OVERVIEW: During the eventful 135-year-period covered by 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, Israel was transformed from a loose grouping of tribes led by judges into a united nation under a king. Three men stood as titans above all others during this time: Samuel, who ministered as a prophet of God from 1105 to 1030 B.C. (and who anointed Israel’s first two kings); Saul, who reigned as king from 1052 to 1011 (who was replaced as king upon God’s dissatisfaction with Saul’s disobedience); and David, who reigned from 1011 to 970.
There are five passages in 1 & 2 Samuel that are relevant to the objective of this OT/NT study on the nature of death and resurrection with two of them being ranked 4. One of these two passages consists of the entire pericope at 1 Sam 28 which is the account of Saul and the medium of Endor.
Section A: Saul and the spirit medium of Endor
Introduction
The narrative of King Saul’s night visit to the spirit medium at Endor “has intrigued readers for millennia. . . . One key interpretive question is the identity of the figure who appeared to the medium and spoke to Saul. Was it the post-mortem Samuel or a demon impersonating Samuel in order to deceive Saul?” (Grenville Kent, 141) Was the “ghost of Samuel” real or imaginary?
Brian Schmidt writes that “through the centuries, Saul’s ominous encounter with the prophet Samuel post mortem has engendered a wide range of response from Jewish and Christian interpreters alike.” (Schmidt, 111) Daniel Olariu perceives that “this passage has most often been used by theologians in support of dogmatic pronouncements about life after death and the nature of man.” (Olariu, 86)
Bill Arnold observes that a “prima facie reading of 1 Samuel 28:3-19 may result in the conviction that Samuel’s ‘soul’ was present at Endor, and that this text therefore has troubling implications for the monist anthropology under consideration in recent discussion. So the first intended meaning of my search explores whether we must identify Samuel’s appearance here as his ‘soul,’ or whether there are alternative explanations . . . [which leads to] the question of whether this text proves the existence of a disembodied, intermediate state, as some contemporary readers insist.” (Arnold, 75-76)
Click here (foot-quote number one) to read what some experts (Roger Omanson & John Ellington, and Ralph Klein) have briefly written regarding Saul’s actions against mediums and a brief description of mediums and “necromancers.”
This essay will argue that the exegetical evidence favors the view that a demon performed a trick and impersonated Samuel, and that the soul of the real Samuel was not present at the séance. Although the text says, “the woman saw Samuel” and that “Samuel said to Saul,” the clues placed by the narrator of this passage indicate that the more appropriate interpretation of the identity of the mysterious speaker – who was invisible to Saul – may be “the supposed Samuel” rather than “(the real) Samuel.”
Purpose and my new interpretation
The purpose of this section is to describe some of the reasons for adopting an alternative interpretation of the Endor story at 1 Sam 28:3-25. The predominant view today is that the conversation at the séance involved the deceased Samuel rather than a fraudulent demon. “Many commentators today see the apparition as Samuel, present at the medium’s séance but actually sent by God.” (Kent, 142)
This section on my website has been completely revised since I selected a different interpretation of the identity of the speaker. I previously held to the more popular view (rather recently). I believed back then the real Samuel spoke to Saul through the Endor medium, even after a lot of study on this passage. I thought Samuel was resurrected back to life by God, similar to how Elijah was predicted to come back to life earlier than others (at Malachi 4:5). The physicalist/ monist/ mortalist position can be compatible with the view that a deceased person can be chosen by God to become awakened from death and hence, be brought back to life out of Sheol/ gravedom prior to a massive resurrection of people.
However, I completely changed my mind, and I now believe that the real Samuel did not speak at the séance, but rather, it was a demonic imposter that intended to trick Saul. I credit David Jakubovic for further explaining his view to me in a series of in-depth emails in 2024 that caused me to see it all very differently. Jakubovic regularly reviews books at afterlife in an essay style using many sources, and he wrote a theology essay on this Saul in Endor story, which can be seen at https://www.afterlife.co.nz/ 2024/05/conjuring-samuels-ghost-or-occult-conjuring-trick/.
Only the Lord God has the power to resurrect a person from gravedom
Was this a regular séance or a special kind of séance that rarely happens? My presumption is that typical seances involve the occult (i.e., demons, Satan) and this is the reason God had described this practice, and those who involve themselves with it, as detestable, abominable, abhorrent, and disgusting (quoting from various translations of Deuteronomy 18). And it is why God required that King Saul ban mediums, spiritists, sorcerers, and others who do it, as seen at 1 Sam 28:3 (with many of Israel’s neighbors also being involved in necromancy).
The penalty for “consulting,” “inquiring,” “talking with,” or “calling up” the dead (quoting from various translations of Deuteronomy 18) was death by stoning (see Lev 20:27). The seriousness of this great offense, from the perspective of God, must be kept in mind during exegesis as an interpretation is developed. A regular séance would involve deception, where in this case, the medium and Satan would intend to deceive Saul by having an impostor speak to him instead.
However, if it was a God-controlled event, then the real Samuel spoke to Saul; if it was a Satan-controlled event, then Saul was tricked, and he did not get his wish to get some advice from Samuel prior to the fearsome battle the next day.
Recognition of the person being called up from the dead is resolved by making them invisible to their customers. Only the medium could see the deceased Samuel as 1 Sam 28:14 indicates. It’s conceivable that it was a mental vision where the medium used her mind’s eye (instead of her actual eyes) in addition to hearing what the ghost was saying (but not with her ears) so that the message can be passed along to Saul. The medium was asked by Saul what Samuel looked like (see 1 Sam 28:14) and she answered him such that Saul felt comfortable with it actually being the prophet of God.
Moses is quoted as telling all of Israel to avoid divination, witchcraft, sorcery, and those mediums or spiritists who consult the dead (at Deut 18:9-14). There are good reasons for God’s ban on mediums that strongly suggest there is demonic deception involved. Click here (foot-quote 2) to read what one expert (Richard Nelson) says about this.
“Do not turn to mediums or spiritists. Do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.” (Lev 19:31, NASB).
I interpret this last sentence in v. 31 with an emphasis on the first word. After handing down this commandment, God was not just identifying himself. Rather, God was suggesting to his people to reject the false gods of the nations that surrounded them. Evil spirits tempted the Jewish people to inquire of them, but God is saying in v. 31 to reject the occult and inquire of Yahweh God, and talk to God, instead of these mediums and false gods: I . . . am God, not them.
The punishment for a person who is a medium, spiritist, or a witch is death according to Lev 20:27, and also 1 Sam 28:9 confirms the medium was aware of this punishment. Click here (fq-3) to read what one expert (Philip Johnston) wrote very briefly about this account of “calling up the dead” by a forbidden medium being so rare in Scripture.
As context for interpreting this story as the narrator probably intended, the second chapter of 1 Samuel, at Hannah’s song, says the following: “The Lord kills and makes alive; he brings down to Sheol [gravedom or the grave] and raises up” (v. 6). “According to this verse, only God controls Sheol” writes Olariu, (and edited by Clinton Wahlen, 90). Tertullian’s comments on the phrase, “the Lord kills and brings to life,” show that he interpreted it as definitely referring to a sequence of events: death and then life, rather than a metaphorical interpretation (of almost dying and then recovering). Click here (fq-4) to read what this expert and church father has written (through John Franke). Click here (fq-5) to read comments by three authors (David Tsumura, Joseph Saligoe, and Johnston) on the meaning of Sheol.
Click here (fq-6) to read what one expert (Tsumura) writes regarding the meaning of “brings death and makes alive,” and he provides the context of the ancient Near East, and their common belief in false gods, to conclude that the creator of heaven and earth, the real God, holds absolute authority over both the living and the dead, and not Satan or a medium.
It is reasonable to believe that the Creator God would hold tightly to the prerogative of resurrection, or even temporarily raising a person from the grave, and not allow Satan or anyone else to have this power. It is only God who raises people from the dead and who provides salvation from death. Do mediums really control the grave, or is it just a demonic trick?
The narrator informs the reader at v. 11 that the medium claims to be able to bring up a deceased person from the grave, and Saul acknowledged this apparent power by saying, “Bring up Samuel for me” in response to, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” She didn’t assert that God would be asked to bring up Samuel, only that “I will do it.” Clearly, the medium wants it to be known that even a divinely forbidden medium has the apparent right and power to raise people from the sleep of death (with the help of the devil).
This presents a difficulty for those who believe the prophet of God, Samuel, appeared at the séance since this implies that God allowed it to happen. Why would God do this, and participate in that which he detests? Perhaps God did not participate at all in the séance and did not allow his prophet to join in either. Perhaps Samuel himself did not want to participate in that which God prohibits upon severe punishment for all involved.
However, I recently changed my mind about who it was that spoke to Saul. I now believe it was not the real Samuel. So, I remember well the reason I had previously held for saying that God intervened, God brought up Samuel, God allowed the real Samuel to participate in the séance just this once. Why would God do this? Because he wanted to confront Saul one last time. Well, maybe not.
The medium’s description of what she saw and heard
The next verse, 1 Sam 28:12, tells the reader that the medium “cried out with a loud voice” (NKJV). Something surprising entered her mind that made her express shock and dismay since she said, “Why have you deceived me, Saul?” (NCB). The context in v. 8 explains that Saul disguised himself before confronting the medium (and he did not introduce himself as Saul). Click here (fq-7) to read what one expert (Johann Lange) says about the cause of the frightful outcry.
Two of the options for explaining the loud cry of the medium are (1) the real Samuel appeared to her and that was surprising because in a typical séance a demon shows up to pretend they are someone else, and the medium is aware of the scam, and (2) it was a typical séance instead, involving a demon as expected, as an imposter to trick Saul, and it gave her some shocking news that her life is in immediate danger because the king who rid the land of mediums is presently at her table.
