Thoughts on 1 Samuel 28 (on the Witch of Endor, necromancy, etc.)

I recall many moons ago I was asked about the famous case from 1 Samuel 28 of the Witch of Endor . In that verse King Saul consulted a necromancer who conjured up the ghost of Prophet Samuel.

Popular questions around this verse include: Does 1Sam 28 give us a window into the afterlife? Do we exist as ghosts after we die and can “inter-world” communication happen between living and dead?

Some thoughts:

1. As almost every commentator and their cousin will declare, 1 Sam 28 is less about “whether or not post-dead people exist as ghosts and can be accessed” and more about Saul’s Triple Whammy Ultimate God-Forsaken Asshole status and behaviour; almost nobody worth their Sunday lunch will dogmatically use this passage as some non-negotiable Exhibit A about views of “what happens after you die”

2. TLDR on why the passage is almost exclusively about Saul the Loser, well, you have a king who is:

• 0–5 down at halftime against the Philistines (and panicking like a drowning dog) vs.4–5
• cancelled by God and got no means of ‘hearing’ from the divine, v.6
• got no other card to play except to contradict his own ruling outlawing necromancy, vs. 3, 7
• tells his goons to find a female medium (why must be lady ah? cannot guy ah?) vs. 7
• needs to use a disguise and go out at night like he was looking for drugs or illicit sex, vs. 8
• talks like an addict to the medium (which is a better translation than “witch”) vs. 9, 10, 13
• was called out by her halfway, vs. 12
• was reprimanded by the ghost (who basically tells him he’s screwed, duh, sorry Saul you thot you were gonna get a better prophecy?) vs 15–19
• basically collapses and had to be semi-force fed by the very kind of worker he made illegal, vs. 22–25

3. Brueggeman sums up how the passage focuses mainly on Saul and the Yahwistic “school of thought” which Samuel represents (and which Saul has shatted on):

“The matter (in 1 Sam 28) of summoning ghosts is an act sure to fascinate the religiously curious. A theological interpretation, however, must hold to a steady discipline against such fascination. The narrative has no real interest in the summoning of spirits or in the role or capacity of the woman. It is Samuel, the voice of the old tradition, that dominates the narrative. The speech of Samuel keeps the narrative thoroughly and insistently Yahwistic. It is Yahweh and Samuel with whom Saul must come to terms. The narrative invites reflection on the vocation of royal power in a context where God’s singular power will not be mocked. To diffuse the narrative into a pluralism in which other powers have force or significance is to misread the story and diminish its voice for our own demanding religious situation. The narrative is a reflection on how hard and dangerous is the single voice to which Saul failed to give heed.”

4. Hamori notes that the episode was more critical of Saul(!) then either necromancy or the medium:

“The lack of condemnation of necromancy and the necromancer is evident also in the content of the divined message. The ghost of Samuel reviles Saul for his disobedience to God in not slaughtering the Amalekites and warns of all sorts of terrible things that will happen as a result-but he does not so much as mention the fact that Saul is in the act of consulting a medium. Samuels only complaint in regard to this event is that he did not want to be disturbed. It is noteworthy that a story that begins with the information that Saul had removed the mediums from the land and that includes condemnation of Saul does not contain any indication that Yhwh or the ghost of his prophet had a problem with this act of necromancy. The medium is never condemned, and Saul’s punishment is overtly for other reasons.”

5. Thus, the entire necromancy episode was like the final straw in Saul’s sorry-ass downfall and despair; even the desperate and final illegitimate Hail Mary he used ended up cementing his hopelessness. Looks like the Chronicler didn’t give him face also (1 Chr 10:13).

Long and short, asking whether or not 1 Sam 28 can be a ‘window’ to the afterlife is kinda like asking if Balaam’s talking donkey story (in Num22) shows that animals can really use human language.

6. Finally, a truckload of verses already warn Bible readers against necromancy or communicating with the dead (Isa 8:19, Lev 19:31, Deut 18:11 etc) [then again, see Note 1 for a small curve ball] so whatever anybody says this ‘area’ is a Strict No Entry for us folks. No matter how much grief or sorrow Christians are feeling we do NOT go consulting seances and ouija boards to talk to our departed loved ones. Period.

[Part 2 (if I get to it): Assuming we’ve settled the question of whether necromancy is something we can do, what DOES 1 Sam 28 say about ghosts, the after-life, bringing back the dead, etc?]

Biblio:
Arnold, B. T. (2004). Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 66(2), 199–213.

Brueggemann, W. (2012). First and second Samuel. Westminster John Knox Press.

Hamori, E. J. (2013). The prophet and the necromancer: Women’s divination for kings. Journal of Biblical Literature, 132(4), 827–843.

Note 1: Bill Arnold suggests that necromancy was an acceptable means of ancient Hebrew other-worldy consultation and passages like Isa 8:19 was NOT condemning the use of seances but flirting with cults of the dead i.e. it wasn’t talking to dead folks that was banned, it was talking to demonic spirits.

Go figure?