cameronpickett
Puritan Board Freshman
A very compelling argument that I’d like to share regarding 1 Samuel 28:3-25, whether Saul was actually speaking to Samuel, or with a familiar spirit. Give it a watch! Do you agree?
The Witch of Endor: Samuel or Demon | (un)ANSWERED
- Thread starter cameronpickett
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1 samuel old testament
- Status
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
I cannot watch it right now but my view is formed by this take here:
"If Saul had thought it necessary to his conversation with Samuel that the body of Samuel should be called out of the grave, he would have taken the witch with him to Ramah, where his sepulchre was; but the design was wholly upon his soul, which yet, if it became visible, was expected to appear in the usual resemblance of the body; and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie.
That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecclesiastes 3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, "Let them be deceived."
That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light! nor is it strange that he should be permitted to do it upon this occasion, that Saul might be driven to despair, by enquiring of the devil, since he would not, in a right manner, enquire of the Lord, by which he might have had comfort. Saul, being told of gods ascending, was eager to know what was the form of this deity, and in what shape he appeared, so far was he from conceiving any horror at it, his heart being wretchedly hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
Saul, it seems, was not permitted to see any manner of similitude himself, but he must take the woman's word for it, that she saw an old man covered with a mantle, or robe, the habit of a judge, which Samuel had sometimes worn, and some think it was for the sake of that, and the majesty of its aspect, that she called this apparition Elohim, a god or gods; for so magistrates are styled, Psalm 82:1.
6. Saul, perceiving, by the woman's description, that it was Samuel, stooped with his face to the ground, either, as it is generally taken, in reverence to Samuel, though he saw him not, or perhaps to listen to that soft and muttering voice which he now expected to hear (for those that had familiar spirits peeped and muttered, Isaiah 8:19); and it should seem Saul bowed himself (probably by the witch's direction) that he might hear what was whispered and listen carefully to it; for the voice of one that has a familiar spirit is said to come out of the ground, and whisper out of the dust, Isaiah 29:4. He would stoop to that who would not stoop to the word of God."
- Matthew Henry's Commentary
"If Saul had thought it necessary to his conversation with Samuel that the body of Samuel should be called out of the grave, he would have taken the witch with him to Ramah, where his sepulchre was; but the design was wholly upon his soul, which yet, if it became visible, was expected to appear in the usual resemblance of the body; and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie.
That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecclesiastes 3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, "Let them be deceived."
That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light! nor is it strange that he should be permitted to do it upon this occasion, that Saul might be driven to despair, by enquiring of the devil, since he would not, in a right manner, enquire of the Lord, by which he might have had comfort. Saul, being told of gods ascending, was eager to know what was the form of this deity, and in what shape he appeared, so far was he from conceiving any horror at it, his heart being wretchedly hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
Saul, it seems, was not permitted to see any manner of similitude himself, but he must take the woman's word for it, that she saw an old man covered with a mantle, or robe, the habit of a judge, which Samuel had sometimes worn, and some think it was for the sake of that, and the majesty of its aspect, that she called this apparition Elohim, a god or gods; for so magistrates are styled, Psalm 82:1.
6. Saul, perceiving, by the woman's description, that it was Samuel, stooped with his face to the ground, either, as it is generally taken, in reverence to Samuel, though he saw him not, or perhaps to listen to that soft and muttering voice which he now expected to hear (for those that had familiar spirits peeped and muttered, Isaiah 8:19); and it should seem Saul bowed himself (probably by the witch's direction) that he might hear what was whispered and listen carefully to it; for the voice of one that has a familiar spirit is said to come out of the ground, and whisper out of the dust, Isaiah 29:4. He would stoop to that who would not stoop to the word of God."
- Matthew Henry's Commentary
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
I didn't watch the video, but there's nothing in the text to indicate that it was anything else but the spirit of Samuel himself.
If there wasn't, serious Christians wouldn't have been disagreeing about the matter for centuries.
I'm with Calvin when he concludes that God, who refused to speak to Saul by legitimate means, would certainly not speak to him by illegitimate means.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I believe this may have been the Puritan consensus too with similar remarks by Gilpin in "Demonologia" and Perkins "Combat Between Christ and the Devil."