Recall the end of v. 12: “You are Saul!” was spoken right after she saw and heard from the supposed Samuel, not as she examined Saul closer. The surprise expressed by the medium was not due to the real Samuel intervening in the séance in some different manner, but rather, the real Saul had scandalously intervened.
Kent writes: “While engaging in mystery writing, the narrator also guides the alert reader with clear allusions to the Torah’s strong prohibitions of necromancy, and these ring alarm bells about what is really going on. The medium asks Saul why he tries to lay a snare for her life, and she uses a word which has been used only once previously in Scripture as part of a passage warning against being ensnared by the religious practices of the Canaanites (Deut 12:29–13:5). This Torah warns against being ensnared (v. 30), and also warns against enquiring (cf. Saul in 28:7) after ‘their gods’ or ‘other gods’ (cf. 1 Sam 28:13).” (Kent, 154) Kent suggests reading Fred Blumenthal, “The Ghost of Samuel: Real or Imaginary?” 104-106, in the Jewish Bible Quarterly (2013).
The reason God gave for resisting the temptation to talk to your lovely grandmother from the grave is defilement, harm, or real damage. Recalling Lev 19:31, “Don’t turn to mediums, you’ll be defiled by them” (HCSB). So, why is it bad to talk to your deceased grandmother who may have loved God during her life? Because it’s not your grandmother; she cannot defile or harm you. But Satan can defile or harm you. A deceptive demon appearing as a friend or relative at a séance was the focus of the divine ban in ancient Israel. One expert asserts that “ancient tradition explicitly attributes deception to necromancy.” (Johnston (a),161)
Saul could not see the supposed Samuel – it was not an apparition in the open – because v. 13 says that Saul could not see Samuel, but had to ask the medium, “What do you see?” The information passed along to the medium from “Samuel” was not through her ears but instead was heard directly inside her head. The second half of v. 13 has attracted the attention of many commentators over the years due to the difficulty in translating the Hebrew word elohim in this context. It reads, “The woman said to Saul, ‘I see elohim coming up out of the earth.’”
The two most common translations of this elohim phrase in v. 13 are “I see a god” (NLV) and “I saw a spirit” (NKJV). Others (in descending order) include: “I see a divine being” (NASB), “I saw gods” (KJV), “I see a ghostly figure” (NIV), and “I see a divine [superhuman] being” (AMP). Click here (fq-8) to read a quote by Ellena Lyell & Joseph Scales in their conclusion section on this question of divine being (or a god) versus a ghost of a deceased human.
Schmidt asserts that “the internal and external data render highly unlikely the widely accepted view that elohim in 1 Sam 28:13 is Samuel’s ghost. Besides, if by ‘god’ a ghost of the dead was intended, why was the term ‘ob’ or ‘yiddeconi’ not mentioned instead in v. 13, for these two are the deuteronomistic technical terms for ghosts participating in necromancy? Lastly, if it were granted that the dead were deified, the woman’s reference to the ghost of the dead by the use of the term elohim would have been superfluous for her and for Saul.” (Schmidt, 125)
Schmidt writes in a footnote (n46, on the same page as above): “The [Hebrew terms] ‘obot’ and ‘yiddeonim’ of vv. 3, 7-9 refer neither to a class of professional mantics nor to ancestral images, but to the ghosts of the dead, ‘the ones-who-return,’ ‘to return,’ and ‘the knowers.’ The decisive passage is Lev 20:27 where it is reported that a man or woman might have ‘in them’ the ‘ob’ or the ‘yiddeoni.’ This surely eliminates the practitioner and the image as interpretive options.”
Johnston writes that “a third early view sees ob as an ancestor spirit, derived from Hebrew ’ab, ‘father’. Though not universally accepted, this is now the most common view.” (Johnston (a), 162). Click here (fq-9) to read part of Johnston’s summary of his chapter titled, “Consulting the Dead.”
Marvin Meyer writes that “it is our conclusion that the term ëlôhïm in 1 Sam 28:13 designates those gods known to be summoned – many from the world below – to assist the necromancer in the retrieval of a ghost.” (Meyer, 126)
In his conclusion, Olariu writes that “this study demonstrates that the narrator successfully designs the plot of 1 Samuel 28:3-25 in order to fulfill a double purpose: to depict Saul as deceived while the reader is not. In order to accomplish this purpose, the narrator gives his audience clues so that they will not be misled. He also creates enough ambiguity so as to highlight the features of the deception that entrap the king. This technique enables readers of the story to successfully decipher the ‘riddle’ and comprehend the complex nature of the hoax.” (Olariu, 93)
In his essay/book review seen at afterlife.co.nz of “The Immortality of the Soul” by A.M. Hills (Evangelical Visitor, 1923), titled “100 Years of Misinformation,” 2023, Jakubovic writes, “This was a convincing demonic apparition, not least owing to Samuel’s significant designation as elohim or ‘god(s)’ (1 Sam. 28:13), but not the terms nephesh or rephaim which would better fit dualism. Many suggest that ‘Samuel’ appears as a diaphanous ghost or ‘shade,’ e.g. [Paul] Williamson reckons ‘it was indeed the spirit or ghost of Samuel’ (Death and the Afterlife, 2017, 43). Yet neither ‘spirit’ (ruach) nor ‘shade’ (rephaim) appear in the Hebrew, whereas crucially elohim does.”
Jakubovic continues: “Tellingly, demons are only referenced twice in the OT but are both times explicitly termed elohim in Deut 32:16-17 and Psalms 106:37. . . . [Erik] Galenieks lists ten contextual reasons to conclude: ‘It was not the spirit of Samuel that communicated with Saul. Even in a visionary form, it was not an actual appearance of Samuel, but a demonic impersonation of the dead prophet.’ (Galenieks, 297-98)
Kent describes Manfred Hutter’s view that other Hebrew words would have been used if a ghost was meant: “Hutter’s conclusion is that the witch ‘speaks of an old local custom of conjuration of underworld deities” rather than of a supernatural Samuel. He supports this by arguing that ‘conjuring the dead originally meant nothing other than a cult of foreign gods’ which explains the radical prohibitions of it (Deut 18:10; Lev 20:6). He argues that if the narrator of 1 Samuel meant to describe the real ‘spirit of the deceased Samuel’ other words would have been used, such as Heb. at [H328, “ghosts of the dead” NASB] (Isa 19:3) or rephaim [H7496, “the assembly of the dead” NASB] (Prov 21:16).” (Kent, 144-45)
Kent continues: “This scene depicts a clash of worldviews— that of orthodox Yahwism and of the Canaanite paradigm of life after death. The woman should not be expected to express an ‘Old Testament’ or ‘biblical’ worldview, or to speak for the writer of Samuel.” (Kent, 145)
Olariu “takes a deep narrative dive into the account in which he uncovers the sub-theme of mistaken or deceptive identity:” Olariu writes (as quoted by Jakubovic), “In verses 8b-11, the woman converses with the visitor, whose identity is concealed. She even presumes that the visitor is an ordinary man but is deceived. Similarly, in verses 15-19 the king presumes that he converses with Samuel but is misled. Saul’s deception of the medium anticipates his own eventual deception by the medium. . . . Furthermore, it can be inferred that none of God’s holy beings, nor the returning of any human being from the dead, is referred to by elohim. Rather, the best candidate for the solution of the ‘riddle’ is to identify the ghost with a demon.” (Olariu, 84, 94) Maybe the ghost of Samuel was accompanied by a couple of satanic beings (as the normal charade usually went).
Some authors point to 1 Chron 10:13 as evidence the real Samuel appeared at the séance (such as Matthew Arnold in The Invisible Dimension, 2024) by using the Greek translation of the OT, the LXX (or Septuagint), which reads, “Samuel the prophet answered him.” However, Jakubovic replies that “the standard Hebrew text does not do so” and employs for support a quote from Sharon Beekman and Peter G. Bolt.
Quoting Beekman and Bolt: “The majority of contemporary commentators assume that Samuel appeared. They cite 1 Chronicles 10:13 in the Septuagint that reads: ‘Saul inquired of a wizard to seek counsel, and Samuel the prophet answered him.’ The last phrase is not included in the Hebrew Old Testament or in modern translations of the Bible (NIV, ESV, NASB). The shorter passage in modern translations is the preferred reading. . . . It is possible that Satan orchestrated the seance. Some argue that demons cannot know the mind of God and cannot foretell events, but they can if by God’s permissive or decretive will they are instruments of God’s judgment.” (Beekman & Bolt, 81)
As more textual clues are explained below, it may become evident to the reader that the group of scholars who agree with Beekman and Bolt (“It is possible that Satan orchestrated the séance”) and with Olariu above (“identify the ghost with a demon”) may be right. Olariu continues: “The narrator introduces the reader to the theme of hidden identity. As long as the identity of the king remains concealed, he controls the events. Significantly, the first thing done by the elohim in assisting the woman is to expose the real identity of her client.” (Olariu, 90)
Again, Olariu writes, “The fourth and most compelling clue is located at the center of the concentric structure. The word elohim forces readers to identify the visitor as being outside the human realm. In the Hebrew Bible, the term elohim stands primarily either for God or for idol-gods. . . . There are two relevant references outside of 1 Samuel that use similar terminology and themes, including the word elohim in connection with necromancy. Interestingly, they are the only references in the Hebrew Bible to demons, which suggests that elohim in 1 Samuel 28:13 also refers to demons.” (Olariu, 91)
Kent writes, “The medium tells Saul, ‘I see elohim (“gods”, KJV) coming up from the earth’ (1 Sam 28:13). The term elohim can be translated as a singular (God or god) or plural (gods), usually depending on context, but here the medium uses it with a plural verb: ‘they are coming up.’ This is consistent with polytheism: the Philistines use elohim with plural grammar (4:8), and it is used in describing the worship of gods other than Yahweh (8:8; 26:19).” (Kent, 145)
Click here (fq-10) to read more from Olariu regarding a verse in Numbers 25 and another one about the same event in Psalms that confirm that demons can be equated with elohim by recognizing the parallelism in those OT texts. Click here (fq-11) to read a very brief comment (from Lyell & Scales) in a 2021 article from the Hebrew Studies journal. So, we’re not there yet; this alone may not change someone’s mind. Let’s continue.
