Rosenritter
New member
Matthew Henry full commentary and concise commentary do seem to differ in their implication there. The full commentary was definite that the apparition was obviously a devil, whereas the concise commentary seems to indicate that he thought it to be a true representation of dead Samuel. That's interesting, because it seems like a self-contradiction. Either Matthew Henry revised his opinion in one or the other, or someone else did some editing. I am curious, do you have any data on this?
If you are interested in commentary, here is what King James I wrote on the subject through his characters in his Daemonologie:
Spoiler
I know that the English of that day is harder to read, so I'll translate the portion I boldfaced above:
"As to the next, that it was not the spirit of Samuel, I grant: in the proving whereof ye need not to insist, since all Christians of whatsoever religion agrees upon that: and none but either mere ignorant, or necromancers, or witches doubt thereof. And that the Devil is permitted at sometimes to put himself in the likeness of the saints, it is plain in the scriptures, where it is said, that Satan can transform himself into an Angel of Light."
It's been some years since I was gathering these, but I remember Martin Luther and John Calvin also agreed with each other on this point, that the apparition was clearly the devil. The view that "Samuel" was indeed the actual Samuel became popular in the last couple centuries.
It could have been a hallucination, or rather visible only by the medium. There is a thin line between a hallucination and a spirit that appears to only certain people. But this blends into your option 3 so I'm moving this logic to there.
I am inclined to think that this was more than a mere stage trick. Even if the medium used tricks on a regular basis, and only sometimes got real spirits answering, she received information that this was the King of Israel. I'm with you on discarding this option 2.
When it says that Saul "perceived" it was Saul, it doesn't have to mean that he "perceived" with his eyes. The voice could have come through the mouth of the medium, and he could have "perceived" in the sense that "he believed."
In favor of the "only seen by the medium" theory is that the medium first tells Saul what she is seeing, when Saul didn't see. She had to tell Saul initially "I see gods ascending out of the earth." I wouldn't want to rule out option 3 yet.
If "inadequate" is only ruled due to lack of apparent motive, scripture already gives several. First, the devil is called "adversary" and loves to destroy people with lies and/or torment when possible. This is also observed in the behavior of spirits of divination in present day. Second, God had already sent an evil spirit to torment Saul earlier, the same is referenced twice when David is summoned to play music for Saul. Therefore, there is precedent for God allowing evil spirits to plague Saul. A similar instance is referenced in 1 Kings 22:22, when God allows a lying spirit to enter the mouths of false prophets to cause a king's downfall. Third, it is written in scripture that for those that despise the truth, God himself will choose their delusion.
What advantage does Satan gain? The same advantage he gains anytime he messes with people. These are devils, that's the way they act.
The medium may have gotten more than she bargained for if she often supplemented her divination with tricks, or expected a weaker devil instead of a powerful one. Regardless, it doesn't seem to read clearly that she was surprised at the spirit itself. She seemed more shocked in learning the identity of Saul.
The text does switch to using "Samuel" as the proper noun. However, it is much easier to write one word "Samuel" rather than "that which appeared to be Samuel" over and over. Considering how often the Hebrew scripture truncates text "such as simply saying "Goliath" rather than "the brother of Goliath" the word "Samuel" itself cannot be ruled as meaning "it was truly Samuel."
Is it impossible for Samuel to come back while dead? I would say yes. However, since that is what I am seeking to prove in another area, I wouldn't invoke that here because that's a loop back to circular argument. Did Moses and Elijah come back to visit Jesus? The actual text says it was a vision, Matthew 17:9, "Tell the vision to no man..." Given that the word "vision" implies a non-substantive quality, that leaves the argument as non-conclusive regardless. Neither one of us can use this point here.
I agree with Clarke, but not with your conclusion that it must therefore have been the actual Samuel. God has also been known to send devils to those that use divination (as in Kings 22) and had already sent spirits to plague Saul's mental health. Why should he break with that pattern now?
I appreciate the organized manner of response. The reason I invoked commentary was to establish that "the apparition was the devil" was not a new nor unsupported interpretation. I wanted opportunity to address the point on its merits.
We can discuss specific points above, but I think it should be evident that the passage by itself doesn't prove that the dead can come back without resurrection, let alone that they are conscious before being summoned. Other scripture has to come into play.
Last edited:
