ENDOR: WAS IT SAMUEL OR AN IDENTITY THIEF?  (Part 2 of 2)

For those in doubt as to who had appeared to Saul, 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 seems to be a casefile, listing the backslidden king’s crimes and the attracted sanctions.  For the proponents of the view that what appeared to Saul was not Samuel, there are many strong points to note from that passage.

Firstly, they point out that this passage clearly states that Saul died “for” and in “his transgression.”  They ask, Could a person in transgression, reinforced by a witch, have been able to compel a righteous soul from Paradise to a meeting at a strange altar in Endor?  Next, they ask, according to 2 Corinthians 6:14-16, “what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? … what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”

They state, furthermore, that the case against Saul was no ordinary one but a two-count transgression: 1) “against the LORD,” and 2) “against the word of the LORD.”  That reference was to Saul’s sin of more than three decades before, in 1 Samuel 13:9-13, when he offered a sacrifice that he was not ordained to perform and was first renounced by God, and later when he spared Agag whom he should have killed, and got finally rejected by God (1 Samuel 15:17-29).

If the king had properly repented of his evil since that time, God could not have called it up again after blotting it out.  It is not in His nature to do so (1 John 1:9).  God’s recall of it at the end of Saul’s life meant that, in those many years, Saul never repented of his iniquity but rather went out murderously against whoever tended to challenge him, whether they were prophets or priests.  He killed the priests (1 Samuel 22:17-19), chased upcoming Davids out of town (1 Samuel 18:9-11; 19:10) and threatened even prophets as eminent as Samuel who had anointed him (1 Samuel 16:2).  None was safe while Saul raved, and people learned to be stooges who spied on one another to buy his wicked favour (1 Samuel 22:9-23).  Could a person in such deep transgression have called up the holy prophet?  They doubt.

The same voices he destroyed yesterday when he was strong were the same channels he was desperately seeking today in his vulnerability.  Unfortunately, those doors had been shut, and he was to blame.  If only he saw tomorrow…

Secondly, they point out that the same passage spotlights not only Saul’s fatal “transgression” but an additional abomination he “also” committed when he went “asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit… And enquired not of the LORD.”  In other words, the event at the altar of the witch was a further evil in addition to his many previous sins, which meant that Saul was an impenitent man even at the point he is purported to have been seeking the prophet.  If that visit was counted as “also” an error, or a further transgression, could the prophet of God have been part of such a flawed spiritual process?

Thirdly, the passage states that the meeting at Endor was a meeting with “a familiar spirit”; it was “not of the LORD.”  The proponents of the view that the apparition was not Samuel wonder if anything could be clearer than this to show that neither God nor Samuel His prophet had any part in the proceedings at the altar of the witch of Endor.  If it was “not of the LORD,” if God was not in it, there could only be one other option: the devil.

From that passage, they insist, fourthly, that the Bible did not only say that the session with the witch was “not of the LORD,” it went further to plainly identify and label the personality at that dark night show as “a familiar spirit,” which does not sound the same as “Holy Spirit” or “Prophet Samuel.”  They think it is blind foolishness then to describe the apparition at Endor as Samuel, especially as Light and Darkness do not dwell together (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).  They insist that in life or in death, the holy prophet could not have been part of a process that was “not of the LORD”; that he could not have had anything to do with “a familiar spirit.”

Point No. Five: From 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, the Not-Samuel proponents are worried that God would punish Saul for getting a message from Samuel, if indeed it was Samuel.  They are persuaded that it is not in the nature of God to punish someone for doing what is right.

Point No six: They point out that the spirit which the witch summoned from out of the earth was not referred to as a “him” or “he” (which could have been the case if it had been Samuel), but as an “it,” which is curious, even in translation.

Point No seven: They believe that when God said here, “You enquired of it and not from Me,” and proceeded to punish the man for the act, He was showing that “it” and ‘Me’” were two opposite personalities, two opposing camps.  In other words, God was clearly distinguishing and distancing Himself from the entire process in the sanctuary of the witch, and especially from the spirit that had disguised itself as the prophet of God.  Saul had two options: “to enquire of it” or “… of the LORD.”  He chose the wrong one and died for it.

Lastly, they find a significant link between verse 13 and verse 14 in 1 Chronicles 10. They point out that after the enumeration of Saul’s mortal sin in verse 13, the next verse begins with the word, “Therefore,” suggesting that verse 14 was a consequence of verse 13.  Saul could not have been reaping a bad harvest in verse 14 for sowing a good seed in verse 13.  At last, God killed Saul “and turned the kingdom unto David” for the failures highlighted in verse 13. Why would God go so far as relieving a man of his throne and taking his life if the act were such an innocent one after all, they wonder.

Among those who think that the apparition during the witch’s séance was a thief of Prophet Samuel’s identity are the exegetists. These, as one would say, find it very significant that King Saul and his team had an Unholy Communion with the witch, administered by herself the high priestess of witchcraft, with “unleavened bread” and a kind of Passover animal – a calf, at night, all in apparent reversal of the great Exodus Passover (v.24; Exodus 12:1-36).  They note that whereas the Israelites after that premiere Passover walked out of bondage into freedom, out of darkness into a new day, Saul proceeded from that blood covenant and communion with the dead into a lightless night from which he did not recover.  He walked out from that reverse Passover into darkness and death on Mount Gilboa (v.25).  They see the ominous setting of “that night” in that story as symbolic of the darkness into which the association with witchcraft drove the wayward king.  They point out that the romance with the witch led Saul into a battle he did not survive, as fellowship with Satan usually results in conflicts and calamities of huge consequences.

The Life Applicationists are a little more pointed.  Following up from the Exegetists, they warn, as one would say, that irrespective of the apparently extenuating circumstances or excusable ‘pressures’ of life that might push you to do so, if you consult witches and visit séances or diviners of any kind (even those who do so under the cover of a Bible), you bring upon yourself that sentence of death that God has passed upon all who do so; a generational death does not kill only you but also the sons that could have reigned after you.

Outside the debate on whether the apparition was Samuel, it appears to some that, despite Saul’s other sins, consulting the medium at Endor was the last error that finally nailed him; it was the “therefore” that hastened his death. That nocturnal visit, sealed with a reverse Passover officiated by a high priestess of darkness; that Communion with the dead in the desperate crave for a supernatural voice, was the last dangerous move that finally saw Saul out of the throne and sealed David’s place there.  Saul missed a last chance for righteousness.  It is fearful to think that one can backslide to the point where God shuts all channels of communication with them while they cry and die in their impenitence.

Back to the debate.  What’s your verdict?  From the arguments so far presented, was it Prophet Samuel that the witch of Endor called up for King Saul, or was it an identity thief – something else that stole the prophet’s face and voice, pretending to be him?  Was it Samuel or a Satanic impersonation of the holy prophet, to fool the king with what had become his unhealthy obsession with the supernatural?  Did the witch at Endor call up Prophet Samuel, or she merely invoked a spirit of her dark kind?  What’s your verdict?