it is), the one under inspiration of the Spirit says, "the woman saw Samuel...". 

And that which was 'prophesied' was true and came true. A false prophet would have prophesied and it would have not come true.


----------



## Herald

Andrew, if you can't get passed it then so be it. Be at peace with your interpretation of the text. If Calvin and Henry are in agreement then at least respect their opinion.


----------



## JML

Add John Gill to the list that saw it as not Samuel:



> Some have thought that it was the true Samuel, or the soul of Samuel, that appeared; so Josephus, and many other writers; but to this may be objected, that that would not have ascended out of the earth, but come down from heaven; and that it cannot reasonably be supposed that it was in the power of the witch, by the assistance of the devil, to fetch it from heaven; nor be thought that God would send it from thence on such an errand, to give Saul an answer, when he would not answer him by any prophet on earth, nor in any other way; and especially it seems quite incredible that he should send it at the motion of a witch, and through her enchantments, who, according to a law of his, ought not to live; whereas nothing could have given greater countenance to such a wicked profession than this: nor would the true Samuel have admitted such worship and homage to be paid him, as is expressed in this last clause, which angelic spirits have refused, Re 19:10; though perhaps no more than civil respect is intended: but rather this was a diabolical spectre, or apparition, or the devil, that appeared in the form and shape of Samuel, and mimicked him; and was one of those deceiving spirits Porphyry speaks of, that appear in various shapes and forms, and pretend to be gods or demons, or the souls of the deceased. Some think all this was the cunning and imposture of the woman alone, or that she was assisted with a confederate, who acted the part of Samuel; but this is not probable.


----------



## larryjf

Herald said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where they legitimate? My opinion is that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is unlawful and, therefore, illegitimate. *The communication from Balaam's donkey, while not normal, was not unlawful; it was therefore legitimate*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the presumption that if something isn't illegal it's legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is UNLAWFUL and, therefore, illegitimate. Saul's seeking out the witch of Endor was an unlawful act.
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to what you said about the unlawful act of speaking to the dead, I was referring to what you said in the bold part of the quote above.


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the presumption that if something isn't illegal it's legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is UNLAWFUL and, therefore, illegitimate. Saul's seeking out the witch of Endor was an unlawful act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to what you said about the unlawful act of speaking to the dead, I was referring to what you said in the bold part of the quote above.
Click to expand...


God is the one who caused Balaam's donkey to speak; whether through the mouth of God, or an angel. While not a normal act, it was not unlawful. Since it was not unlawful, and it was initiated by God, it was legitimate.


----------



## larryjf

Herald said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the incident in 1 Samuel 28 is UNLAWFUL and, therefore, illegitimate. Saul's seeking out the witch of Endor was an unlawful act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to what you said about the unlawful act of speaking to the dead, I was referring to what you said in the bold part of the quote above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is the one who caused Balaam's donkey to speak; whether through the mouth of God, or an angel. While not a normal act, it was not unlawful. Since it was not unlawful, and it was initiated by God, it was legitimate.
Click to expand...


Perhaps we're talking past each other.
It is the presumption of your last statement that i don't agree with...that if something is not unlawful it is legitimate. That's what i said originally, so i think that we've come full circle.


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to what you said about the unlawful act of speaking to the dead, I was referring to what you said in the bold part of the quote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is the one who caused Balaam's donkey to speak; whether through the mouth of God, or an angel. While not a normal act, it was not unlawful. Since it was not unlawful, and it was initiated by God, it was legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps we're talking past each other.
> It is the presumption of your last statement that i don't agree with...that if something is not unlawful it is legitimate. That's what i said originally, so i think that we've come full circle.
Click to expand...


Larry, I am limiting my comment to the Lord speaking through Balaam's donkey. In that specific situation it was legitimatized because it was the Lord that was doing it. To say otherwise is to claim that the Lord had illegitimately spoken through Balaam's donkey. What am I missing here?


----------



## larryjf

Herald said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the one who caused Balaam's donkey to speak; whether through the mouth of God, or an angel. While not a normal act, it was not unlawful. Since it was not unlawful, and it was initiated by God, it was legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we're talking past each other.
> It is the presumption of your last statement that i don't agree with...that if something is not unlawful it is legitimate. That's what i said originally, so i think that we've come full circle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Larry, I am limiting my comment to the Lord speaking through Balaam's donkey. In that specific situation it was legitimatized because it was the Lord that was doing it. To say otherwise is to claim that the Lord had illegitimately spoken through Balaam's donkey. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...


Yes, i see your clarification there. I was still thinking of your post that didn't reference God...


> The communication from Balaam's donkey, while not normal, was not unlawful; it was therefore legitimate.



Would you then say that the Lord was not the one behind Samuel speaking to Saul?


----------



## Herald

> Would you then say that the Lord was not the one behind Samuel speaking to Saul?



Not directly. It is similar to the permission Satan received to oppress Job.



> Job 1:12 12 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD.
> 
> Job 2:6 6 So the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life."



The LORD certainly knew the incident with Saul and the witch at Endor would take place. I happen to believe He allowed this satanic visitation to take place as part of his judgment on Saul.


----------



## OPC'n

I believe if we start deciding that what the Bible says in one passage isn't really what it means, then those who do it concerning salvific passages cannot be condemned for doing so. I get nervous when ppl start doing this. Others can then turn around and start changing different parts of the Bible bc we feel it's not in line with what God normally does. Many times in the Bible ppl have done things which were forbad and yet God used their sin to accomplish His work. The woman couldn't have been a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen. This woman who made her living doing this type of work was greatly afraid....afraid of what? Well, Saul himself had stated that he would kill sorcerers. Why wasn't she afraid when he *asked* for Samuel, but instead was afraid *only *when she *saw* Samuel? This woman wasn't afraid of seeing spirits since this was her job. She was afraid for her life bc of Saul's decree against her line of work. When she saw that Samuel indeed had come she knew that Samuel would appear for only one person....the king of Israel. To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us. There is no evidence to show that this Samuel was a demon disguised as Samuel who, btw, prophesied about the future with accuracy and with harsh judgment. Not that God can't use a demon to do His work, but this text doesn't allude to it being a demon and I'd rather not give demons all that credit. She couldn't be a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen. So she couldn't have been pretending to be afraid acting like she saw Saul and then give him accurate info. Besides, if she were a fake she would have been afraid bc of the request of the man wanting to speak to Samuel and would have right then denied being a sorcerer in order to preserve her life.


----------



## larryjf

If verse 14 is a reference to Saul worshipping Samuel, and Samuel accepts such worship, then I can see how it could be a devil feigning to be Samuel.


----------



## OPC'n

larryjf said:


> If verse 14 is a reference to Saul worshipping Samuel, and Samuel accepts such worship, then I can see how it could be a devil feigning to be Samuel.