Testimony of ancient writers that the séance was demonic and deceptive
Bill Arnold writes, “Ancient readers of 1 Samuel 28:3-19 may be categorized into two groups. The first group of early writers . . . assumed the figure at Endor was not Samuel at all, but only a delusional and deceptive apparition, having its origin in demonic forces and offering a forged prophecy. Tertullian, for example, argued that the appearance was demonic and he appealed to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15a for evidence: ‘Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness.’ Others who specifically quoted Paul’s text in a similar vein were Pionius, Eustathius, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Pseudo-Augustine.” (Arnold, 77)
Arnold continues: “Many more commentators from the first centuries of church history fall into this category, although they did not use the Pauline quote: Pseudo-Hippolytus, Eustathius of Antioch, Ephraem, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, Pseudo-Basil, Jerome, Philastrius, and Ambrosiaster. Most of these authors assert that it is impossible for a holy prophet to be disturbed and raised from the dead by necromantic rituals. Saints may be able to exorcize evil spirits, but the reverse is not true — demons are not able to call up dead saints. Thus, these early Christian thinkers concluded that a demon or Satan himself deceived Saul (and the woman) by appearing as Samuel. . . . Augustine expressed conflicting opinions at different stages of his life on whether Samuel himself appeared or a delusive demon appeared instead, but his mature conviction seems to favor the latter.” (Arnold, 77)
Arnold also writes that he has benefited most from K.A.D. Smelik, “The Witch of Endor: 1 Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis Till 800 A.D.,” Vigiliae Christiane 33 (1977): 160-78. Click here (fq-12) to read more from Arnold where he identifies ancient authors in the second group who held that the voice originated with the real Samuel.
Examining the prophecy heard by Saul in vv. 15-19
Verse 15 begins with a question posed by the supposed Samuel, and Kent writes, “The opening line of his rebuke is, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Considering the scale of the issues at stake for Israel and its king, this would be a rather petty and self-focused comment for the real Samuel. And it would be strange indeed if it came from a prophet who was very willing to be awakened, and to disturb Eli repeatedly, in order to hear a word from Yahweh (1 Sam 3). If, as a number of commentators argue, God seized the initiative to turn an occultic consultation into an opportunity for true prophecy, why would Samuel begin by complaining about being there at all? Would he not willingly go on a mission for God?” (Kent, 151)
Kent continues, “Further, why would the real Samuel credit the woman or Saul with bringing him up? The phrase ‘come/bring up’ is noticeably repeated in the conjuration scene. . . . As Pigott points out, ‘according to Samuel’s words in v.15, he was disturbed from his sleep by the conjuring.’ If this was the real Samuel sent by God, why would he suggest the medium had brought him up? This would attribute to her the ability to decide what happens to Yahweh’s faithful prophet, who is under divine control. According to Hannah’s speech, which functions as a predictive overture introducing key themes of the book, it is Yahweh who brings down to Sheol, and who brings up (1 Sam 2:6). The footnote (n46) reads: “The parallelism here with ‘kills and makes alive’ suggests that this may well be . . . [an] OT mention of the possibility of resurrection. The wicked, by contrast, are ‘made silent in darkness’ (2:9).” (Kent, 151)
Again, Kent: “The rebuke ignores the most obvious issue. The rebuke by the apparent Samuel does not blame Saul for his most obvious sin of all— the divination itself. One grumpy, self-centered complaint about having his own sleep disturbed is hardly equivalent to a rebuke for the damning sin of divination. Miscall observes: ‘Samuel says nothing of Saul’s sin of divination and consulting a medium.” {Kent’s footnote n47: “Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (1986), 169-70. Bill T. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel (2003), 375 likewise notes that there is no rebuke for ‘the sin of necromancy and the presence of the medium.’} “Pigott also comments: ‘In every passage where necromancy is mentioned, the Hebrew Bible clearly decries the practice and/or condemns the practitioner— every passage, that is, except one. . . . One of the most striking aspects of the account is the complete absence of the expected negative word about the witch.’” {Kent’s footnote n48: Susan Pigott (435) “uses this as evidence for a positive view of the witch.” (Kent, 152)
Kent writes: “By contrast, Chronicles reveals that the divination was a key reason for Saul’s death: ‘Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit [an ‘ob], to inquire of it; and inquired not of the Lord: therefore He slew him.’ (1 Chron 10:13, 14, KJV). Some have seen here a contradiction with 1 Samuel, which says Saul did enquire of God (28:6). This can be harmonized in various ways, but the Chronicles passage may be understood as revealing from whom Saul really enquired at En-Dor— from an ‘ob spirit but not from God.” (Kent, 152)
Next, v. 16 claims that the Lord God has become an adversary of King Saul. One may ask, how could someone know that about God other than a prophet of God? Samuel and Saul had a disagreement while in Gilgal where the prophet asked him why he did not obey the voice of God with Saul saying that he did. Then Samuel accused the king of insubordination, rebellion, and disobedience. Twice, in this conversation that Satan probably overheard, Samuel told Saul that the Lord has rejected Saul and his kingdom (1 Sam 15:23, 28). The supposed Samuel at the séance could have been an imposter who knew about this significant downfall of the king of Israel.
At v. 17, Saul again was told that God had decided to tear the kingdom from his hand after hearing it multiple times prior to the séance (at 1 Sam 15:23, 26, 28) but without identifying initially who would replace him. Although the revealing of the name of the new king came at the séance, and not before, this does not indicate divine prophecy. A demon in disguise, wearing a priestly robe like Samuel’s before he died, could have determined that God had rejected Saul by over-hearing Samuel’s prophecy before he died based on the conversation at 1 Sam 15:13-31. Satan would have been informed that Samuel anointed David “in the midst of his brothers” to quote 1 Sam 16:13. This is known because v. 14 says that an evil spirit terrorized Saul once the “Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.”
At v. 18, the supposed Samuel gave the reason at the séance for God deciding to have Israel lose the war to the Philistines. That reason is Saul failing to follow orders from God to execute fierce wrath on Amalek and “utterly destroy” all that was there due to how they treated Israel (1 Sam 15:1-3). Just prior to Saul becoming anointed by Samuel as the king he was told to “not spare the king at Amalek” (v. 3).
Yet, King Agag was captured (v. 8), and not immediately killed, which caused God to say to Saul, through Samuel, that God regretted making Saul king of Israel (v. 10) for this and other reasons (vv. 15, 21). These events could easily have been monitored by a demon and reported to Satan. Therefore, the evil spirit who pretended to be Samuel at the séance made an easily predictable statement at v. 17 by telling Saul that David would be replacing him as king of Israel. He doesn’t yet tell Saul when that will happen, but the next verse (v. 19) does.
The supposed prophecy by the supposed prophet of God ends at v. 19 when Saul hears several details of the battle the next day that directly affect him, causing him to fall down to the floor in great fear. The components of this v. 19 prediction of future events involve the following: (1) The Philistines will win the battle tomorrow over Israel, (2) Yahweh God will ensure this happens, (3) Among those captured will be King Saul and others in the army, (4) This will happen the next day during the battle, (5) Saul will lose his life tomorrow, (6) Some of the sons of Saul will also die, and (7) This military defeat is repeated by emphasizing the capture of the army by the enemy.
My response to whether or not this could be a false prophet follows.
1) Satan could have easily predicted this outcome based on the obvious difference in the size of the two armies (see v. 5, “when Saul saw the camp of the Philistines”), the great fear within King Saul (“he shook in his boots, scared to death,” MSG), and the repeated rejection of Saul by God through conversation with Samuel;
2) Satan could have easily predicted that God would cause the defeat of the Philistines based on God’s repeated rejection of Saul and his kingship;
3) Satan could have easily predicted this outcome as well based on God’s repeated rejection of Saul and his kingship;
4) Satan could have easily predicted the start of the battle knowing the plans of the Philistines and the location of the camps of each army;
5) Satan was just guessing here on the death of Saul since he may have turned and “fled” with his other soldiers that did just that (see 1 Sam 31:1);
6) Satan was also just guessing here too (on the death of his sons);
7) Satan was repeating the details as a summary (plus some).
The first thing Saul heard in v. 19 is seen in items 1, 2, and 3 above (i.e., a military defeat for Israel). The second thing he heard begins with “therefore tomorrow.” At this point in time, we can imagine what Saul was thinking. Click here (fq-13) to read what one expert (A. Graeme Auld) says about Satan being easily able to predict most of this list.
The main question in the mind of Saul, after hearing about his defeat, was, would he die tomorrow? And with that, the next question would be, would he be captured alive?
