The Witch of Endor: Samuel or Demon | (un)ANSWERED

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Is anyone actually saying "the witch did it"?

She was just as surprised as anyone when Samuel actually showed up.

The text doesn’t say she was surprised because Samuel showed up. She was horrified because Saul sat at the other end of her table.

Nowhere in the Bible is witchcraft considered a fraud or a parlor trick. For example in Acts 16 Paul performed an exorcism on a woman with a spirit of divination. And because that was bad for the local divination business Paul and Silas ended up in prison.

 

[Ploutos]

The passage talks about her bringing him up. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel."
I suppose my assumption was that anyone who insists one taking the identity of Samuel as factual would take the "bringing up" as factual.

On a related note, I'd wager we're all taking "I saw gods ascending out of the earth" as non-factual.

If you read through this thread and the various resources referenced, you'll see that many or most who believe it is Samuel believe that God sent him, not that the witch's incantations brought him up. Nobody is claiming that a team of "Navy SEAL" demons broke into heaven against God's will to kidnap Samuel.

But it IS plausible that God allowed something extraordinary for a specific purpose. Even if we were to allow that the woman's incantations were the immediate cause of Samuel's appearance, it would be relatively easy to imagine that God allowed her actions to be successful for the purpose of pronouncing judgment on Saul. It would not be the only time in Scripture that God 'rewards' rebellion, in a sense, for the purpose of sealing judgment or condemnation, or for the advancement of a specific event in redemptive history.

 

[Logan]

The text doesn’t say she was surprised because Samuel showed up.

1 Sam 28:12 "And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice"

That could certainly be interpreted as surprise and fear that something actually appeared. Strong's says the word for "cried out" can mean to shriek from anguish or danger.

 

[greenbaggins]

Charles, my position is that the witch of Endor summoned precisely no one. She was completely gobsmacked when Samuel appeared. The Lord sent him to point out to Saul the end of the road when you reject God's word, which is the main theme of Saul's reign. If one rejects God's Word, then he will be reduced to using mediums. But the Word of God that came said the exact same thing Samuel had said in life. As one commentator puts it, "Death has not mellowed Samuel."

 

[itsreed]

1) It is assumption contrary to Scripture (and Houdini’s investigation ) that necromancy actually involves anything other than charlantanism (even including the demonic angle).
2) At least in this event, there is strong evidence of a history of charlantry on the witch’s part, in her strong reaction of shock/fear at actually seeing Samuel arise to her summons.
3) Heb 1:1 covers the unusual means God used here to communicate to Saul; having rejected the approved means of hearing from the God of life, Saul heard from the dead.
4) More than an illegitimate means, it is a sinful means. God has worked through sinful means to communicate his will. E.g., the high priest’s condemnation of Jesus; evil intent and goal, nevertheless prophetic (Jh 11:49-52).

The arguments against this being Samuel appear to rest on the assumption that God would not do such a thing. Neither would God allow a sinner to avoid death, but we have Enoch. Neither would he use incest to propagate his chosen people, but we have Tamar. The list could go on.

The Occam’s razor test here appears to make this text straightforward. Saul went to a necromancer, asked to speak to the dead Samuel, and God used this final act of rebellion to pronounce Saul’s doom. Kind of potently poignant, containing shock and awe value for the rest of us until the day of judgment when we all experience that final moment of shock and awe unto God’s glory.

(jmo, For what it's worth),

 

[Ploutos]

The arguments against this being Samuel appear to rest on the assumption that God would not do such a thing. Neither would God allow a sinner to avoid death, but we have Enoch. Neither would he use incest to propagate his chosen people, but we have Tamar. The list could go on.

I like this point. It would seem unfitting of God to use a pagan prophet to predict Christ - but Balaam. It would seem unfitting of God to use sinful people, flawed methods, and iffy doctrine to spread the gospel - but most of church history. It's not really a stretch for me to imagine that God would break with "standard procedure" which after all is nothing more than our attempt to sum up our limited understanding for the purpose of declaring judgment on Samuel. My layman take is that the text favors this interpretation.

But it's also not really a stretch to imagine God giving the demons free reign to 'run with it' - putting on an act so convincing that it fooled Saul and alarmed the witch, or perhaps supernaturally revealing to the witch their identity and/or Saul's.