Not true really. This is more of a sign of Saul giving due honor to Samuel. Saul was used to ppl bowing before him as a sign of respect and honor and as king he knew the significance of such an act and extended that respect to someone he knew deserved it.


----------



## larryjf

I find it interesting that verse 14 has Saul both "stooping with his face to the ground" and "bowed himself"

The "bowed" is from translated from "וַיִּשְׁתָּֽחוּ"

The "stooping" is translated from "וַיִּקֹּ֥ד"

It seems to me that it could be speaking of more than a paying of respect to a prophet.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

TranZ4MR said:


> I believe if we start deciding that what the Bible says in one passage isn't really what it means, then those who do it concerning salvific passages cannot be condemned for doing so. I get nervous when ppl start doing this. Others can then turn around and start changing different parts of the Bible bc we feel it's not in line with what God normally does. Many times in the Bible ppl have done things which were forbad and yet God used their sin to accomplish His work.


Sarah,
Of course you are right about much of what you say here. But there is just a bit of "begging the question" there. Namely, that the pro-Samuel side has definitely got the "sense" intended by the passage, so the other people must be casting aspersions on the clarity or truthfulness of the text.

Sure, guys like Calvin and Henry could be wrong; they were humans. But we ought to at least consider that those guys--who most certainly trusted the Bible, were good exegetes, and believed in the simplicity of the gospel--could have been faithful to the text _as is,_ without twisting it. Yet came to another conclusion.

WCF 1:7 All things in Scripture *are not alike plain* in themselves, *nor alike clear unto all* (2Pe_3:16): yet those things which are *necessary to be known*, believed, and observed for salvation, *are so clearly* propounded...



TranZ4MR said:


> The woman couldn't have been a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen.


This is not a good argument, because it implies that the devil tells the infallible truth when he makes predictions. One big problem with mediums and spiritists is precisely in what they claim they can do with the aid of beings and souls from the "beyond", who have "special insights" that regular people lack.



TranZ4MR said:


> This woman who made her living doing this type of work was greatly afraid....afraid of what? Well, Saul himself had stated that he would kill sorcerers. Why wasn't she afraid when he *asked* for Samuel, but instead was afraid *only *when she *saw* Samuel? This woman wasn't afraid of seeing spirits since this was her job.


For all we know, this woman was always afraid of the demons she worked with, but kept it hid under her professional demeanor. If she wasn't, she should have been...

The fact that she "saw" anything, actually saw it, might have been what startled her more than anything. Most mediums are complete con artists, but they are very good at drawing out information from their clients, to use in telling their "fortunes".

But assuming that she had occasion to deal directly with the truly demonic, she would have "expected" one thing, and gotten another this time. And anyway, her "line of work" didn't deal in "truth" at all.



TranZ4MR said:


> She was afraid for her life bc of Saul's decree against her line of work. When she saw that Samuel indeed had come she knew that Samuel would appear for only one person....the king of Israel.


This is pure speculation though, dear, that Samuel would come back for one man, this king. It is just as likely that she expected that one demon would appear when Saul was coming (who had perhaps warned her in the past when Saul was approaching with his soldiers, and that's how she had previously escaped death--just a speculation, but no more fanciful than the other).

The fact is, the text only tells us that when she saw "Samuel" in some way she discerned her client's identity. Perhaps the "shade" told her directly who it was with her.



TranZ4MR said:


> To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us. There is no evidence to show that this Samuel was a demon disguised as Samuel who, btw, prophesied about the future with accuracy and with harsh judgment. Not that God can't use a demon to do His work, but this text doesn't allude to it being a demon and I'd rather not give demons all that credit.


But your statement that there's no evidence is itself an interpretation of the evidence, and I would argue that the evidence (the text) is itself evidence that it wasn't and couldn't have been Samuel.

We are *both* bringing "expectations" along with us to the text. You, that if the text "names" a certain person, then that person named must be the one present. Me, that the dead don't actually "return" under any circumstances. And therefore, the "Samuel" is a simulacrum, and it is named that because there is no better name by which to call it. There's no way to put "dittomarks" around the identifier, so we'd have to guess if it was or wasn't from other factors.

Other details from the text:
--The "vision" is only seen by the medium, so Saul is entirely reliant on her account of what she "sees". He doesn't "see" "Samuel" speaking, his lips moving, he only hears him in conversation.
--The "shade" comes "UP" from the ground, like what might be expected of those gone "DOWN" to the pit, not up to heaven. This would likely have been in line with her other lying "visions".
--"Tomorrow you and your sons will be with ME." Would the real Samuel have said this, and meant heaven? It could simply mean "Sheol" of the dead, but wouldn't the real Samuel know differently?


I would rather not give _*necromancy*_ any credit, rather than fear to let demons get credit for bringing bad news. God refused to let Samuel speak to Saul while he was alive. So, I find it hard to accept that in this desperate hour, after refusing to speak to him by dreams, Urim, and other prophets, God did give him a direct word from the Lord through an cursed methodology.


Anyway, I hope you will cut good teachers in the church a bit more slack, rather than thinking they must be soft on Scripture's veracity.

And thank you for YOUR trust in God's perfect truthfulness!


----------



## OPC'n

> Sarah,
> Of course you are right about much of what you say here. But there is just a bit of "begging the question" there. Namely, that the pro-Samuel side has definitely got the "sense" intended by the passage, so the other people must be casting aspersions on the clarity or truthfulness of the text.


 I just think we should have Scripture which backs up what we conclude is right. Is there any Scripture which states that it really wasn't Samuel? If not, I believe we have to take Scripture at it's word.



> Sure, guys like Calvin and Henry could be wrong; they were humans. But we ought to at least consider that those guys--who most certainly trusted the Bible, were good exegetes, and believed in the simplicity of the gospel--could have been faithful to the text _as is,_ without twisting it. Yet came to another conclusion.


 I love Calvin but I cannot ignore what the Bible states just bc I love his work and admire him so much....if he has a Scriptural defense as to why he believes she was faking or seeing demons then I certainly will change my mind.



> WCF 1:7 All things in Scripture are not alike in plain in themselves, *nor alike clear unto all* (2Pe_3:16): yet those things which are *necessary to be known*, believed, and observed for salvation, *are so clearly* propounded...


 this is quite true as exampled by Peter concerning Paul, but this is a very plain text. Complex Scriptures have other simpler Scriptures which interpret their meaning. Do we have another Scripture to show us that it really wasn't Samuel or shouldn't we just say this is a plain and simple text which should be taken according to face value?



TranZ4MR said:


> The woman couldn't have been a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen.





> This is not a good argument, because it implies that the devil tells the infallible truth when he makes predictions. One big problem with mediums and spiritists is precisely in what they claim they can do with the aid of beings and souls from the "beyond", who have "special insights" that regular people lack.


 You misunderstand me. I'm saying that she could not be a fake bc she was privy to truth which can only come from God. Satan isn't privy to future events....so I'm not saying that "the devil tells the infallible truth when he make predictions. 