Kent observes that “many commentators accept that the predictions of the apparent Samuel come true, but careful examination reveals nagging questions about the accuracy of some details. Of course the prediction generally comes true: Israel suffers military defeat. Yet this was not difficult to predict, and Saul already feared it (1 Sam 28:5). However some details do not fit.” (Kent, 153)
Every biblical scholar knows that a good interpretation of a verse must be based on a good translation of that verse (instead of using a paraphrase or bad translation) at least, and also, on a good version that’s in the original language usually, instead of in English. When 1 Sam 28:19 is seen in Hebrew, or in a Hebrew/English interlinear, one could say that the following translations are not the best ones to use (and “you” refers to Saul):
1) “The Lord will hand you and the army of Israel over to the Philistines” (NLT)
2) “The Lord will also hand Israel over to the Philistines along with you” (HCSB)
3) “The Lord will also hand Israel along with you over to the Philistines” (NASB)
The key words above are “hand over” (or “hand . . . over”). The following translations are better than these above because the Hebrew Bible uses two distinct words for this action rather than one. In this case, it could matter because it probably is a clue left there by the narrator.
4) “The Lord will deliver both Israel and you into the hands of the Philistines” (NIV)
5) “The Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines” (KJV)
6) “The Lord will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines” (NRSV)
The two Hebrew words are natan (meaning “deliver” or “give” in this context) and yad (meaning “into the hands”). Both of these terms have a wide range of meanings. Strong’s says this about natan: “used with greatest latitude of application.” And this lexicon says this about yad: “used in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively.” By including both in v. 19, it serves to highlight the second one as a clarification of the first one. That is, a poor translation fails to respect the original purpose of the second phrase (at v. 19c), and by turning away from the phrase (or Hebrew idiom), “into the hands,” something is lost in translation between the Hebrew and English.
The main point here is that when Saul heard the first instance of “into the hands” (at v. 19a), it was unclear to him whether it was meant literally or figuratively. A literal meaning of yad, in this context, refers to a prisoner of war feeling a literal hand of the enemy on them as the army is being captured (rather than not feeling the actual contact). A figurative meaning of yad refers to dead soldiers being under the control of the enemy as they advance across the battlefield, and as the corpses consequently become under the power of the enemy (where “hands” is understood as “control”).
However, to provide clarity to what exactly was being predicted in v. 19a, Saul heard “into the hands” a second time (at v. 19c) but in a different context. Saul wanted to know if he would be captured alive or killed in the battle itself. And the supposed Samuel also wanted Saul to know too. Thus, Saul figured the prediction amounted to being captured alive.
The demon could have just said, “The Lord will deliver Israel and you to the Philistines,” but he did not leave it vague; he added v. 19c, but in an obscure way. Without that ending that clarifies the beginning, “into their hands,” v. 19a could have meant either (1) into their literal hands or (2) under the control of the enemy.
Comparing the two phrases (using the NRSV) shows how they are different:
1) “The Lord will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines” (v. 19a)
2) “The Lord will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines” (v. 19c)
In the first instance, it’s Israel and Saul, then in the second instance of this similar phrase, it’s just the army of Israel that’s referenced. There isn’t any difference between “Israel” and the “army of Israel” in this context since 1 Sam 31:7, which picks up the story after a brief interlude on David, clearly says that many in the Israeli army had fled the battlefield, that other Israelites saw them fleeing across the valley, and that they abandoned their homes and fled their towns and cities.
Tremper Longman III observes that “In recent years various sections of the books of Samuel have been subjected to close reading in order to uncover aspects of Samuel’s exquisite literary structure. While manufacturing chiasms where there are none is a constant temptation that the exegete must avoid at all costs, the author of Samuel seems to have used the technique on numerous occasions. A clear example is the epilogue, in which the Song of David (2 Sam 22) and David’s last words (23:1-7) nestle between two warrior narratives (21:15-22; 23:8-39) that are framed in turn by reports of divine wrath against the people of God (21:1-14; ch. 24).” (Longman, 29) It is likely that the author of this pericope on Saul and Samuel employed another chiasm at v. 19 with its three parts. Click here (fq-14) to read what one expert (Tsumura) says about this point. Click here (fq-15) to read what another expert (Tony Cartledge) says about Hebrew poetry.
Olariu concludes that “the narrator uses the literary device of chiasmus to better communicate the meaning of the story. This device not only creates unity and balance but also enables the narrator to enhance the themes and ideas of the parallel units by either contrast or similarity. Consequently, by reading the story and following its internal structure, the possibility for discovering its meaning is enhanced. In addition to chiasmus, the narrator employs additional techniques (e.g., recalling, failing to record) that define the theological boundaries for interpreting the story. This study considers the motif of hidden identity to be the unifying theme of the narrative.” (Olariu, 93)
The claim at v. 19a that “Israel will be given over” actually refers only to some or most of the army of Israel. That is the likely outcome, and the impostor in his prediction just picked what would probably happen anyway. This originally intended usage is confirmed by the narrator (separate from the supposed Samuel) at 1 Sam 28:3-4 with two different meanings of “all Israel”: (1) “all Israel” had lamented the death of Samuel (at v. 3), versus (2) “all Israel” was gathered together and camped in Gilboa (at v. 4). The prediction rightly assumes that some will turn and flee the battle due to the huge Philistine army. Some Israelites were not there on the battlefield but were elsewhere as seen in the text. Thus, the first instance of “into their hands” refers to the army of Israel. And the second instance of “into their hands” also refers to the army of Israel. However, this last part does not even mention Saul. It’s likely Saul noticed that omission even if many exegetes today have not.
Thus, the main literary difference between the two phrases above (v. 19a and 19c) is King Saul. There’s a minor difference between them consisting of a different (but similar) Hebrew term at v. 19c that brings out an emphasis of “deliver” to make it imperative (as seen in some translations with “shall deliver”).
Therefore, the supposed Samuel, a demon or Satan, clever as a fox, deceptive as a wolf that looks like a sheep (or an angel of light from 2 Cor 11:13-14), and as dangerous as a roaring lion, showed that the literal meaning of “into their hands,” not the figurative, was intended at the séance. He displayed a sophisticated warning to appear as if it was from God. He intended the literal sense of experiencing “hand contact” versus just “control over” the corpse since “into their hands” applied to the group as well. Since the whole army would not be expected to be killed (and there were, in fact, survivors who fled), the fact of the POWs indicates that a literal meaning of “into their hands” must be used in both instances (so, the prediction is that Saul would be captured alive).
This use of both Hebrew terms, natan and yad appear in Judges 2:13-14 (in the Hebrew Bible), and they are used together, back to back, in this verse. “So they forsook the Lord and served Baal and the Ashtaroth. The anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He gave them [natan] into the hands [yad] of plunderers who plundered them; and He sold them.” Although yad means, in this context, literally “into their hands” (since they were not killed), it is not rare that yad also can be defined in a figurative way, in a different context, to indicate the subject had died and another person “took control” (yad) over the corpse.
Consequently, this analysis above on the Endor medium’s apparent prophecy should be employed in an exegesis of this passage. This means that the demon intentionally meant that Saul, who was smart enough to become king, would be able to answer his own question of whether or not he would be taken alive or dead by the enemy.
So, a comparison of these two phrases shows that the critical emphasis emerges at the end of v. 19 as a clarification of the beginning of it. Part of Saul’s army will be captured alive, and there will be prisoners of war. Those defeated soldiers will literally feel the hands of the enemy. Saul has seen this before in other battles. He recalled hearing at the séance just a few seconds before that both he and the POWs would be subject to “the hand of the Philistines” or rather, he and they will literally feel “their hands” and thus be captured alive. Saul understood shortly before falling to the floor in agony that he would die in captivity following much abuse (see 1 Sam 31:4). Saul left the séance believing, and probably started the battle believing, that he would not die on the battlefield but will be captured alive, only to be tortured before losing his head to decapitation (see 1 Sam 31:4, 9).
The problem, of course, is that this v. 19 prediction failed. Saul was not captured alive. He did not feel the grasp of the enemies’ hand as prophesied. A solution to this problem, including the other difficulties as explained above (and elsewhere), is to reevaluate the source of the prediction. It makes sense to assign this false prophecy to a false prophet.
The acid test from ancient Israel for determining the genuineness of a prophet is described in Deut 18:21-22 since there were many false prophets there. “You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?’ If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously” (NRSV). I now believe that Saul was tricked into believing it was Samuel the prophet speaking through the mouth of the medium when it was actually a demonic imposter performing a typical séance rather than a surprising one.
Did the king get his wish, to hear from the deceased prophet before the battle started? No, he did not. Satan fooled him. Samuel’s ghost was not around; he was not actually brought out of Sheol. Also, there was no preliminary resurrection of Samuel, either, as Malachi prophesied regarding Elijah (at Mal 4:5), as I had previously held (with the speaker being the real Samuel). Rather, it was just a dead Samuel who did not see the fallen king alive ever again (as stated at 1 Sam 15:35).
The narrator of this passage in First Samuel used a particular literary device to make the identification of the speaker only appear to be genuine. The narrator inserted some clues such that he had hoped that readers and interpreters would figure out that the use of “Samuel” really meant “the supposed Samuel” between vv. 12 and 20.
Tsumura writes: “1&2 Samuel is not only an ancient Hebrew prose narrative in which several poems are quoted (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:1-10; 2 Sam. 1:19-27; 3:33-34; 22; 23:1-7); many prose texts in 1-2 Samuel can be subjected to poetic analysis. In fact, it is often impossible to clearly distinguish between prose and poetry. Not only direct speeches but also the narrative parts reflect poetic style.” (Tsumura, 55)
One type of clue can be found earlier in the text in the fourth and fifth chapters of First Samuel, and Kent believes that the narrator also used it again in 1 Sam 28 by using a particular well-known literary device (among exegetes). It seems appropriate here to provide extensive quotes of Kent from his article titled, “Call Up Samuel”: Who Appeared to the Witch at En-dor? (1 Samuel 28:3-25),” (2014).