I have yet to see someone explain why this is a hill worth dying on and yet some of us are fighting awfully hard to claim this hill definitively for one side or the other.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

1 Sam 28:12 "And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice"

That could certainly be interpreted as surprise and fear that something actually appeared. Strong's says the word for "cried out" can mean to shriek from anguish or danger.

“And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.”

Although it isn’t really important; in my opinion the verse gives also the content of her cry. Compare 2 Kings 18: 28: the usage of three verbs ‘crying, saying, speaking‘ of which two are redundant in English.

Whether one or two cries, the witch didn’t say ‘Save me, I am scared because I see a spirit for the first time in my entire life’. She said: ‘Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.’ The appearance of Saul was the surprising and scary part. Saul the witch hunter (vs. 9) was visiting her.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm still interested in hearing why the witch's claim she saw Samuel should be taken at face value but not her claim she saw gods. Are there actually other gods besides Jehovah?

 

[greenbaggins]

Charles, she saw Elohim. The term can refer to human judges (which is what Psalm 82 is about, in my opinion). Samuel was, in fact, a judge. Which makes the case for Samuel all the stronger. As for the importance of the issue, the only reason I am arguing for Samuel in this thread is the opprobrium being cast on those who think it is actually Samuel. I think such opprobrium (in the OP, e.g., claiming that such readings do not read the text critically) misplaced.

 

[Logan]

The appearance of Saul was the surprising and scary part. Saul the witch hunter (vs. 9) was visiting her.

In your view, how or why did she suddenly know it was Saul?

Aren't you reading an extra layer of interpretation into it? The text clearly ties her cry to "when she saw Samuel" rather than your interpretation which is "when she saw Samuel she wasn't at all surprised but then cried out because she recognized Saul".

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

In your view, how or why did she suddenly know it was Saul?

Aren't you reading an extra layer of interpretation into it? The text clearly ties her cry to "when she saw Samuel" rather than your interpretation which is "when she saw Samuel she wasn't at all surprised but then cried out because she recognized Saul".

"When she saw Samuel" is a time reference, not a reason.

So the moment the supernatural appeared it was revealed to her that it was Saul who sat before her. And it would not matter if it was a supernatural revelation (which I believe) or her own deductions, for it still happens within the same timeframe.

 

[davejonescue]

Sorry if I am dragging this on, but it is interesting how many of the Puritans held to the view that the Sorcerers conjure was a demonic apparition. Was working on this work today, and here is another from the Puritan Philip Goodwin in "The Mystery of Dreams."

"2. As referring to Satan that filthy and unclean spirit, who hath no little hand in such loathsome Dreams. The Devil indeed not having a body himself, cannot commit bodily filthiness, but he can conform himself so to the phantasy; as to further this mental filthiness in and with others. Very strange things (as to appearance) men may do by the power of Satan, so several Sorcerers have exceeded, as Justin Martyr, Austin and Others report things very strange. And may not Satan by himself immediately manage marvelous matters, causing shapes and forms to appear of all kinds of creatures, as to mans ocular part or his eye without: Pliny, Philostratus and others, give several instances herein: So to mans imaginary power interpose himself, causing things and persons to appear to the putative faculty effecting these filthy Dreams. He that came in Samuels Robe in the Serpents form, yea transforming himself as an Angel of Light to men awake, may not he come in other ways and manners to men asleep?"

 

[Brian Withnell]

As someone who has had strong opinions on this verse for years, and while I haven't changed, I do have a bit more humility. Two things appear in this conversation:

1) The text clearly identifies the speaker as Samuel.

but,

2) Why didn't Saul and/or the witch go to Samuel's burial place, which seems the logical thing to do.

This is sort of humor as well as a reasoned response ...

Why didn't either of the people that are disobeying God, which is *always* the ultimately logical thing to do, continue in their illogical paths?
How did I miss .....................................................................................................................................................^^^^^
That was supposed to be "illogical."

My pastor regularly admonishes us to not take a train of logic off the track of scripture. The "but" in your statement might be doing exactly that?

 

[dildaysc]

I just finished translating Matthew Poole's verse-by-verse treatment of this episode in 1 Samuel 28.

1 SAMUEL | from-ref-to-ref

Destined to be the largest, most comprehensive study of the Book of 1 Samuel online. Featuring Matthew Poole's Synopsis, practical comments from some of the pastors and teachers of the pastor, lectures, and much more!

www.fromreformationtoreformation.com