> For all we know, this woman was always afraid of the demons she worked with, but kept it hid under her professional demeanor. If she wasn't, she should have been...


 and yet you say, "The fact that she "saw" anything, actually saw it, might have been what startled her more than anything. *Most mediums are complete con artists, but they are very good at drawing out information from their clients, to use in telling their "fortunes*". So was she a con artists or was she always scared to do her job? Notice in the text she isn't afraid that she saw Samuel but only that she realized that it was Saul who was her customer and felt as though her life was in jeopardy. 




> But assuming that she had occasion to deal directly with the truly demonic, she would have "expected" one thing, and gotten another this time. And anyway, her "line of work" didn't deal in "truth" at all.


 This is exactly my point. She was expecting the same "type of spirits" she was always use to and yet she got something completely different....Samuel! And you are giving credence to my argument when you say her line of work didn't deal in the truth which is all the more evidence that this was Samuel who was telling Saul future events. This woman or Satan through this woman could have never given out future events they knew nothing about. If God had used these two sources to tell Saul future events, I believe God would have told us that He used them, but He doesn't tell us that.



TranZ4MR said:


> She was afraid for her life bc of Saul's decree against her line of work. When she saw that Samuel indeed had come she knew that Samuel would appear for only one person....the king of Israel.





> This is pure speculation though, dear, that Samuel would come back for one man, this king. It is just as likely that she expected that one demon would appear when Saul was coming (who had perhaps warned her in the past when Saul was approaching with his soldiers, and that's how she had previously escaped death--just a speculation, but no more fanciful than the other).


 I very well may be wrong that Samuel wouldn't show up for just the average Joe, but this particular woman might have felt this way otherwise what would have lead her to instantly think it was Saul making the request?



> The fact is, the text only tells us that when she saw "Samuel" in some way she discerned her client's identity. Perhaps the "shade" told her directly who it was with her.


 Perhaps but you don't have proof of that.



TranZ4MR said:


> To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us. There is no evidence to show that this Samuel was a demon disguised as Samuel who, btw, prophesied about the future with accuracy and with harsh judgment. Not that God can't use a demon to do His work, but this text doesn't allude to it being a demon and I'd rather not give demons all that credit.





> But your statement that there's no evidence is itself an interpretation of the evidence, and I would argue that the evidence (the text) is itself evidence that it wasn't and couldn't have been Samuel.


 Where is this evidence?



> We are *both* bringing "expectations" along with us to the text. You, that if the text "names" a certain person, then that person named must be the one present. Me, that the dead don't actually "return" under any circumstances. And therefore, the "Samuel" is a simulacrum, and it is named that because there is no other name by which to call it.


. Seas don't roll back to expose dry land either but it happened under God's direct command. I agree that this isn't a common act....maybe this is the only one, but there's nothing in Scripture which says that this would never take place.

Other details from the text:


> --The "vision" is only seen by the medium, so Saul is entirely reliant on her account of what she "sees". He doesn't "see" "Samuel" speaking, his lips moving, he only hears him in conversation.


 If this story was in a fairy tale book which someone wrote about Saul and Samuel, I wouldn't believe it. However, it is Scripture which tells us what she saw. I don't need Saul to be a witness to what she saw I only need Scripture to tell me.


> --The "shade" comes "UP" from the ground, like what might be expected of those gone "DOWN" to the pit, not up to heaven. This would likely have been in line with her other lying "visions".


 Or another reasonable thought would be that Samuel was buried in the earth. Christ rose from under the ground bc He had been dead not bc He was in hell.


> --"Tomorrow you and your sons will be with ME." Would the real Samuel have said this, and meant heaven? It could simply mean "Sheol" of the dead, but wouldn't the real Samuel know differently?


 It is my understanding from other teachers (Sproul) that this phrase precisely means death. So Samuel was in essence telling Saul that he was going to be dead just like he was dead (physically)




> I would rather not give _*necromancy*_ any credit, rather than fear to let demons get credit for bringing bad news. God refused to let Samuel speak to Saul while he was alive. So, I find it hard to accept that in this desperate hour, after refusing to speak to him by dreams, Urim, and other prophets, God did give him a direct word from the Lord through an cursed methodology.


 Just bc God wouldn't let him speak to Saul while living doesn't mean God didn't allow it in this instance. I've seen this happen before in Scripture. I'll try to find the exact text that I'm thinking of.




> Anyway, I hope you will cut good teachers in the church a bit more slack, rather than thinking they must be soft on Scripture's veracity.


 I never said they were soft on Scripture's veracity. I didn't come up with the basic ideas (some of the thoughts I put in here are my own) of this being Samuel. I learned them from other reformed teachers. 



> And thank you for YOUR trust in God's perfect truthfulness!


 And yours too!


----------



## Herald

TranZ4MR said:


> I believe if we start deciding that what the Bible says in one passage isn't really what it means, then those who do it concerning salvific passages cannot be condemned for doing so. I get nervous when ppl start doing this. Others can then turn around and start changing different parts of the Bible bc we feel it's not in line with what God normally does. Many times in the Bible ppl have done things which were forbad and yet God used their sin to accomplish His work. The woman couldn't have been a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen. This woman who made her living doing this type of work was greatly afraid....afraid of what? Well, Saul himself had stated that he would kill sorcerers. Why wasn't she afraid when he *asked* for Samuel, but instead was afraid *only *when she *saw* Samuel? This woman wasn't afraid of seeing spirits since this was her job. She was afraid for her life bc of Saul's decree against her line of work. When she saw that Samuel indeed had come she knew that Samuel would appear for only one person....the king of Israel. To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us. There is no evidence to show that this Samuel was a demon disguised as Samuel who, btw, prophesied about the future with accuracy and with harsh judgment. Not that God can't use a demon to do His work, but this text doesn't allude to it being a demon and I'd rather not give demons all that credit. She couldn't be a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen. So she couldn't have been pretending to be afraid acting like she saw Saul and then give him accurate info. Besides, if she were a fake she would have been afraid bc of the request of the man wanting to speak to Samuel and would have right then denied being a sorcerer in order to preserve her life.



Sarah,

I urge you to be careful with throwing out ideas that the bible lied to us if Samuel did not really appear to Saul and the witch of Endor. In this thread three venerable theologians, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and John Calvin, have been cited in defense of the position that Samuel did not appear. You are not required to agree with them, but it would be unwise to assume they did not have good reason for their conviction. 

In all honesty, this is not a hill anyone of us should choose to die on. I would urge caution in carrying the question posed in the OP to extremes. It is worth studying and debating; but it is not of sufficient gravity to assume those who disagree with you are turing scripture into a book of lies.