“The narrator is too deft a dramatist and too realistic a theologian to write a one-dimensional characterization. . . . I submit that this is an example of focalization, the technique in which the narrator temporarily adopts the point of view of a character. It is well accepted among literary scholars that an otherwise omniscient narrator can put aside that privilege for a time to adopt ‘the perspective of one of the characters and see “through his or her eyes.”’ ” Click here (fq-16) for Kent’s footnote n66. “Alter shows that hinneh (the familiar ‘behold’ of the KJV) is often used to mark a shift in narrative point of view from third-person omniscience to the character’s direct perception.” Click here (fq-17) for Kent’s footnote n67. He also notes: “The biblical narrator . . . often uses the term [hinneh] to mark the crossover between his perspective and that of a character, the ‘Behold’ becoming in effect part of the unspoken inner speech of the personage, especially at moments when something unexpected or untoward is seen.” (Kent, 155, 157)
Kent continues: “Weiss adds: ‘When the Bible speaks about the protagonists, it embodies . . . their state of mind, through the structure and style of the description. It is as if at that moment the Biblical author identifies with the actors in the story and speaks from their hearts and minds—not in their words, but in his own.” Click here (fq-18) for Kent’s footnote n69. “A writer can show a character’s views and perceptions either in that character’s own words (direct speech) or in a focalized narration (free indirect speech), but the effect is very similar. Even if the character’s views and perceptions are wrong, the dependable, reliable biblical narrator has the flexibility to use focalization when it suits a purpose, such as letting the reader enter a character’s ‘mind and . . . secret motives or “participate in the experience with the protagonist.’ These shifts in point of view can be marked by the use of hinneh (“behold”), but also ‘verbs of perception (“to see,” “to hear,” “to know”) can be important indicators of specific focalizations,’ though the context is decisive.” Click here (fq-19) to read more from Kent including two examples of focalization in 1 Sam 4 and 1 Sam 5, and for Kent’s footnote n72.
Kent concludes: “The importance of this to the subject of our paper is that some narrations reflect the views and perceptions of the medium and of Saul, and should not be taken out of context as if they simply stated the view of the authoritative narrator. They should be read as part of an artful interplay of focalizations, with the medium’s perceptions strongly influencing Saul’s. . . . The reader feels the force of the deception that destroyed Saul, which makes the story and its lesson even more dramatic and memorable. . . . ‘The witch of Endor has cast a spell over biblical commentators,’ quips Reis, so that for most scholars ‘God’s vehement condemnations of witchcraft are discounted . . . and the witch of Endor basks in approval, continuing to entrance exegetes down the centuries.”” Click here (fq-20) for Kent’s footnote n65. (Kent, 155-159)
In his commentary on 1&2 Samuel (2011) for The Old Testament Library series, Auld writes that “the books of Samuel are a work of creative genius.” (Auld, 9)
“Samuel said” in 1 Sam 28 is an example of an ingenious way of writing that should be interpreted as follows: “Supposedly, Samuel said” because the narrator of the book is enticing the reader to eventually realize (with God’s arrow attack from the archers and Saul’s surprising suicide on the battlefield, see 1 Sam 31:3-4) that it is likely that only Saul believed initially that Samuel spoke. Three chapters later, the narrator reveals this shocking turn of events caused by the miraculous flight path of an arrow (controlled by God, I’d suggest). The reader then could realize, the narrator hopes, that a decision to commit suicide is a decision that also affects who actually spoke at the séance. Incredible! It was Saul’s suicide that revealed the incorrect prediction, exposed the false prophet, and shut out the ghost of Samuel from being called up out of the grave.
If Saul had not killed himself, and he had not wished to die after being struck by the arrow, then he probably would have been captured alive by the enemy due to being out-numbered. The prediction would not have failed, and the false prophet would not have been exposed. “Samuel said” may have remained possibly to be interpreted centuries later as just being Samuel predicting that which came true. The narrator, however, knew it was not the real Samuel, but the reader would not know it if Saul would have just followed the plan and did what he was told. The king’s independence of God, and his dependence on a divinely forbidden medium, ended up with his death by suicide, and leaving him slain on the ground for the Philistine army to discover and haul back home (see 1 Sam 31:8-10).
There is one more problem in the prophecy at 1 Sam 28:19 to address here. Similar to the point made above regarding the first and last parts of this verse (regarding whether “into the hands” was meant literally or figuratively), this next point also has not been found by me in the literature (although I expect both points to have been already covered by others in their commentaries). At 1 Sam 28:19b (“So tomorrow you and your sons will be with me” (NASB), my focus here is on the phrase “your sons.” The “will be with me” phrase is somewhat clear: they will die (the next day). Saul probably understood immediately that he would be going to the grave (Heb., Sheol) where he thought the real Samuel, the ghost of Samuel, was located, as was common then. Click here (fq-21) to read what the experts, Omanson & Ellington, say about the meaning of “will/shall be with me.”
In Auld’s commentary of 1&2 Samuel (2011), he discusses the Old Greek (OG) version of the OT (i.e., LXX) and how Codex Vaticanus differs from other manuscripts (i.e., the Lucianic text) that are similarly very old. “The ‘Lucianic text’ (LT) is our best evidence for OG [i.e., LXX or Septuagint]. The LT is a less pristine witness than unrevised B [i.e., Codex Vaticanus] (B at its best), but [LT is] a better witness than revised B. However, LT is not the name of a single ancient codex (like B); it is the reconstructed ancestor of five interrelated ‘Lucianic’ witnesses.” (Auld, 6)
Auld continues: “Samuel–Kings, or 1–4 Kingdoms, are divided into four sections — but differently. The divisions between 1 and 2 Samuel and between 1 and 2 Kings do correspond to those between 1 and 2 Kingdoms and 3 and 4 Kingdoms. Second Samuel comes to an end before David dies. However, in one family of ancient Greek manuscripts, the LT, the division between 2 and 3 Kingdoms comes sixty-five verses later in the total story — after rather than before the deathbed scenes where the transfer of power from David to Solomon is reported (1 Kings 1:1–2:12) In these manuscripts, in other words, 2 Kingdoms (like 1 Chronicles) does not come to its end until David is dead.” (Auld, 15)
So, at the end of one of the divisions seen in the five ancient manuscripts known as LT, we see that it differs significantly from the version of Second Samuel we have now, but it is similar to First Chronicles regarding the death of King David. This means that originally – before the huge Kingdoms book was split up into 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings – it was very similar to LT regarding where the death of David is included. This observation lends some credibility to LT.
In Auld’s notes of this passage (v. 19) where he is comparing LT to B, he writes, “Again LT is different: ‘You and Jonathan your son <will be> with me.’ (Auld, 324) The five ancient copies of 1&2 Samuel (LT) are in conflict with later Greek and English versions at 1 Sam 28:19. All 56 English translations seen at BibleGateway.com say, “and your sons,” but the LT family instead says, “and Jonathan.” Auld has little to say about this surprise.
It would be an obvious error to interpret “you and your sons will be with me” as meaning that “Saul and all four of his sons would die the next day.” We know that three sons of Saul died in the battle where they are identified by name at 1 Sam 31:2 (Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua), which is confirmed at 1 Chron 10:6. The fourth son of Saul (Ish-bosheth) was not on the battlefield; but rather, he was decapitated later (2 Sam 4:7).
The question is, did a redactor significantly alter this pericope about Saul and Samuel (at v. 19b) by deleting “and Jonathan your son” and then replacing it with “and your sons” for the admirable purpose of aligning it with the end of 1 Samuel (at 31:2)? And also, why do these five ancient copies (LT) say only Jonathan died?
Jonathan was the heir-apparent to Saul’s throne. He was the eldest son of Saul, and Jonathan is mentioned by name 72 times in First Samuel while his other two sons (who fought this battle) are mentioned by name only 13 and 5 times in this book, respectively. The fourth son is not mentioned by name in First Samuel but is identified 13 times in Second Samuel.
Under the belief that the prophecy at 1 Sam 28:19b was spoken by a false prophet (since it failed to come true regarding Saul’s capture while alive), one could assert that the imposter said at the séance “you and Jonathan your son” will die in the battle. There are multiple reliable witnesses (i.e., the LT family of manuscripts) that contend that is specifically what the original written story actually said in this account. The demonic imposter probably said “Jonathan” because Satan would have known that he was presently located in the camp of the Israeli army, and because he was the heir-apparent to Saul’s throne. It was just a good guess, of course, since only God’s prophets know the future, especially regarding life and death of a particular person.
Why didn’t the false prophet say at the séance “and your three sons will die too”? Maybe because that was a big stretch regarding whether Saul would take the bait and believe the prediction was genuine. The first written account (long-lost, of course) became several copies, and one of them may have been again copied, as they became worn out, to become known as the ‘Lucianic text’ (LT). However, history shows that more numerous copies of the version that said “your sons” rather than “Jonathan” eventually replaced the Lucianic text (as seen in nearly every English translation). An editor or redactor probably changed the text much later thinking it was an innocent clarification regarding it actually being multiple sons of Saul who died in the battle, not just one son. He did not substitute the more precise, “three sons,” but rather felt inclined to just say, “your sons.”
Therefore, if this theory is true, then it becomes additional evidence for making the case that the prophecy failed and did not come true since three sons died, not just one. This assertion is not critical to the case due to many other unrelated reasons. A failed prophecy means that the “ghost of Samuel” was not brought up out of the ground (from Sheol), but rather, the voice of the medium was being directed by a devil or Satan, and he guessed wrong. As it turned out, his prediction failed because it explicitly set aside the fate of Saul’s two other sons, which suggested to Saul at the séance that they would survive the battle. Instead, three sons and their father died at the hands of the enemy that day.
