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…