----------



## OPC'n

Herald said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe if we start deciding that what the Bible says in one passage isn't really what it means, then those who do it concerning salvific passages cannot be condemned for doing so. I get nervous when ppl start doing this. Others can then turn around and start changing different parts of the Bible bc we feel it's not in line with what God normally does. Many times in the Bible ppl have done things which were forbad and yet God used their sin to accomplish His work. The woman couldn't have been a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen. This woman who made her living doing this type of work was greatly afraid....afraid of what? Well, Saul himself had stated that he would kill sorcerers. Why wasn't she afraid when he *asked* for Samuel, but instead was afraid *only *when she *saw* Samuel? This woman wasn't afraid of seeing spirits since this was her job. She was afraid for her life bc of Saul's decree against her line of work. When she saw that Samuel indeed had come she knew that Samuel would appear for only one person....the king of Israel. To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us. There is no evidence to show that this Samuel was a demon disguised as Samuel who, btw, prophesied about the future with accuracy and with harsh judgment. Not that God can't use a demon to do His work, but this text doesn't allude to it being a demon and I'd rather not give demons all that credit. She couldn't be a fake bc what she said would happen really did happen. So she couldn't have been pretending to be afraid acting like she saw Saul and then give him accurate info. Besides, if she were a fake she would have been afraid bc of the request of the man wanting to speak to Samuel and would have right then denied being a sorcerer in order to preserve her life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> 
> I urge you to be careful with throwing out ideas that the bible lied to us if Samuel did not really appear to Saul and the witch of Endor. In this thread three venerable theologians, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and John Calvin, have been cited in defense of the position that Samuel did not appear. You are not required to agree with them, but it would be unwise to assume they did not have good reason for their conviction.
> 
> In all honesty, this is not a hill anyone of us should choose to die on. I would urge caution in carrying the question posed in the OP to extremes. It is worth studying and debating; but it is not of sufficient gravity to assume those who disagree with you are turing scripture into a book of lies.
Click to expand...


That's my point....the Bible doesn't lie. And this is just all great conversation for me nothing I would die for as it's not that important. Just good brain exercise. Don't mean to offend you.


----------



## Herald

You haven't offended me in the least.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Sarah,


> Where is this evidence?


The evidence is THE TEXT itself.
It's all any of us have to work with.



> there's nothing in Scripture which says that this would never take place.


But there is nothing in Scripture to make us think that God permits a return (Ecc.12:7), this passage (since it is the dispute) excepted. And, plenty to make us think that such a return is never to be expected (e.g. Heb.9:27; Job.7:9)

Certainly, if we took this text to teach that it _could happen once,_ then we would have to acknowledge that according to the implications, mediums CAN in fact call dead spirits into the world.

I expect they can contact demons (who is managing whom in this relationship?), but attempting to contact the dead seems not only unlawful, but also stupidly wishful and a devilish snare for the gullible. 

If even once, in actual fact it took place, then how can we deny that the dead can on occasion be brought back into the world? Can the "spirits in prison" (1Pet.3:19) be furloughed? Perhaps God permits this frequently? Are there actual human ghosts? Does Mk.14:6 teach the disciples might have had a reasonable fear? Under what condition is it conceivable that God would disturb "the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb.12:23) by sending them back into the stink of sin-pollution?

Are witches detestable because they CAN contact the dead, or because they are in league with the devil? He is a liar from the beginning, and the father of it. Why should we believe him that he can relay a message or convey the dead thither? The Word never gives us any reason to suppose he has this power.

It seems to me if we think it happened once, then we are thereby led to believe that the _right_ medium can, in fact, converse with the actual dead.

Other texts
2Sam.12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but *he shall not return to me*.

I don't know, can David be absolutely certain of this? Perhaps under the proper conditions? Would God send him back to comfort David? If the Bible doesn't indicate this would never take place...?

Lk.16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you *are not permitted*, and *none may cross* from there to us.

Are we to suppose that they could come half way (that is, to earth) under the right permission? Why doesn't the Rich Fool ask for permission to go back himself, to warn his brothers?

We only know of embodied persons being "brought back" to the world, that is fully human seems the only way to be accessible and alive in the world.


These are all biblical issues and questions that I think present enough difficulties to my mind, that I cannot help but bring to the text of 1Sam.28 strong doubts that Samuel himself indeed was present. And the reading of the text with these thoughts in mind only strengthens my conviction that this was not an appearance of the Samuel of history.

But as I said, I do respect those who think otherwise, as I once did. My main point of issue has to do with the idea that to hold another position is tantamount to denying the essential clarity of Scripture


----------



## OPC'n

Let's say you are absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. What do I do with this statement of yours?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Are witches detestable because they CAN contact the dead, or because they are in league with the devil? * He is a liar from the beginning, and the father of it. Why should we believe him that he can relay a message or convey the dead thither? The Word never gives us any reason to suppose he has this power*.



If it was a demon that she saw and relayed it's message to Saul, are we to say that the message was a lie and that it really didn't happen? That Saul and his sons really were not killed in battle? You and I would say no. Saul and his son's did die in that battle. So now what? How did that demon know future events? Well, if we want to say that it wasn't Samuel, even though Scripture says it is, we have to make up a plausible story. God has used Satan to do His service before I'm sure if God wanted to He could have sent a demon spirit to Saul with the instructions to look like Samuel (why though? did God want the demon to look like Samuel so that Saul would believe the woman that it was Samuel? Why would God care if Saul believed Him? Saul was going to die as predicted whether or not he believed the message or not.) and to tell Saul certain things about the future. God had sent an evil spirit to annoy Saul in the past so who knows He could have done so this time. But still we are always told when God uses Satan or an evil spirit to do His work. Why wouldn't He have told us in this passage? Why did He say it was Samuel? Why leave us with the job of making up a story of our own to insert into Scripture in order to erase the bad taste of Samuel having to come back on this earth from heaven?


----------



## Herald

TranZ4MR said:


> Let's say you are absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. What do I do with this statement of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are witches detestable because they CAN contact the dead, or because they are in league with the devil? * He is a liar from the beginning, and the father of it. Why should we believe him that he can relay a message or convey the dead thither? The Word never gives us any reason to suppose he has this power*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a demon that she saw and relayed it's message to Saul, are we to say that the message was a lie and that it really didn't happen? That Saul and his sons really were not killed in battle? You and I would say no. Saul and his son's did die in that battle. So now what? How did that demon know future events? Well, if we want to say that it wasn't Samuel, even though Scripture says it is, we have to make up a plausible story. God has used Satan to do His service before I'm sure if God wanted to He could have sent a demon spirit to Saul with the instructions to look like Samuel (why though? did God want the demon to look like Samuel so that Saul would believe the woman that it was Samuel? Why would God care if Saul believed Him? Saul was going to die as predicted whether or not he believed the message or not.) and to tell Saul certain things about the future. God had sent an evil spirit to annoy Saul in the past so who knows He could have done so this time. But still we are always told when God uses Satan or an evil spirit to do His work. Why wouldn't He have told us in this passage? Why did He say it was Samuel? Why leave us with the job of making up a story of our own to insert into Scripture in order to erase the bad taste of Samuel having to come back on this earth from heaven?
Click to expand...