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure that carries the weight you assign it. Serious Christians have been disagreeing about all kinds of extremely clear things for centuries.
OK. What weight should we grant your bald claim, accompanying a sight-unseen dismissal of the video regardless of its argument?
Contrary claim: The text contains clear indicators that the apparition was not Samuel. What benefit comes from these "competing assertions?"
It might help to admit the text contains deliberate, tension-creating ambiguity, literarily enhancing a dark and creepy scene describing forbidden witchcraft.
One's fuller theology inevitably pulls the reader to one or another conclusion, based on emphasizing this or that aspect of the text.
LittleFaith
Puritan Board Sophomore
I guess they're not all that clear after all, then.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Just because something is clear doesn't mean we can't mess it up. The human mind has been corrupted by the Fall, and lingering traces of that corruption still remain after regeneration. Some things in Scripture are quite clear. That doesn't matter to some people. In some other cases, however, the text is not as clear. 1 Samuel 28 is one of those not so clear passages. I heard the video. I was shocked that the author would claim that anyone thinking it actually was Samuel was not reading the passage critically. Many, many scholars have come down on both sides of this question after very careful consideration. This is not a passage where dogmatic certainty bodes well.
Such a strong claim for a difficult passage. I realize the vid is an artifact of the medium that validates itself by views, likes, and subscriptions; but my greatest issue with the presenter was his deliberate avoidance of any sign of authority in teaching Holy Scripture. 2-3 times he appeals to his audience to chime in. This is what he thinks, "but what do you think? Share your opinion in the comment section below."
There's a schizophrenic quality to his declarations: at times sounding dismissive of dissent, but then eager for approval or an opportunity to debate. I'm inclined to his conclusion (without leaning wholly on his argumentation), yet wary of a rando from the interwebz who may or may not have any external credential from the church.
Biblical truth doesn't sway to the wind of popularity contests, but deserves firm support of trustworthy authority, possessed of knowledge, courage, and grace.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
I think justification by grace through faith alone is quite clear, and yet was the root cause of one of the greatest controversies in the history of Christendom.
LittleFaith
Puritan Board Sophomore
And yet serious Christians disagree about it - by which I do NOT mean it's a debatable doctrine, but rather that throughout history there have been believers compromised in various ways who have not been able to see that Scripture teaches this. What you're missing is that it's quite clear when the Holy Spirit illumines one's heart to see Scripture as it really is.
Also, soteriology falls into quite a different class of doctrine than the topic at hand. The Holy Spirit must inevitably move his true children to see, in some way if imperfectly in this life, that they are not the agents of their own salvation. That the Holy Spirit must inevitably move one to see the obvious truth about this passage is a bit more debatable.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
The way I understand it, God is the judge when it comes to the state of men's souls.
For Samuel to appear after his death, would require God to be pleased to release his soul from the place of perpetual bliss, in order to speak to a witch and rebellious king.
As others have said, why would God communicate with forbidden means, after Saul refused the legitimate?
For Samuel to appear after his death, would require God to be pleased to release his soul from the place of perpetual bliss, in order to speak to a witch and rebellious king.
As others have said, why would God communicate with forbidden means, after Saul refused the legitimate?
Brian Withnell
Puritan Board Junior
I'm going to ask a question and let it go at that. Given we accept verbal plenary inspiration is the base for what we believe, I'd think we ought have more than "logic" to say that the text is not exactly what the text says. Now is it possible that this is something other than what it says? Yes. Is it likely?
I hate conjecture. If it takes pure conjecture (or just logic ... i.e., could it be "taking a train of logic off the track of scripture") then I'm far more likely to ask a question.
The Bible isn't a science book. It does not answer the questions we might like to ask, but what God intends to answer. We might want to know if it was really Samuel called up from the grave, but there is absolutely no need for us to know one way or the other. There would be no impingement of God's character either way. There isn't enough testimony of scripture that even with thousands of years it has definitively been resolved (and that in itself should be conclusively telling). My conclusion is it doesn't matter, nor is it important. But I look for the more learned to explain why it would be important and then why it isn't sufficiently clear that it has not been conclusively resolved.