Conclusion
The appeal of this 3,000 year old story can be attributed, in part, to the disagreement over it, and the seemingly robust and forceful case that can be made for each of the three main options for answering the question of who exactly appeared to the Endor medium. For most of my life, prior to studying the passage, I held to the predominant view today (i.e., the spirit of Samuel). Then, after spending a whole lot of time researching academic commentators and other books on First Samuel, I held to a very unusual view (i.e., the real Samuel was preliminarily resurrected by God, similar to Elijah at Malachi 4:5). Then, I once again altered my position completely (i.e., it was a demonic impostor) after learning more about it from Jakubovic.
So, my conclusion is that the case held by many scholars who support the strong minority position (i.e., it was a demonic imposter) outweighs the evidence promoted in both the majority position and the weak minority position (i.e., a resurrected Samuel). The lesson to be taken from this interpretation exercise is that regular Bible readers and listeners, academic professors of theology or of the Bible, and everyone else in between who studies Scripture (that includes me) should reject 100% certainty of their interpretations (and choose 99% instead, or lower) for difficult passages in the Bible because nobody is immune from having a mistaken opinion on various controversial verses. I’ll let Kent close this sub-section.
Kent ends his conclusion by writing that God’s people should avoid psychics, mediums, and fortune-tellers: “Within this story, the apparent Samuel speaks for the dark side and helps make Saul’s downfall irrecoverable. Thus the story echoes timeless biblical warnings against necromancy as opposed to genuine prophecy. We might say the devil is in the details.” (Kent, 160)
Epilogue
At the conclusion section of Jakubovic’s essay titled, “Conjuring Samuel’s Ghost — or Occult Conjuring Trick?” (May 15, 2024; www.afterlife.co.nz), which is a review of ch. 17 in his separate essay/book review of Matthew Arnold, The Invisible Dimension: Spirit-Beings, Ghosts, and the Afterlife (2024), Jakubovic writes, “I find Matt Arnold’s website, outreach . . . and new book . . . highly commendable . . .[and it makes] fascinating reading. Nevertheless, with the greatest respect, I do think he misreads 1 Sam 28 thanks to an a priori dualist mind-set, just as he will counter that I misread it with a monist one! But I hope to have set out at least a robust case for sustaining a ‘demon impostor’ reading of 1 Sam 28. Instead of the medium conjuring ‘Samuel’s ghost,’ it really is an occult conjuring trick.”
Jakubovic then provides a quote from W. Lee Humphreys, “The Rise and Fall of King Saul: A Study of an Ancient Narrative Stratum in 1 Samuel,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 5 no.18 (1980), 81-82. “Assumptions are made here about the state of the dead that are clearly not found elsewhere in ancient Israelite or early Jewish material. . . . Clearly in 1 Samuel 28 practices and conceptions of the dead are presented that stand outside more normative Israelite practice and understanding and are more fully illuminated by Hittite and Greek tradition.”
The number of sources seen in Jakubovic’s bibliography for just ch. 17 (i.e., the May 15, 2024, essay) is about 120 books and journal articles with over 17,000 words. The word-count for this essay of mine is over 12,000 words (including foot-quotes) with 44 sources cited (of which 11 sources overlap and appear in his essay). This comparison gives an indication of the size of his “robust case,” and it is highly recommended reading (as well as many of the other essay/book reviews at this website by Jakubovic), including a review of my 2020 book (“Luther’s Conditionalism Confirmed,” April 13, 2021).
His book review of Death until Resurrection: An Unconscious Sleep According to Luther states that “Saligoe’s intricate research is impressively solid . . . plus the book’s back cover receives a glowing endorsement from renowned NT scholar Anthony Thiselton.” It cites many primary sources of Luther (67 books, plus another 131 secondary sources) to demonstrate that he was, surprisingly, a physicalist/ monist/ mortalist on the nature of the human soul, and that Luther unexpectedly believed that the nature of death is like an unconscious sleep, and it also shows (to the consternation of many Luther experts today) that he held this view consistently for the last 24 years of his life. And for his first 38 years, he said nothing about these topics (i.e., death as sleep), and therefore, he may have believed differently until he changed his mind after an abundance of Bible study. Perhaps more Christians today should keep an open mind on their notions and beliefs about what the Bible teaches.
Section B: Death and resurrection barely described
1) The first of two verses to be examined in Section B is ranked 4 (while the remaining passages in First and Second Samuel are ranked 3).
“The Lord kills and restores to life; he sends people to the world of the dead and brings them back again” (1 Sam 2:6, GNT).
The mother of Samuel, Hannah, spoke this poetic verse about death—and likely about resurrection too—in Hannah’s Prayer (or Hannah’s Song of Praise and Thanksgiving) when she dedicated her very young son to the house of the Lord and to the care of Eli the priest. A portion of it clarifies Deut 32:39 (“There is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and I who give life”) by extending “give life” to also mean “makes alive and raises up from Sheol.” The idiomatic phrases, “going down to Sheol” and “coming up from Sheol” refer to the realm or resting-place of the heart-mind of a dead person. The world of the dead was probably seen at this point in history by some as not a final destination, due to the explicit raising up of people from Sheol to make alive again. Click here (fq-22) to read what some experts (Omanson & Ellington) have written regarding the best translation of Sheol (e.g., “the grave” is not recommended).
Hannah’s Prayer consists of ten verses, yet it is the last half, and starting with 1 Sam 2:6, our subject verse, as the beginning of “the most important component” of the prayer/song. Click here (fq-23) to read what one expert (Bergen) has written about this part of Hannah’s Song.
Hannah was asserting here that YHWH God holds absolute authority over Sheol compared to other ancient Near East customs such as the Ugaritic funeral cult and its sun goddess Shapshu. Click here (fq-24) to read what one expert (Tsumura) has written about this point.
The Hebrew verb, hayah, is typically translated as “makes alive” or “gives life” in the usual sense of “bringing back to life” after dying, as opposed to having birth and giving life. This passage cannot be rated higher (as a 5) because of the unlikely, but still uncertain, possibility that hayah takes a very different meaning compared to these two. This word could perhaps mean “preserves alive” in the context of symbolically “raising up” not from death, but from the verge of death. This idea is seen in Ps 71:20, for example, where it talks about God reviving a person from their many troubles, and uplifting the down-trodden (without any use of the word, Sheol there (in any Bible translation), or any reference to literal death in this verse or its context). Click here (fq-25) to read what one expert (Harris) has written about this point under the subhead, 1 Samuel 2:6.
Death versus life, and poverty versus wealth, describe the power of God in this Prayer. If YHWH can truly raise a dead person back to life from Sheol, then he is surely able to feed the hungry. Click here (fq-26) to read what one expert (Cartledge) has written about this point.
Another commentator on this pericope writes that God has the right, and he acts on that right, to “actually dispose” of any person he wants because they are his creation. Click here (fq-27) to read what this expert (Clarkson) says about this point.
Tertullian’s comments on the phrase, “the Lord kills and brings to life,” show that he interpreted it as definitely referring to a sequence of events: death and then life. Click here (fq-28) to read what this expert and church father has written.
The meaning of 1 Sam 2:6b (“He brings down to Sheol and raises up”) has been disputed somewhat regarding whether it contrasts death with life, or alternatively, sickness with health in the case of a rescue from the brink of death. However, this seems to be a strained interpretation with little support given that v. 6a (“The Lord kills and brings to life”) clearly contrasts only death with life in this poetic structure that ties the two together (using the pronoun, he). Click here (fq-29) to read what one expert (Youngblood) says about this point.
2) The next verse to be considered also appears in Hannah’s Prayer: “He guards the steps of his faithful ones, but the wicked perish in darkness, for a person does not prevail by his own strength” (1 Sam 2:9, CSB).
What does Hannah refer to with “darkness;” is it this world, the next world, or something in between the two? Some commentators hold that it refers to the gloom at death that can overcome a wicked person, even extending the symbolism of darkness to the netherworld of the dead. Click here (fq-30) to read what one expert (Tsumura) says about this point.
The translation of 1 Sam 2:9 that appears in the highly-esteemed Word Biblical Commentary series uses the phrase, “the wicked are made silent in dark death.” This shows that the Hebrew word entailing the sense of “darkness” is translated by Klein as pointing to death by the phrase, “dark death.” But more than that, the immediate context of “dark” in this version shows that what is dark for the person makes its appearance at death (and continuing after this point in time), rather than just prior to death.
The meaning of 1 Sam 2:9 likely has nothing to do with a wicked person’s deathbed and muted silence in the room. Rather, this Word translation sees in the Hebrew language a pointing to the condition right after death. This is suggested by his phrase, “made silent,” in its context. For some people, it can take actual death to make them finally silent, especially if they are devious and wicked. The use of “silent” and “silenced” can be seen in many English translations of this verse. Alternatively, “cut off” may appear in 1 Sam 2:9 (nine versions at BibleGateway.com) and “perish,” “die,” or “disappear” (with ten versions there) also are used instead of “silent.” The EXB puts “disappear” in brackets immediately after “silenced” which may indicate that the Hebrew term in the text can be taken to mean the person was forced to “shut up” precisely due to the person no longer having the capability to interact with people. And so, the phrase used in the EXB, “will be silenced [disappear] in darkness” likely refers to the darkness of death causing the person to no longer speak wickedness or insults because they are unable to talk in Sheol. Click here (fq-31) to read how one expert (Auld) interprets this middle part of 1 Sam 2:9.