Sarah,

Two things:

1. Satan is a liar, but that does not mean he cannot use the truth, or partial truth, in order to deceive or discourage (Gen. 3:4, 5; Job 1:10; Matt. 4:6). 

2. Satan knew the current events of the day. He understood that the armies of the Philistines and Amalekites were arrayed for battle against Saul. Did he know that Saul would soon be dead? Probably not. But as Matthew Henry surmised, it may have been an attempt to completely demoralize Saul. 

Bottom line? We don't know what events Satan knew about or exactly why he said them. It's not necessary that we do know them. But clear reason teaches us that Satan does not act for our benefit. I'm content to let the text stand on it's own, believing that it was the machinations of the enemy.


----------



## larryjf

Even if Saul doesn't worship "Samuel" without rebuke from him...
Saul does speak to the dead "Samuel" without rebuke from him.


----------



## SolaScriptura

It is amazing how much energy gets spent trying to wring a meaning out of the text just because the supposed implications of the plain reading are uncomfortable.


----------



## a mere housewife

Something I have wondered about is that when the disciples cry out 'It is a spirit' -- when Christ comes walking to them on the water, Christ doesn't tell them that spirits don't come into their world, negating that aspect of their fear. He says the equivalent of 'no, it's Me'. When they think He is a spirit after His resurrection, again, Christ doesn't argue that spirits don't appear in our world and negate that fear that is still after all His earthly ministry part of their worldview -- rather He argues from something else they know about spirits, that they are incorporeal, to prove that He is not a spirit.

(edit: what I'm trying to say is that it seems as if in both cases Christ's challenge assumes the disciples' worldview and it's just on a point of fact -- that in either case_ He_ isn't a spirit -- that they are mistaken and that He contradicts them?)


----------



## Romans922

Herald said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you are absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. What do I do with this statement of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are witches detestable because they CAN contact the dead, or because they are in league with the devil? * He is a liar from the beginning, and the father of it. Why should we believe him that he can relay a message or convey the dead thither? The Word never gives us any reason to suppose he has this power*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a demon that she saw and relayed it's message to Saul, are we to say that the message was a lie and that it really didn't happen? That Saul and his sons really were not killed in battle? You and I would say no. Saul and his son's did die in that battle. So now what? How did that demon know future events? Well, if we want to say that it wasn't Samuel, even though Scripture says it is, we have to make up a plausible story. God has used Satan to do His service before I'm sure if God wanted to He could have sent a demon spirit to Saul with the instructions to look like Samuel (why though? did God want the demon to look like Samuel so that Saul would believe the woman that it was Samuel? Why would God care if Saul believed Him? Saul was going to die as predicted whether or not he believed the message or not.) and to tell Saul certain things about the future. God had sent an evil spirit to annoy Saul in the past so who knows He could have done so this time. But still we are always told when God uses Satan or an evil spirit to do His work. Why wouldn't He have told us in this passage? Why did He say it was Samuel? Why leave us with the job of making up a story of our own to insert into Scripture in order to erase the bad taste of Samuel having to come back on this earth from heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> 
> Two things:
> 
> 1. Satan is a liar, but that does not mean he cannot use the truth, or partial truth, in order to deceive or discourage (Gen. 3:4, 5; Job 1:10; Matt. 4:6).
> 
> 2. Satan knew the current events of the day. He understood that the armies of the Philistines and Amalekites were arrayed for battle against Saul. Did he know that Saul would soon be dead? Probably not. But as Matthew Henry surmised, it may have been an attempt to completely demoralize Saul.
> 
> Bottom line? We don't know what events Satan knew about or exactly why he said them. It's not necessary that we do know them. But clear reason teaches us that Satan does not act for our benefit. I'm content to let the text stand on it's own, believing that it was the machinations of the enemy.
Click to expand...


Everything that 'Satan' (in your view) stated in 1 Samuel 28 was true, even that which was future. "an attempt to completely demoralize Saul" 

Is this the easiest reading of the text? It may have been an attempt or you could just say what it says, and God was bringing another word of judgment through this.

If you were to let the text stand on its own, then as the narrator said, 'the woman saw Samuel..." Let the text stand on its own. Again, I can see if this was Saul saying that the woman saw Samuel to be skeptical. But the author under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said this.


----------



## Pergamum

This thread is why I love the PB! Thanks for posting this. I have wondered about this and have flip-flopped positions quite a bit in the past regarding this text. Thanks...it is neat to have it all fought out here. 

P.s. I think it was Samuel. But the witch was surprised because she was either (1) used to dealing with other spirits, or (2) used to faking it and now it is real. I am not sure of the reason (A or B).


----------



## Herald

Andrew,

I'm content to let you have the final word on the matter. See? No one can accuse us of mods of playing with a heavy hand!  I believe the thread has come full circle in a short period of time, and for that reason I am going to close the thread at the end of the day. The worse thing for a thread is for it to get moldy. I'd like to see this one end after a full and rich sharing of ideas.

One thing I am encourage about is the passion displayed by those who want to maintain the integrity of the text. That is a good thing, even if we disagree on the conclusion. 

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Sarah,
I don't even mean to try (too hard) to convince you of my position.

I just think its prudent to avoid saying that people committed to the same basic hermeneutic rules, but who arrive at other conclusions, are the enemy in disguise. That they are on track to causing people to doubt their Bibles.

Did Jephthah commit a human sacrifice on his daughter? Some say that the "straightforward reading" of that passage (Judges 11 & 12) means exactly that. But I disagree.

Jephthah is remembered as a faithful, heroic servant of the Lord by Samuel (1Sam.12:11) and the writer to Hebrews (11:32). Is he so, despite such an abominable, horrific act (cf.2Ki.3:27)? I think that we have to take the sense Jephthah's vow-fulfillment differently from a "burnt offering" in that passage, and I think that faithful Israelites of old read it the way that I suggest, and not as a perverted act of devotion, contrary to all God's Law.

