1 Kingdoms 28:7-25 (LXX), DID THE PROPHET SAMUEL OR A DEMON APPEAR TO SAUL?

Theology
1

Theology
1 Kingdoms 28:7-25 or 1 Samuel 28:7-25 was a passage which created great controversy and was something that i couldn’t understand as a child. Three probable theories stand out:

  • The woman, called Samuel forth from the dead (Justin Martyr, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine)
  • Whether it was Samuel or a demon, it appeared at God’s bidding and not by some magic of the woman (Chrysostom, Theodoret)
  • The enitity was a demon who deceived Saul and gave him a false prophecy (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ephrem the Syrian, Evagrius, Basil, Jerome, Ambrosiaster and Gregory of Nyssa)
0 voters

The third interpretation seems to be held by the greatest number of Fathers, and Gregory of Nyssa wrote a specific treatise on this subject. He defends this view by citing the impassible chasm in the Lazarus parable (Lk 16:26). The apparition appeared only to the woman; she told Saul whom it resembled. The greek word translated as “medium” in the passage is literally the word for ventriloquist. Also, Saul had been plagued by evil spirits for years and was easily deceived by them.
What do others think about this matter? I want to know more about this topic which is not touched by many
@Johann, @SincereSeeker, @soul @Theologynerd @Corlove13 , @Bruce_Leiter, @Soul and others are welcomed to have a discussion about this topic
U are welcome to vote as well..
(I’m more inclined to option 3)

2

I don’t know what to think of it either, because there are no other Bible passages that parallel it in order for us to get a handle on it. Therefore, I think that it will always be mysterious. By the way, what the Church Fathers say is immaterial for me, because God did not inspire them to write Scripture.

1 Like
3

The position I’ve generally held to is that it was Samuel, the text tells us it was Samuel; but the medium’s response–the shock and horror–always suggested to me that she was a charlatan and the actual “shade” of the deceased appearing threw her for a loop. So it was not her power as a medium (mediums don’t have any power), and it wasn’t a demon (the text says it was Samuel, not a demon pretending to be Samuel), so it was an act of God; and specifically God here makes a judgment against Saul.

1 Like
4

The problem comes as follow,
We look into the third theory, “The entity was a demon deceiving Saul”.
This view posits that the apparition was a demonic entity masquerading as Samuel, exploiting Saul’s spiritual vulnerability to deliver a prophecy aligned with divine judgement but rooted in deception.
God cannot be coerced by necromantic rituals, which are condemned as abomination (Deut 18:10-12. Lev 19:31). For Tertullian and Jerome, any apparent success in necromancy must be attributed to demonic agency as God’s sovereignty precludes human manipulation of the divine will. Saul’s presistent disobedience as in 1 Sam 15:23 and afflicaiton by an evil spirit as in 1 Sam 16:14 render him susceptible to demonic influence. Gregory of Nyssa in his Letter to Theodosius concerning the Belly-Myther argues that Saul’s spiritual state made him prey to demon who mimicked Samuel’s form to deepen his despair.
Gregory cites the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which describes an impassable chasm between the righteous and the wicked in the afterlife. Since Samuel, a righteous prophet, resides in a state of repose, he cannot be summoned by a medium. Instead, a demon exploits the ritual to decieve both the medium and Saul. (@Johann, u see why im talking abt the third option)
The Greek Septuagint uses engastrimythos (“ventriloquist”) for the medium, suggesting trickery or demonic ventriloquism. Ephrem and Basil interpret this as evidence of the medium’s collusion with demonic forces, possibly through vocal manipulation or supernatural imitation.
2. Lets look into option 1
“The woman summoned Samuel from the Dead”
This view asserts that the medium, through necromantic power, genuinely summoned Samuel’s spirit from Sheol.
The narrative’s consistent identification of the entity as “Samuel” suggest a straightforward reading. Origen in His Homilies on 1 Samuel takes the text at face value arguing that Samuel’s spirit was raised and spoke God’s judgement.
Justin Martyrn and Ambrose posit that while necromancy is sinful, it possesses limited power to disturb the dead. Augustine, in On the Care to Be taken for the Dead, tentatively allows that Samuel’s spirit could be summoned though he emphasizes that such acts violate divine law.
We look int OT anthropology, the hebrew concept of Sheol as a shadowy abode of the dead (Ps 6:5 and Job 7:9) permits the possibility of summoning spirits. Samuel’s repose in Sheol could be disrupted by the medium’s ritual, allowing his spirit to appear and prophesy.
Samuel’s words in 1 Sam 28:16-19 echo his earlier rebukes of Saul, suggesting continuity of character and divine authority. This supports the view that the real Samuel, not an impostor, delivered the prophecy.
The problem comes:
Allowing necromancy to summon a righteous prophet undermines divine sovereignty and the biblical prohibition against consulting mediums (Isa 8:19). Augustine himself wrestles with this, suggesting divine permission as a mitigating factor.
The idea that a medium could breach Sheol’s boundaries contradicts the finality of death in the Old Testament Theology (Eccl 9:5-6). The parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:26) further challenges the notion that the righteous can be summoned.
If Samuel was genuinely raised, the medium’s sinful act yet yeilds a true prophecy, creating a paradox where evil produces divine truth. This troubled later eegetes like Gregory who rejected the medium’s power outright.
@SincereSeeker @Johann
This passage clearly challenges sola scriptura,
what is the common ground, what is the solid answer to this
I guess we will never know…

5

yes but it this view has some problems as i discussed in the post
The problem comes as follows:

But i would like to add to the 2nd option
The apparition appeared at God’s bidding
This interpretation holds that the apparition, whether a Samuel or a demon, was permitted by God to fulfil His judgment against Saul.
Chrysostom and Theodoret emphasise that no human ritual can compel God or the dead. The apparition’s appearance reflects God’s will to confront Saul with his sin and pronounce judgment. This aligns with 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, which attributes Saul’s death to his consultation of a medium, implying divine retribution.
The text’s use of “Elohim” (1 Sam 28:13) allows for flexibility, either Samuel’s spirit or a demonic figure could serve as God’s instrument. Theodoret suggests God permitted Samuel’s spirit to appear, while others allow for a demon acting under divine constraint.
The episode underscores Saul’s spiritual bankruptcy and God’s silence ( 1 Sam 28:6). The apparition, regardless of its nature, serves as a divine oracle, fulfilling Samuel’s earlier prophecy ( 1 Sam 15:28) an sealing Saul’s fate.
This view reconciles the text’s literal language with theological orthodoxy by subordinating the medium’s role to God’s providence. The medium’s fear (1 Sam 28:12) suggests an unexpected outcome, possibly indicating divine intervention beyond her control.
But the problem comes when:
By leaving the entity’s identity unresolved, this view risks diluting the narrative’s clarity. If Samuel appeared, it raises questions about the state of the dead, and if a demon, it complicates the prophecy’s truthfulness.
The interpretation minimises the medium’s agency, yet the text credits her with summoning the entity (1 Sam 28:11-12). This tension requires exegetes to prioritise divine causation over human action.

6

When did the Church fathers write scriptures??
And if ur telling about St.Mark he was the bishop of Alexandria. List of patriarchs of Alexandria - Wikipedia
What u said, i cannot agree because,
While Jesus specifically promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth, that same Spirit continued to guide the Church after them. The Apostle laid the foundation, but the Holy Spirit didnt abandon the Church once the NT was written.
Jesus said (Jn 14:16-17)
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
So yes, the Church Fathers were part of that ongoing work of the Spirit. They werent inventing new doctrines, but defending and explaining what had been handed down and doing so prayerfully, pastorally and under the guidance of the Spirit.
Anything more if u want to say about this, pls direct it to Does the Bible provide everything needed for Christian faith and practice? not here.

7

I believe it really was Samuel at Endor, not a demon, not a fake. Scripture calls him Samuel, and we’re not here to correct what the Holy Spirit inspired. Fair. Let’s build the response with that as the foundation.

Necromancy is still an abomination, no debate. God’s Word condemns it flat. But here’s the key distinction—Samuel wasn’t summoned by the medium. He was sent by God. That changes everything.

The medium wasn’t in control. She wasn’t strutting in confidence. She was terrified. Why? Because something happened that didn’t come from her bag of tricks. She saw someone she wasn’t expecting, and Saul knew exactly who it was. That doesn’t scream occult mastery. That screams divine interruption.

And when Samuel speaks, he doesn’t deliver a vague psychic prediction. He brings a word of judgment that mirrors everything he said in life. He rebukes Saul with the same tone, the same message, the same finality. That’s not demonic imitation. That’s prophetic continuity. The same Samuel who anointed Saul was now announcing his end.

Could God use a moment like this to deliver truth through judgment? Absolutely. He’s used donkeys, pagan kings, even a burning bush. This wasn’t God endorsing necromancy. This was God stepping into a forbidden moment to make His will known one last time.

So yes, it was Samuel. Not conjured, but commissioned. Not summoned by sorcery, but sent by sovereignty. And his message didn’t bring hope. It brought the grave.

The lesson isn’t that necromancy works. The lesson is that when God is silent, you don’t go knocking on hell’s door for answers. You repent, or you perish. Saul chose the séance. And God gave him a prophet—with a tombstone in his hand.

Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

8

That makes sense too @sincereseeker