How does 1 Samuel 28:23 align with biblical teachings against necromancy? Contextual Setting of 1 Samuel 28 1 Samuel 28 records Saul’s final hours before the battle of Gilboa. Verse 23 reads: “But he refused and said, ‘I will not eat.’ But his servants, together with the woman, urged him, and he listened to them. So he got up from the ground and sat on the bed.” The verse sits inside a larger unit (vv. 3-25) describing Saul’s illicit visit to “the woman with a familiar spirit at Endor” (v. 7). The Holy Spirit has departed from Saul (16:14); Samuel is dead (28:3); and God will not answer Saul “by dreams or Urim or prophets” (28:6). In desperation he transgresses Torah by seeking necromantic counsel. Prohibition of Necromancy in the Pentateuch Yahweh’s law repeatedly bans consultation with the dead: • Leviticus 19:31 — “You must not turn to spirits or seek out familiar spirits; you will be defiled by them.” • Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12; Isaiah 8:19. These statutes are embedded in covenant holiness codes and framed as capital offenses, establishing the absolute moral category: necromancy is abomination (תּוֹעֵבָה, toʿēḇâ). Narrative versus Normative: Descriptive Reporting Is Not Prescriptive Approval Hebrew narrative commonly reports actions without moral commentary, assuming the reader’s acquaintance with Torah to render judgment (cf. Judges 17-21). 1 Samuel 28 simply describes Saul’s conduct; it never condones it. The existence of a detailed record does not soften the prohibition any more than Genesis 3 excuses Adam’s sin by describing it. Theological Significance of Saul’s Meal (1 Samuel 28:23) 1. Symbol of Spiritual Weakness. Saul, physically prostrate (v. 20), is coaxed to eat by a necromancer he earlier had outlawed (v. 9). His acceptance of her meal underscores his complete moral collapse—receiving sustenance from the very practice God condemns. 2. Inverted Covenant Meal. Covenant meals in Scripture ratify fellowship with God (Exodus 24:9-11; Luke 22:19-20). Here the covenant king dines in fellowship with darkness. The text thereby dramatizes apostasy while remaining consistent with the anti-necromancy ethic. 3. Prophetic Irony. Samuel’s prophecy (vv. 16-19) declares Saul will “be with me” (v. 19)—a sentence of imminent death. The woman’s meal temporarily sustains his body for the final battle in which the prophecy is fulfilled (31:1-6). The meal, therefore, heightens the inevitability of divine judgment rather than validating necromancy. Consequences Pronounced and Fulfilled The chain of events shows lex talionis justice: • 28:19 — “Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” • 31:4-6 — Saul and his sons die exactly as foretold. Thus the narrative reaffirms Deuteronomy 18’s warning that necromancers “will be driven out” (v. 12). Saul’s demise functions as case-law precedent. Exegetical Observations from Hebrew Text and Manuscripts Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4QSamᵃ preserves the account virtually identical to the Masoretic Text, differing only in orthographic minutiae. The Septuagint mirrors the Hebrew scene. No variant hints at divine approval of necromancy; scribal fidelity across centuries underscores canonical consistency. Historical and Archaeological Background on Ancient Near-Eastern Necromancy Ugaritic text KTU 1.22 and Akkadian Maqlû tablets (7th c. BC) document spirit-consultation rituals strikingly similar to Endor’s séance, confirming that Israelites lived amid widespread necromantic practices. Far from suggesting biblical accommodation, 1 Samuel 28 highlights Israel’s distinct ethic by showcasing its king violating that ethic and suffering the covenant curses (Deuteronomy 28:15-20). Canonical Consistency: How 1 Samuel 28 Functions as a Warning Later writers recall Saul’s sin as paradigmatic apostasy: • 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 — “Saul died for his unfaithfulness… he inquired of a spirit, and did not inquire of the LORD.” • Isaiah 8:19 — Implicitly contrasts seeking mediums with trusting God. The canon thus uses Saul’s narrative as negative instruction, not precedent for permissible necromancy. Pastoral and Practical Implications 1. Forbidden Practices Remain Forbidden. Modern equivalents—séances, Ouija boards, mediumistic healing—stand under the same injunctions. 2. The Tragedy of Self-Reliance. Saul’s desperation illustrates the peril of seeking revelation apart from God’s ordained means: Scripture, prayer, prophetic office (fulfilled ultimately in Christ, Hebrews 1:1-2). 3. Spiritual Hunger. The misplaced meal invites readers to a different table: the Lord’s Supper, offered through the resurrected Christ who conquered death rather than consulted it. Christological Foreshadowing and Ultimate Victory over Death Saul’s failure magnifies the need for a King who will never break covenant. Jesus, “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), defeats death directly rather than exploiting it. His post-resurrection meals with the disciples (Luke 24:41-43) reverse the Endor scene: lawful communion that grants eternal life, not temporary respite. Summary 1 Samuel 28:23 does not dilute the Bible’s ban on necromancy. It narrates Saul’s moral capitulation, accentuates the gravity of consulting the dead, and demonstrates divine judgment. The passage coheres seamlessly with Levitical and Deuteronomic law, the Chronicler’s evaluation, and the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as the sole mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). Necromancy remains condemned; the narrative serves as timeless warning and calls us to the living God, the only source of true counsel and life. |
    |