So, it isn't as though 1Sam.28 is the ONLY passage that there are variations of opinion on what the text means, when we all accept the text _as it is._

Peace.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Romans922 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you are absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. What do I do with this statement of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a demon that she saw and relayed it's message to Saul, are we to say that the message was a lie and that it really didn't happen? That Saul and his sons really were not killed in battle? You and I would say no. Saul and his son's did die in that battle. So now what? How did that demon know future events? Well, if we want to say that it wasn't Samuel, even though Scripture says it is, we have to make up a plausible story. God has used Satan to do His service before I'm sure if God wanted to He could have sent a demon spirit to Saul with the instructions to look like Samuel (why though? did God want the demon to look like Samuel so that Saul would believe the woman that it was Samuel? Why would God care if Saul believed Him? Saul was going to die as predicted whether or not he believed the message or not.) and to tell Saul certain things about the future. God had sent an evil spirit to annoy Saul in the past so who knows He could have done so this time. But still we are always told when God uses Satan or an evil spirit to do His work. Why wouldn't He have told us in this passage? Why did He say it was Samuel? Why leave us with the job of making up a story of our own to insert into Scripture in order to erase the bad taste of Samuel having to come back on this earth from heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> 
> Two things:
> 
> 1. Satan is a liar, but that does not mean he cannot use the truth, or partial truth, in order to deceive or discourage (Gen. 3:4, 5; Job 1:10; Matt. 4:6).
> 
> 2. Satan knew the current events of the day. He understood that the armies of the Philistines and Amalekites were arrayed for battle against Saul. Did he know that Saul would soon be dead? Probably not. But as Matthew Henry surmised, it may have been an attempt to completely demoralize Saul.
> 
> Bottom line? We don't know what events Satan knew about or exactly why he said them. It's not necessary that we do know them. But clear reason teaches us that Satan does not act for our benefit. I'm content to let the text stand on it's own, believing that it was the machinations of the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that 'Satan' (in your view) stated in 1 Samuel 28 was true, even that which was future. "an attempt to completely demoralize Saul"
> 
> Is this the easiest reading of the text? It may have been an attempt or you could just say what it says, and God was bringing another word of judgment through this.
> 
> If you were to let the text stand on its own, then as the narrator said, 'the woman saw Samuel..." Let the text stand on its own. Again, I can see if this was Saul saying that the woman saw Samuel to be skeptical. But the author under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said this.
Click to expand...


The problem with letting the "text stand on its own," is that the text in this instance is narrative, and doctrine should not be based upon an isolated narrative, but always and only developed by comparing scripture with the entirety of scripture on any given subject.

For that reason, I agree with Rev. Buchanan that this was satanic activity, which is forbidden throughout scripture, without a single exception.


----------



## OPC'n

Contra_Mundum said:


> Sarah,
> I don't even mean to try (too hard) to convince you of my position.
> 
> I just think its prudent to avoid saying that people committed to the same basic hermeneutic rules, but who arrive at other conclusions, are the enemy in disguise. That they are on track to causing people to doubt their Bibles.



Perhaps it's my writing style but you think too harshly of me when you feel that I think of ppl who disagree with me as my enemy. I absolutely do not. Why can't we just have a dialogue using examples (however extreme they may seem to be in order to make a point) without accusing each other of making enemies or stating that one person is stating the Bible is lying etc? Don't you feel you are exaggerating my perception towards you and others who disagree with me? First it was that I had no respect for Calvin and others, then it was I was walking a fine line of saying the Bible was lying, now it's I've made you and others who disagree with me my enemy. This isn't how you debate with the next guy so why do so with me? Perhaps it is my writing style....something you could point out to me which leads you to think so harshly of me. In any case, I'm just trying to have a conversation over a piece of text that isn't life shattering. Really, this isn't salvific info. Can't I ask questions or make statements without being categorized in the ways that I have been? What's up with that? I'm not trying to convince you of my side either....what's wrong with picking each other's brain? Can we do that without accusing each other of other motives?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Sarah,
It must be my "tone" also, or your perception of it. So, I'm sorry. I appreciate your posts, and your POV.

This, specifically, is what I responded to originally:


> To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us.


I just thought "Hmmm, you know, *I* say it isn't Samuel, and I'm not alone, and I don't think I am, or we are, saying the Bible lies or intentionally misleads us." In other words,, you seemed to say something there about those who teach another position.

Regarding your POV,
I think your view is honest with the text.

Regarding your posts,
Your input on the board is consistently beneficial to all.

Thank you.


----------



## OPC'n

Contra_Mundum said:


> Sarah,
> It must be my "tone" also, or your perception of it. So, I'm sorry. I appreciate your posts, and your POV.
> 
> This, specifically, is what I responded to originally:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that it isn't Samuel, is to say that the Bible intensionally lied to us.
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought "Hmmm, you know, *I* say it isn't Samuel, and I'm not alone, and I don't think I am, or we are, saying the Bible lies or intentionally misleads us." In other words,, you seemed to say something there about those who teach another position.
> 
> Regarding your POV,
> I think your view is honest with the text.
> 
> Regarding your posts,
> Your input on the board is consistently beneficial to all.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


I see your side of things now!! Sorry, I guess I need to learn to say things better. I really didn't mean to say that I think you think the Bible lies. I really am sorry!


----------



## YXU

When "Samuel" said to Saul that he and Isreal will be with him, it is a strong evidence that this "Samuel" is not the prophet Samuel. For it is clear, the soul of Samuel is with God, and is not in hell. Also this cannot be the grave, for Saul's body and his sons were not buried immediately, but burnt later.


----------



## Archlute

Hey, I like this thread. It reminds me of the time that I had an OT prof try proving that Moses didn't really write the laws of God on his own, but that he came up with them by plagiarizing them from the law code of Hammurabi. Of course, the Scriptures say "Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying...", but come now, let's not be so facile in how we allow ourselves to understand the text.

Even if Calvin, Henry, and Gil came to the same conclusion (the latter two most likely drawing from Calvin to begin with) that gives it no added weight. Calvin is no more a "doctor" of the church than D.A Carson. Both are good exegetes, but that gives them no special status before which we should bow. Servants of the Word is all they were/are.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Archlute said:


> Calvin is no more a "doctor" of the church than D.A Carson.



Them's fighting words on this Board! Watch out!


----------



## Archlute

Been punched in the eye more than once in my life (and so had Calvin, so I guess I am in good company)


----------



## bookslover

I believe that the genuine Samuel genuinely appeared, for reasons already mentioned several times - the primary one being that the biblical text really presents no other option.

The woman was a fake, but God used her to allow Samuel to appear in order to reinforce the fact to Saul (who, due to his own sin and obtuseness) that his goose was cooked.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Just so we're clear, you're saying Calvin (et al) simply reject the Bible's witness, because the text of Scripture only allows of one interpretation, and they don't hold it. 

Thanks for that.


I really don't mind folks telling me "you're wrong Bruce, and here's why I think so." But I have to say that it's discussions like this that give me sympathy for those who deny "6-day Creation." I think it's a serious misreading of the text to deny it, but I understand why good men, who get the gospel of Christ right, get angry when they are told they reject the testimony of Moses concerning creation, and merely impose their own.

I grant that they ARE wrestling with the text, while I think they are handicapped mainly not by other theological commitments, but by extra-biblical presuppositions. But I grant them the option of a textual footing.

In the case in front of us, where my presuppositions are entirely theological, I am denied the courtesy of even an acknowledgment of having a textual option?!? Mine is not a novelty that arose in the church for the first time ever in the past 150 years, folks.

Who do we think we are, to tell men some of whom spent more time immersed in the text of Scripture than we've been years alive on earth that they may read the Word of God, but they evidently reject what it says? "Because there are no other options, only mine, only the one I happen to agree with."

Well, there are other options regarding "Samuel's shade." And they've been expressed in this thread. And they arise from the text, and from a theology that guides our exegetical labors, ST and BT being complementary disciplines.

I think there are (minimum) two HUGE textual questions for the pro-Samuel crowd to answer, namely the significance of "Samuel's" rising up from the ground, and his declaration that Saul will be with him. As soon as one starts explaining these observations in terms of "realm of the dead," and alleged "OT perspective" on the afterlife, he leaves the text behind, and begins his own version of systematic theologizing.


So, please, let's be done with this self-serving declaration concerning "the only interpretive option," and such. The sun doesn't rise and set with Calvin's opinion, but it is sheer folly to say that he (and those who agree with him) took illegitimate liberties with the text, because they didn't LIKE where it was taking them.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Brian Withnell

I suppose I come down on the side of it being Samuel, only because I see no compelling reason for it to be other than what v12, 14, 15 and 16 state (as the narrator, not as any of the people).

While that means I do believe it was Saul, that does not mean that I believe the witch had the power to do what was accomplished. That it happened is attested in scripture. There is no other section of scripture that changes what we see here, but there is nothing here that implies the witch had real power.

What is conjecture is coming up with what the scripture does not say. It does not say what was happening "behind the scenes" as we get a unique glimpse in Job. In Job, we see a unique revealing of the nature of the evil that befalls a man. We see Satan before God and God's commending Job for his righteousness, and yet allowing evil to befall Job. Yet there is nothing in 1 Sam 28 that gives any indication of this (or of an evil spirit from the Lord). Presuming either probably comes from having already decided it must not be what it says it is ... Samuel appearing.

What is happening here is part of "the hidden things" of which we know nothing. Those things belong to the Lord. Can conjectures which allow this to be Samuel be made? Yes, but they need not be made. The text states it is Samuel. Given the plain meaning, would not there need to be conclusive reason that it could not have been Samuel before another interpretation should be attempted?

As such, let me pose a possible scenario. Though the witch is told to conjure up Samuel, she knows she has no power to conjure at all. The witch is surprised beyond belief that a spirit actually does appear. (It matters not why God either allows Samuel to do this task, or orders it to be so ... we do not see behind the curtains as we do in Job, but just the events in this world. It matters not that God has not previously not given Saul any information, and we don't know why he chose to do so through this means.) She is somehow informed that it is in fact Saul that had asked for the task at that time. The spirit of Samuel does as he is bidden.

Ultimately, the interpretation is that Saul sinfully seeks what to do, even if it means seeking a witch. In doing so, he is confronted by God through the spirit of Samuel when he does consult a witch (and we need not give the witch any power to do the conjuring, but only state that the events we see are what the narrative states). Samuel tells Saul what is to happen, and admonishes Saul for seeking when he already knows that God has abandoned him and given the kingdom into the hands of David. Why God ordained this, we do not see, nor are we given an explanation of why God would allow this to occur *as if* by the work of a witch.

Before you would consider any other interpretation, the one above would have to be refuted. I see no reason to demand that we know (as we are shown in the book of Job) the reasons why this was done. I see no irrefutable proof that it could not be Samuel doing as God bids. I know of no point of orthodox theology with which this interpretation would conflict. In the absence of any compelling reason, the simple interpretation should be viewed as more likely than one that requires conjecture.

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 01:20:13 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> Just so we're clear, you're saying Calvin (et al) simply reject the Bible's witness, because the text of Scripture only allows of one interpretation, and they don't hold it.



I would not say that Bruce. I might disagree with Calvin (et al) on some points, but I hope you would know that I respect them (and you!) very much. It isn't that any Christians reject the Bible's witness, so much as they see the Bible through their own life and ideas. That is true of every one of us (I know it is true of me). I can no more divorce myself of everything I have experienced than I can change the color of my skin.

We know and respect each other (or at least you know I respect you). We will have differences on some passages of scripture while we are in this age, but I am confident that we both will have a perfect theology when we leave this age. Until then, we can be iron sharpening iron ... and I welcome your insight and knowledge even in those areas with which I disagree.

I also acknowledge that there are times when I say things too emphatically. Forgive me if I have in this discussion. I have not and do not mean to offend.

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----



YXU said:


> When "Samuel" said to Saul that he and Isreal will be with him, it is a strong evidence that this "Samuel" is not the prophet Samuel. For it is clear, the soul of Samuel is with God, and is not in hell. Also this cannot be the grave, for Saul's body and his sons were not buried immediately, but burnt later.



The idea of Sheol in the OT is the place of the dead, irrespective of their being righteous or unrighteous. This can be clearly seen if one looks up all the references for Sheol (e.g. Ecc 9:10, Psa 6:5 there are many more, and it is not the grave as such, but the place of the dead). You present a false dichotomy that it is either the grave or heaven/hell. The OT does not hold such a view for Sheol.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brian,
I do not doubt you. I was primarily responding to the post immediately above mine, which states that beside the view contrary to mine "*the biblical text really presents no other option*."

That's putting it pretty strongly.

And, it makes it appear as though actually dealing with the _bona fide_ textual arguments in favor of the other opinions is unnecessary (because how can you rebut something that doesn't exist!). It is hand-waving, mere assertion in lieu of argument; but it is also rhetorical dynamite. It raises the stakes, because it brooks no dispute. Because to argue against that position is tantamount to arguing against God. It fiat declares: "there are no abiguities here, move along, move along."


re. your comment on Sheol: you must admit there is NO reference to Sheol in the passage itself. Therefore, that view is the other side theological import to the text.

So, you see, neither side can escape the intrusion (positively speaking) of theological antecedents. Each side weighs one or more specific aspects of the story in the text as the strongest coloring factor.

Peace, brother. Good night.


----------



## Idelette

I'd have to agree with those that believe that it was Samuel, for several reasons: 

First of all the text itself. As Andrew pointed out in (vs. 12) "the woman saw Samuel" in (vs. 14) it says "Saul knew that it was Samuel" and in (vs. 15) the narrator of the book does address him as Samuel. That's three times identifying the spirit as Samuel! Not once does it say "a likeness of Samuel" or "a vision of Samuel" or "an evil spirit in the likeness of Samuel". Also, the woman cried out and was afraid by what she saw. (vs. 13.) This lends me to believe only two possibilities: that what she saw was either an evil spirit or samuel himself. 

However, the spirit fulfills the qualifications of a true prophet. God made it clear in His Word that we would know a prophet when their words come to pass. Dt 18: 21-22

Also, there are several instances in Scripture when a person was raised from the dead. Immediately, I think of Elisha in the OT and Lazarus in the NT. If God could bring up men from the dead both in body and spirit, how could he not be able to bring up one's spirit from the dead? 