As v. 9 is interpreted as a higher level description of being “cut off or silenced in darkness” (i.e., in God’s realm versus this world), it is necessary to keep in mind the context of both v. 8 and v. 10, regarding the ability of God to shatter those who contend with him since YHWH God is the sovereign creator, and especially with Hannah’s reference to divine judgment. Being “held silent in a literally dark place” or “cut off within a darkened place” can point to God’s preparation of the kingdom of God, rather than merely to a darkened deathbed. Click here (fq-32) to read what some experts (Keil & Delitzsch) have written about this point.
There are other commentators who interpret what happens to wicked ones “in darkness” in 1 Sam 2:9 as referring to the gravedom of Sheol, and not to this world. Click here (fq-33) to read what these experts (Youngblood and Omanson & Ellington) have written.
Section C: Death is a rest with your ancestors in Sheol
1) Second Samuel uses the unusual phrase, “rest with your ancestors,” in the context of literal death, as does Gen 47:30 (or “lie down with your ancestors”). However, it is only in Samuel that the writer presents it as a quote of God. “The word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying, “Go and say to My servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: …” (2 Sam 7:4-5, NASB). Chapter 7 of Second Samuel continues, saying: “When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors” (2 Sam 7:12, NIV).
The usual expression though is to “sleep with your ancestors (or fathers, after dying)” especially in Kings and 2 Chronicles. See the following previous sections of this OT study on this expression that not only refers to death, but it also describes the nature of death. Genesis: Sections B and C; Numbers: Sections A and B; and Deuteronomy: Section F. The deceased person is metaphorically lying down, resting, or sleeping during actual death in the company of their ancestors.
2) Second Samuel uses the Hebrew word, Sheol, only once (as does First Samuel as seen above). This example from 2 Sam 22:5-6 does not add much to the several descriptions of Sheol cumulatively, starting in Genesis with Jacob. What the books of Samuel tell us though about the world of the dead is that King David, in addition to Hannah, both knew what Sheol is. What it is not is hell, death, or the grave, as shown by Scripture. See Genesis: Section C, Leviticus: Section C, Numbers: Section B, and Deuteronomy: Section H in this OT study for discussions about the Bible’s descriptions of Sheol.
“Death, like ocean waves, surrounded me, and I was almost swallowed by its flooding waters” (2 Sam 22:5, CEV). “The cords of Sheol entangled me, the snares of death confronted me” (2 Sam 22:6, NRSV).
3) Knowing that it was David who wrote the word Sheol that appears in 2 Sam 22:6 (from above), as shown in 2 Sam 22:1 (“David spoke the words of this song”), David’s response to losing a child to illness (2 Sam 12:18-19) can be better understood. In 2 Sam 12:15b-23, in which the NASB gives the heading, “Loss of a Child,” we see David’s response to the news that his young boy was dead. The unusual claim seen in the last verse (of these nine verses of chapter 12) is emphasized by the writer of Second Samuel (by placing it at the end). One of the main points of this section is seen at 2 Sam 12:23 where it asserts that David “will go to him,” the deceased child. What does this mean?
In the previous verse, v. 22, David is described as fasting during the boy’s severe illness with the hope that God will respond graciously and heal the child. “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam 12:23, NASB). David is saying to his servants (v. 21) that when he dies eventually, he will be in Sheol with his deceased boy. So, death is a rest in Sheol not only with your ancestors, but with both the young and the old.
Ω Ω Ω
This concludes my study on First and Second Samuel. Regarding Bible versions used here, five of the eight primary translations appear here (NIV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, and KJV). The following secondary translations are used: NJB, NCB, HCSB, NVL, AMP, MSG, and NLT.
Quoted Passages in 1 & 2 Samuel (5 total / 2 highly rated verses):
Rating of 5:
None
Rating of 4:
1 Sam 28:3-25
1 Sam 2:6
Rating of 3:
1 Sam 2:9
2 Sam 7:12
2 Sam 12:23
2 Sam 22:5-6
Rating of 2:
1 Sam 15:6,9
1 Sam 15:18
1 Sam 16:7
1 Sam 25:29
1 Sam 28:3
2 Sam 1:14
2 Sam 12:13-14
2 Sam 14:14
2 Sam 23:2-3
Quoted/Cited Passages Not in 1 & 2 Samuel:
Lev 19:4
Lev 19:31
Lev 20:6
Lev 20:27
Numb 25:1-3
Deut 12:29–13:5
Deut 18:9-15
Deut 18:21-22
Deut 32:16-17
Deut 32:39
Judges 2:13-14
1 Chron 10:13
Psalms 106:28
Psalms 106:36-37
Jer 15:1
Ezek 14:4,7
Mal 4:5
2 Cor 11:13-15
2 Peter 1:16-18
Footnoted Quotes from Expert Commentators of Scripture:
SEE WHAT SOME EXPERTS HAVE WRITTEN (foot-quote number 1): (1) “A ‘medium’ was someone who called up the spirit of a dead person. NJB renders it by the technical term “necromancers,” that is, people who consult the spirits of the dead in order to reveal the future or to influence future events” (Omanson & Ellington, 570). (2) “In desperation Saul sought to learn the future by necromancy even though he himself had prohibited such practices.” (Klein, 273) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 2: “These verses [in Deuteronomy 18] seek to restrict attempts to learn about the divine will, the future, and hidden mysteries. They also serve as a rhetorical prelude to the command to listen to the divinely chosen prophet (v. 15). Israel should rely on true prophets and not utilize other sources of information. . . . To seek out these channels would be to deny that Yahweh has provided a sufficient way to find out such information through the legitimate prophet and to assert that there are effective powers outside the sphere of Yahweh’s activity, especially in the realm of the dead.” (Nelson, 232-34) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 3: “The tragic story of Saul consulting the spirit of the dead Samuel is the only Old Testament account of necromancy.” (Johnston (a), 154) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 4: “2.6 The Lord kills and Brings to Life — Resurrection of the Flesh. Tertullian: Certainly his making alive is to take place after he has killed. As, therefore, it is by death that he kills, it is by the resurrection that he will make alive. Now it is the flesh which is killed by death; the flesh, therefore, will be revived by the resurrection. Surely if killing means taking away life from the flesh, and its opposite, reviving, amounts to restoring life to the flesh, it must needs be that the flesh rise again, to which the life, which has been taken away by killing, has to be restored by vivification.” (Tertullian, 28, quoted in Franke, 204) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 5: (1) “The term Sheol refers to ‘the grave’ or ‘the realm of the dead . . . or ‘the resting-place of the shades.’ In the Bible, the term usually appears in idiomatic phrases such as ‘going down to Sheol’ or ‘coming up from Sheol.’ Hence, the term ‘Sheol’ had already become fossilized as a place-name and was used in a metaphorical sense.” (Tsumura, 146) (2) The metaphorical “Sheol” is symbolic of the resting place for the deceased, and probably is located in heaven, as Luther taught (and may be similar to the “book of life” in Scripture), consisting of a computer-like device holding information or code that represents a person’s life, personality, thoughts, wisdom, and attitudes (similar to DNA and its divine language for recording information). This “Sheol-supercomputer” (p. 165) is used for resurrection of people who had lost all consciousness at death – which is similar to natural sleep and used many times in the OT and NT (to describe the nature of death as hidden in their idioms). See ch. 8 (“The Where and How of Death and Resurrection”) in Death until Resurrection: An Unconscious Sleep According to Luther, 2020, Wipf and Stock). (Saligoe) (3) “In contrast, this narrative and the various prohibitions suggest that from its earliest period Israel saw necromancy as illegal but also effective. At the same time, the account presents necromancy as futile: the message Samuel gives Saul simply seals his fate. It also reflects belief in the continued existence of the dead in some somnolent form, though it makes no comment on their post-mortem existence.” (Johnston (a), 158) As Jakubovic points out in “Conjuring Samuel’s Ghost,” Johnston “even uses” the term “somnolent” to evoke Sheol’s condition of “non-life” [quoting Johnston (b), afterlife]: “For most of the OT, death leads to a shadowy, insubstantial existence in the underworld, called Sheol. There, all are reduced to somnolent inactivity, with no prospect of improvement or escape. . . . Thus persistence in Sheol is closer to ‘non-life’ than afterlife.” Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 6: “The phrase, ‘brings death and makes alive,’ is a merismus which claims that Yahweh holds total authority over life and death and the entire course of a human’s life (cf. ‘It is I who bring death and make alive’ (Deut 32:39b). The Lord brings down to Sheol (i.e., he dispatches the dead to their proper place) and brings up one’s soul from Sheol (e.g., Ps. 30:3). . . . In the ancient Near East the sun god(dess) is considered to be the psychopompe, the guide of the dead, in the death cult. For example, in the Ugaritic funeral cult (KTU 1.161), the newly dead king Niqmaddu was sent to the netherworld with the assistance of the sun goddess Shapshu. However, Yahweh the creator of heaven and earth, that is, the creator of the sun (see Psalm 19), is the Lord of ‘the quick and the dead’ who brings men down to or up from Sheol. He holds absolute authority over the world of the dead as well as of the living. (Tsumura, 146-47) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 7: “This discovery naturally reminded her of her danger as violator of the king’s prohibition. She thinks herself deceived, tricked and given over to death. There is hardly any doubt, therefore, that this sudden perception of her danger . . . was the cause of the terror which was expressed in her outcry” (Lange, under the heading, “1 Samuel 28:1-25, Saul’s Downfall in War with the Philistines,” and under the sub-heading, “Exegetical and Critical). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 8: “We note several interesting features about the ancient versions of the narrative known from 1 Samuel 28:14. Firstly, as evidenced by the variety of ways in which texts sought to smooth over the traditions known from the MT and LXX, the ghost of Samuel was unquestionably considered to be divine in some way. The description of ‘gods’ demonstrates this in verse 13, and it is only further evidenced by the implications contained in the terms ‘covered’ and ‘robe.’ (Lyell and Scales, 114) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 9: “Israel’s religious literature contains only occasional references to necromancy: in several prohibitions, one narrative account, and a few other references. Clearly necromancy is not an issue which preoccupied its writers. Two terms are commonly used, ob(ot) and yiddoni(m). But there was no fixed expression for necromancy, as shown by these terms’ double meaning of spirit’ and ‘medium’, their variation between singular and plural, the occasional use of the first without the second and the variety of associated verbs. Whatever its etymology, ob hardly means divination device or divination pit in Old Testament usage. Further, ob is not obviously cognate with Hebrew ab or with Ugaritic ilib. Nor are necromancy and ancestor worship associated in the Hebrew Bible, though they may well have coexisted. Isaiah’s opponents may have practised necromancy, but Isaiah 28 hardly indicates this. There is only one account of necromancy, 1 Samuel 28, but this furnishes few details of its practice. Nevertheless, this account confirms that it was both highly illegal and highly effective, even if for Saul its effect is to seal his impending fate.” (Johnston, 166) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 10: “Synonymous parallelism here equates demons with . . . elohim. ‘They attached themselves to Baal Pear, ate sacrifices [zibkhe] offered to the dead [metim]’(Psalms 106:28). Notably, in the account of the Baal Peor incident in Numbers 25:1-3, the term elohim is used, not ‘the dead’ (metim). Moreover, later in this psalm the demons are identified as the real object of Israel’s worship and sacrifices: ‘They worshiped their idols, which became a snare for them. Their own sons and daughters they sacrificed [wayyizbekhu] to demons [lashedim]’ (Psalms 106:36, 37).” (Olariu, 91-92) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 11: “As evidenced by the variety of ways in which texts sought to smooth over the traditions known from the MT and LXX, the ghost of Samuel was unquestionably considered to be divine in some way. The description of ‘gods’ demonstrates this in verse 13.” (Lyell & Scales, 114) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 12: “The second group of early writers on 1 Samuel 28:3-19 assumed the appearance of Samuel was real. These authors believed Samuel himself appeared at Endor, resurrected by God or by the woman through efficacious but illicit necromantic practices. So, for example, Justin Martyr argued for the existence and survival of the human soul based on this text. Other authors who assumed Samuel actually appeared at Endor include the historian Josephus, as well as Origen, Dracontius, Zeno of Verona, Ambrose, Sulpicius Severus, and Anastasius Sinaita.” (Arnold, 77) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 13: “Except for the prediction at the end of his speech that Saul and his sons will join him tomorrow and that the camp of Israel will by then be in Philistine hands, everything else is repeated from earlier utterances before his death.” (Auld, 329) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 14: Regarding v. 19, Tsumura notes that “this is poetic diction with an <AXB pattern, and the first and the third lines constitute a <chiasmus>: a-b-c//b-a-c. Note that the third line expresses the same meaning as the first, only replacing ‘Israel (who is) with you’ by ‘the camp of Israel.’ You and your sons shall be with me. In other words, Saul will join the community of the dead by entering the netherworld, Sheol, which seems to have been the abode both of the righteous and the rejected.” At footnote n64, Tsumura writes, “Similarly, but not exactly in the same way, Revell sees here an envelope structure, ABBA.” See E.J. Revell (1997), 94, n. 7. (Tsumura, 627-28) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 15: Footnote n64: “Hebrew poetry most commonly consists of a series of couplets in which the second line repeats, expands, or reverses the thought of the first line. Occasionally, as in 1 Sam 2:2, the same pattern is found in a triplet, or sequence of three lines.” (Cartledge, 45) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 16: The fn66: Jean Louis Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (2000), 65-76. The term focalization comes from Gerard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (1980), 161-211. Scholarly responses to Genette are summarised by D.F. Tolmie, Jesus’ Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1– 17:26 in Narratological Perspective (1995), 173. See further application in Daniel Marguerat & Yvan Bourquin, How To Read Bible Stories (1999), 68, 72-76. Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 17: The fn67: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Revised and Updated (2011), 238, n.5. Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 18: The fn69: Meir Weiss, The Scriptures in their Own Light: Collected Essays (1987), 293-311. Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 19: The fn72: Ska, Our Fathers, 68. Kent continues: “This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception) that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective: it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations (free indirect speech) to reflect a character’s perception. For example, in 1 Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon was left to him” (1 Sam 5:3). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within their religious paradigm.” Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 20: The fn65: Pamela Tamarkin Reis, “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” in Reading the Lines: A Fresh Look at the Hebrew Bible (2002) 4, 22. Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 21: “‘Shall be with me’: that is, they will die and go to Sheol. This prophecy is fulfilled in 31:6.” (Omanson & Ellington, 579) Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 22: “Sheol was considered by the Israelites to be a dark place beneath the earth where dead people, good and evil of all nations, went after their death (see Gen 37.35; 42.38). Since this is a term that will have no meaning for many readers if transliterated into the receptor language, translators may wish to say something like “the world of the dead” (GNT, CEV), “the abode [or, dwelling place] of the dead,” or “the underworld” (REB margin). But care should be taken not to give the impression that this is a reference to the local cemetery. For this reason “the grave” (NIV, NCV) is not recommended” (Omanson & Ellington, 57). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 23: “2:6-10 This section, which is linguistically marked as the most important component of the prayer, contains an extended list of contrastive actions the Lord performs in his dealings with humans. … Linguistic marking is seen in the employment of a divine figure, in this case Yahweh, as the subject of eighteen different verbs in a section containing only fifty-eight words. Though comparative statistics presently are unavailable, it is accurate to say that these verses contain one of the Hebrew Bible’s highest concentrations of verbs with Yahweh as the subject. Linguistic peak-marking is seen also in the employment of five mentions of Yahweh’s name, as well as the mention of the highest-ranking social position in Israelite society, that of “king” /”messiah” (Bergen, p. 76 and fn. 35). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 24: “In the ancient Near East the sun god(dess) is considered to be the psychopompe, the guide of the dead, in the death cult. For example, in the Ugaritic funeral cult, the newly dead king Niqmaddu was sent to the netherworld with the assistance of the sun goddess Shapshu. However, Yahweh the creator of heaven and earth, that is, the creator of the sun (see Psalm 19), is the Lord of “the quick and the dead” who brings men down to or up from Sheol. He holds absolute authority over the world of the dead as well as of the living” (Tsumura, 147). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 25: “Illness, for example, may be viewed as death and recovery as resurrection (Ps 71:20). On this view Hannah is lauding Yahweh’s ability to rescue those endangered by death (Ps 30:3 and Jonah 2:6) rather than revive those overcome by death” (Harris, 51-52). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 26: “The ‘reversal of fortune’ theme continues in vv. 6-8. Death and life, poverty and wealth, abasement and exaltation are all within the power of Yahweh. God’s power to cause death and give life is most impressive. If Yahweh truly can bring the dead back from Sheol, then surely he is also capable Sheol of feeding the hungry and exalting the downtrodden” (Cartledge, 47). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 27: “God has the right to dispose of all as he wills, and does actually dispose of any things and persons as he thinks is good. He has jus praesenter disponendi, “the right of present disposal,” which is properly dominion or property. He gives possession and ejects, puts in and throws out, lifts up and casts down, whom and when he will. …Why does God thus dispose of all? Because all is his own” (Clarkson, quoted in Cooper & Lohrmann, 13). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 28: “2:6 The Lord Kills and Brings to Life – Resurrection of the Flesh. Tertullian: Certainly his making alive is to take place after he has killed. As, therefore, it is by death that he kills, it is by the resurrection that he will make alive. Now it is the flesh which is killed by death; the flesh, therefore, will be revived by the resurrection. Surely if killing means taking away life from the flesh, and its opposite, reviving, amounts to restoring life to the flesh, it must needs be that the flesh rise again, to which the life, which has been taken away by killing, has to be restored by vivification” (Tertullian, 28, quoted in Franke, 204). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 29: “Verse 6a contrasts death with life, and possibly the second half does too (so McCarter, 1 Samuel). However, the second half may refer rather to rescue from the brink of death after a serious illness and therefore contrast sickness with health. Deuteronomy 32:39 and 2 Kings 5:7 have the same two sets of contrasts (death/life, sickness/health)” (Youngblood, 581). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 30: “Darkness here refers to the nether gloom which engulfs the wicked at death and which may be experienced already in this life (Ps. 35:6)” (Tsumura, 148). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 31: “Just as she is quite naturally herself there, so too her song, while it could be sung by many a worshiper, fits perfectly the situation of the long barren who has now borne many, and of the hungry who has now eaten— and, no less, the situation of the elite priests who have lorded it over worshipers but will have their comeuppance” (Auld, 39). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 32: “In the words [in v. 2:10], ‘The Lord will judge the ends of the earth,’ … or the whole world, Hannah’s prayer rises up to a prophetic glance at the consummation of the kingdom of God” (Keil & Delitzsch, 384). Click here to go back.
Foot-quote 33: (1) “The final destiny of the ungodly, however, is the silence of Sheol, the grave, the netherworld, where all is darkness (Job 10:21-22; 17:13; 18:18; Ps 88:12; Prov 20:20; cf. also Matt 8:12; for further details, cf. Ronald F. Youngblood, “Qoheleth’s ‘Dark House’ [Eccl 12:5],” JETS 29, 4 [1986]: 397-410)” (Youngblood, 581). (2) “‘In darkness’ refers to death in Sheol (see Job 10:21-22; 15:22; 17:13)” (Omanson & Ellington, 60). Click here to go back.