I hate conjecture. If it takes pure conjecture (or just logic ... i.e., could it be "taking a train of logic off the track of scripture") then I'm far more likely to ask a question.
The Bible isn't a science book. It does not answer the questions we might like to ask, but what God intends to answer. We might want to know if it was really Samuel called up from the grave, but there is absolutely no need for us to know one way or the other. There would be no impingement of God's character either way. There isn't enough testimony of scripture that even with thousands of years it has definitively been resolved (and that in itself should be conclusively telling). My conclusion is it doesn't matter, nor is it important. But I look for the more learned to explain why it would be important and then why it isn't sufficiently clear that it has not been conclusively resolved.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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.
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.
dildaysc
Puritan Board Junior
I just finished translating Poole's "Synopsis" on 1 Samuel 28:14, which surveys the history of interpretation, and summarizes the arguments on both sides. You might find it helpful.
www.fromreformationtoreformation.com
Poole's on 1 Samuel 28:14: The Witch at Endor, Part 3
Verse 14:[1] And he said unto her, What form is he of (Heb. what is his form?[2])? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with (1 Sam. 15:27; 2 Kings 2:8, 13) a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was (Ecclus. 46:20[3]) Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and...
www.fromreformationtoreformation.com
ReformedChristian
Puritan Board Freshman
I would say since Saul did not enquire of the Lord but a medium (1st Samuel 28:7), God permitted a familar spirit and he was given over to a debased mind as a sign of judgment (Romans 1).
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
The answer to Calvin's objection would run like this: God did not use an illegitimate means. The medium did not call up Samuel. God sent him at that time to confirm that even Saul's last ditch attempt to get the Word of the Lord from God (in some sort of manipulative way to try to get the answer Saul wanted) was not going to net him any new revelation, but rather the same thing that had been said before.
Of course, any means God would use by definition is fine, if so he does. That is not Calvin's point; but that there were lawful avenues to seek the will of God, and God refused after a time to make those available or accessible to Saul. Saul cut himself off from the priests with Urim & Thummim because of their wholsale murder; and Samuel would never see Saul again after the scene with Agag, 1Sam.15:35. The voice of the true prophet is the voice of the Lord; God never sent Samuel again to see Saul, and presumably the prophet would refuse to meet Saul (had he been asked). 1Sam.28:6 states, "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets." Direct, personal revelation (dream) is but one avenue that was cut off.
So that is the context of God's refusal, and Calvin's observation. Calvin's logic is that Samuel and other prophets would not give a word to Saul from the Lord, and for God to send Samuel to convey that word upon Saul's utterly corrupt inquiry (though contrary to even the witch's actual expectation) might well seem to validate the method (manipulation), even if it was one-off. The devil himself could certainly repeat previous revelation and even make a prediction that was likely to come true under the circumstances.
The Samuel-shade interpretation is not inconceivable; it is based in the text. But Calvin's deduction is not divorced from the text, and does take into account both the immediate and general Old Covenant and Scriptural contexts.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
For those of you who deny that it was the spirit of Samuel, what motive do you think would the Devil have in having a spirit (or himself) masquerade as Samuel and deliver to Saul such an accurate prophecy?
I don't see how this event, if orchestrated by Satan, in any way furthers Satan's aims.
I don't see how this event, if orchestrated by Satan, in any way furthers Satan's aims.
LittleFaith
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think you have to ask whether the devil has actually orchestrated any events that ended up furthering his aims in the long run. After all, he orchestrated Christ's crucifixion.
Don't forget that demons routinely proclaimed the divinity of Christ, often with greater understanding than his own disciples. And Balaam himself uttered messianic prophecy preserved and recorded for all time in Scripture. There is no conceptual problem with Satan uttering a prophecy of this sort.
Those who oppose Christ - particularly the demons, given over to darkness without hope in a way not yet fully true of unbelievers - can have no long-term plan. They can only have negative, chaotic, and ultimately futile goals.
So what motive would Satan have? That to me is a relatively easy one. The pleasure of seeing Saul miserable and despondent in his last day; the pleasure of sowing confusion by masquerading as a Godly prophet bringing a message of irretrievable doom. Is this the only time in Scripture where Satan gleefully and even unknowingly plays into God's hands? Where he acts out of spite or short-term interest?
Personally, I tend to think it is Samuel because the text seems to indicate that, and I'd be interested to hear if anybody has come up with a textual or literary reason why the text would or should be read differently, as opposed to a paradigm issue (In other words, instead of articulating how one view or the other doesn't fit neatly into a given framework, show me from the text why it shouldn't be a certain way). But I freely acknowledge that this leaves some significant difficulties unresolved, and I don't really have a problem believing that it was not Samuel but rather Satan or one of his minions. There are things that don't quite fit well into either interpretation and at the end of the day it was an extraordinary one-off event orchestrated by God to pronounce irreversible and imminent judgment upon Saul. For those who tend to think as I do that Saul perished in unbelief (another debated topic!), it's a fitting coda to his story, the last of three fundamental acts of rebellion that cost him first his dynastic inheritance, then his throne, then his life. Whether that final message of judgment was delivered by a demon gleefully awaiting the entrance of a soul into perdition or a prophet whose post-mortem repose was interrupted by non-standard divine fiat - I don't think that issue is central to the story.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
Was doing a work this morning and came across another reference to this being the Puritans position:
"Counterfeit Grace conceived and believed real Grace, begets Libertines: The Devil appeared in Samuel's Mantle, and reigning sins appear to God's discerning eye, in the veil of counterfeit Grace."
Nicholas Claget - "The Abuse of Gods Grace."
"Counterfeit Grace conceived and believed real Grace, begets Libertines: The Devil appeared in Samuel's Mantle, and reigning sins appear to God's discerning eye, in the veil of counterfeit Grace."
Nicholas Claget - "The Abuse of Gods Grace."
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
YouTubers ask for comments in order to pump engagement metrics to influence the algorithm - more engagement = potentially more views, which is probably why YouTubers love controversy and stirring the pot as much as possible.
Regarding the passage, I always thought it was Samuel simply because I tried to follow what the passage was telling me. However, good points have been made from the broader context of Scripture that cause me to question my understanding. However, I am not sure this issue is important enough that I feel I need a “view” one way or another. What I do know is divination is bad and never, ever try to contact the dead. Sad that some people are even tempted today to do this kind of thing.
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
Do we believe devil-worshipping witches have the power to snatch the saints from heaven?
Is the idea here that the witch covenants with Satan, Satan sends a team of demons to snatch Samuel's spirit out of heaven and make him appear in Palestine, Satan's forces not only break into heaven but locate Samuel and drag him back to earth, then Samuel, arriving at earth sees his old friend Saul and gives him some stern words?
Is there anything at all in all of Scripture that would give us the impression that this is possible?
I understand that our brothers who interpret the passage literally desire to be faithful to Scripture, which is respectable.
However, we must also consider the need to interpret Scripture in light of other passages, and what interpretations are plausible considering the whole of Scripture's teaching.
Is the idea here that the witch covenants with Satan, Satan sends a team of demons to snatch Samuel's spirit out of heaven and make him appear in Palestine, Satan's forces not only break into heaven but locate Samuel and drag him back to earth, then Samuel, arriving at earth sees his old friend Saul and gives him some stern words?
Is there anything at all in all of Scripture that would give us the impression that this is possible?
I understand that our brothers who interpret the passage literally desire to be faithful to Scripture, which is respectable.
However, we must also consider the need to interpret Scripture in light of other passages, and what interpretations are plausible considering the whole of Scripture's teaching.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Brother, with all due respect, who here is actually claiming that this is what went on?
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
Well, no one has directly stated that. So take this as my way of stating that I'm completely at all loss as to how a witch, through this or any other way, would be able to take a saint from heaven and make him appear on earth. I am open to any and every plausible explanation (provided there is one).
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Is anyone actually saying "the witch did it"?
She was just as surprised as anyone when Samuel actually showed up.
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
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.
- Status