Also, if we look at the character of Satan......his goal is to always focus on self and away from God! We know that Scripture teaches that the devil is the father of lies and confusion. Yet this spirit did not confuse Saul, in fact it told him the truth and pointed to Saul's disobedience! Yes, the devil twists Scripture and tells half-truths.....yet there is not one instance in Scripture that the devil has pointed to man's disobedience! That is something that only a spirit of God could do, in my humble opinion!


----------



## Parsifal23

The devil desguised as Samuel

-----Added 8/17/2009 at 05:51:50 EST-----



Herald said:


> I like what Matthew Henry has to say about this passage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have here the conference between Saul and Satan. Saul came in disguise (v. 8), but Satan soon discovered him, v. 12. Satan comes in disguise, in the disguise of Samuel's mantle, and Saul cannot discover him. Such is the disadvantage we labour under, in wrestling with the rulers of the darkness of this world, that they know us, while we are ignorant of their wiles and devices.
> 
> I. The spectre, or apparition, personating Samuel, asks why he is sent for (v. 15): Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up? To us this discovers that it was an evil spirit that personated Samuel; for (as bishop Patrick observes) it is not in the power of witches to disturb the rest of good men and to bring them back into the world when they please; nor would the true Samuel have acknowledged such a power in magical arts: but to Saul this was a proper device of Satan's, to draw veneration from him, to possess him with an opinion of the power of divination, and so to rivet him in the devil's interests.
> 
> II. Saul makes his complaint to this counterfeit Samuel, mistaking him for the true; and a most doleful complaint it is: "I am sorely distressed, and know not what to do, for the Philistines make war against me; yet I should do well enough with them if I had but the tokens of God's presence with me; but, alas! God has departed from me." He complained not of God's withdrawings till he fell into trouble, till the Philistines made war against him, and then he began to lament God's departure. He that in his prosperity enquired not after God in his adversity thought it hard that God answered him not, nor took any notice of his enquiries, either by dreams or prophets, neither gave answers immediately himself nor sent them by any of his messengers. He does not, like a penitent, own the righteousness of God in this; but, like a man enraged, flies out against God as unkind and flies off from him: Therefore I have called thee; as if Samuel, a servant of God, would favour those whom God frowned upon, or as if a dead prophet could do him more service than the living ones. One would think, from this, that he really desired to meet with the devil, and expected no other (though under the covert of Samuel's name), for he desires advice otherwise than from God, therefore from the devil, who is a rival with God. "God denies me, therefore I come to thee. Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo." --If I fail with heaven, I will move hell.
> 
> III. It is cold comfort which this evil spirit in Samuel's mantle gives to Saul, and is manifestly intended to drive him to despair and self-murder. Had it been the true Samuel, when Saul desired to be told what he should do he would have told him to repent and make his peace with God, and recall David from his banishment, and would then have told him that he might hope in this way to find mercy with God; but, instead of that, he represents his case as helpless and hopeless, serving him as he did Judas, to whom he was first a tempter and then a tormentor, persuading him first to sell his master and then to hang himself. 1. He upbraids him with his present distress (v. 16), tells him, not only that God had departed from him, but that he had become his enemy, and therefore he must expect no comfortable answer from him: "Wherefore dost thou ask me? How can I be thy friend when God is thy enemy, or thy counsellor when he has left thee?" 2. He upbraids him with the anointing of David to the kingdom, v. 17. He could not have touched upon a string that sounded more unpleasant in the ear of Saul than this. Nothing is said to reconcile him to David, but all tends rather to exasperate him against David and widen the breach. Yet, to make him believe that he was Samuel, the apparition affirmed that it was God who spoke by him. The devil knows how to speak with an air of religion, and can teach false apostles to transform themselves into the apostles of Christ and imitate their language. Those who use spells and charms, and plead, in defence of them, that they find nothing in them but what is good, may remember what good words the devil here spoke, and yet with what a malicious design. 3. He upbraids him with his disobedience to the command of God in not destroying the Amalekites, v. 18. Satan had helped him to palliate and excuse that sin when Samuel was dealing with him to bring him to repentance, but now he aggravates it, to make him despair of God's mercy. See what those get that hearken to Satan's temptations. He himself will be their accuser, and insult over them. And see whom those resemble that allure others to that which is evil and reproach them for it when they have done. 4. He foretels his approaching ruin, v. 19. (1.) That his army should be routed by the Philistines. This is twice mentioned: The Lord shall deliver Israel into the hand of the Philistines. This he might foresee, by considering the superior strength and number of the Philistines, the weakness of the armies of Israel, Saul's terror, and especially God's departure from them. Yet, to personate a prophet, he very gravely ascribes it once and again to God: The Lord shall do it. (2.) That he and his sons should be slain in the battle: To-morrow, that is, in a little time (and, supposing that it was now after midnight, I see not but it may be taken strictly for the very next day after that which had now begun), thou and thy sons shall be with me, that is, in the state of the dead, separate from the body. Had this been the true Samuel, he could not have foretold the event unless God had revealed it to him; and, though it were an evil spirit, God might by him foretel it; as we read of an evil spirit that foresaw Ahab's fall at Ramoth-Gilead and was instrumental in it (1 Kings xxii. 20, &c.), as perhaps this evil spirit was, by the divine permission, in Saul's destruction. That evil spirit flattered Ahab, this frightened Saul, and both that they might fall; so miserable are those that are under the power of Satan; for, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest, Prov. xxix. 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast Saul's seeking a medium with the Mount of Transfiguration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 17:1-3 And six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Lord was on a high mountain; symbolic of being in heaven, where God resides. No medium was sought, yet the symbol of the Law (Moses), and of the one to make straight the way of the Lord (Elijah), appear. They appear in the light; whereas Saul sought Samuel in the darkness. They appeared on a high mountain in the presence of the King of Kings; whereas the apparition of Samuel was summoned from below and in the presence of a minister of Satan.
Click to expand...


----------



## Prufrock

Since this thread has been going on for a while, I thought I would toss in one more opinion for consideration -- that of Vermigli. What follows is his brief conclusion of the matter after an extended exposition of the various Rabbinic and Patristic argument of the matter in his commentary on Samuel (found also _Loci Comm._, I.10)

_But to shew at last what mine opinion is, I am mooued by these reasons to think, that it was but an imagination. First, seeing God would not giue answere unto Salue, neither by prophets, nor by priests, nor by dreames; it is not credible, that he would answere him by the dead, and especiallie seeing he had expresselie forbidden by the lawe. Futher, it must needs be doone, either by the will of God, or by the power of the art. By the will of God it could not be doone, bicause he forbad it: neither by the power of the art; for witches have no power ouer the godlie. Moreoever, Samuel must haue come, either willinglie, or constrained: willinglie he could not, for then he should haue consented unto witchcraft: and to saie that he came against his will, that were not fit. I knowe, these reasons are not so strong, that they can persuade an obsitinate man. But yet if we consider what belongeth unto God, and what should reuoke us from euill arts, they be effectuall inough._​


----------

