THE Spiritualists seem to feel that in Saul the King of Israel and in the Witch of En-dor they have Bible proof of their system. I am glad they appeal to the incident and rest their case largely upon it. Because if there ever was a thorough exposé of Spiritualism it is found in this passage.
The above is notes of a lecture by Rev. Prof. R. J. G. M’Knight, Ph.D., D.D., Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, U.S.A., which appeared in the October “Bulwark,” and is reprinted here with the Editor’s permission.—Editor.
When men appeal to the Bible for the proof of any system, the first thing they must do is to take the Bible as a whole. The first step, then, is to ascertain what the general attitude of the Bible towards Spiritualism is. Anyone with the aid of an ordinary concordance can find that out in less than ten minutes. One of the first passages he will find is Exodus xxii. 18—”Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” It would require a tremendous stretch of the imagination to regard that as favourable to Spiritualism. Or turn to Deuteronomy xviii. 10-12—”There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.” (Verse 11, a necromancer i.e., “One that seeketh unto the dead.” A consulter of familiar spirits, i.e., “One that asks of a witch.”) Here is rather a complete list—in fact it would seem to cover the whole clan from “Margery” down. How a Spiritualist can get any comfort out of that or any support for Spiritualism is more than I can understand. I could go on and cite passage after passage from other parts of the Bible—all to the same effect. See Leviticus xx. 27, Leviticus xix. 31, I. Samuel xxviii. 3, II. Kings xxi. 6, II. Kings xxiii. 24, Isaiah viii. 19, xix. 3, Exekiel xiii. 6. These passages are sufficient to show that the general attitude of the Bible is absolutely against any attempt to establish communication with the dead.
But here is a passage which Spiritualists claim as a warrant for their operations—I. Samuel xxviii. 1-25. Let us examine it. The historical setting is easy. The Israelites and the Philistines are about to join battle. The Philistines are encamped at Shunem and the Israelites at Gilboa. These places are about five miles apart. En-dor is about two miles from Shunem. Eventually, Saul the King of Israel arrives at the cave. And what a place it was! The reader may easily imagine what the cave of the witch would be like. A dark, dank cavern under a hill. In one corner lies a cow, lazily chewing her cud and dreaming of green hills far away. By her side lies her young hopeful, an innocent calf, wholly content with his native surroundings; and altogether ignorant of the royal reception which he is to attend a little later in the evening! Near the door sits the woman. In her lap a cat, at her feet half a dozen mongrel dogs. A few tame lizards glide about the ground, save in the shadow of the scrawny witch.
We get a little insight into the conditions that must have existed in the witch’s cave from the closing part of the record. The writer tells us that the culinary appointments were anything but inviting. Saul was sorely distracted on this occasion. His mind was centred on one thing, and the usual details of house-keeping would ordinarily have been overlooked. But when the witch, later in the evening, invited Saul to partake of a little food cooked in that cave, the record says—”But he refused, and said, I will not eat.” (I. Samuel xxviii. 23.) So strong was his revulsion that it required the combined forces of the women and two able-bodied men to get a morsel of the food offered past his lips. But his servants, together with the woman, compelled him.” (I. Samuel xxviii. 23.) This, then, is the environment.
Now, the first question is, how did he come to interview the witch? The fact of the matter is that the Lord had forsaken him—just as verse 6 distinctly tells us, and as he himself says in verse 15. That is, the man who attempted to communicate with the dead was, by his own description of himself, a God-forsaken wretch. You see the Spiritualists appeal to this passage, and I am merely quoting what the passage says. A God-forsaken wretched King, whom God has ceased to communicate with in any way, thinks he can circumvent God by getting into communication with a departed spirit. I ask you, is it likely that God would allow himself to be circumvented in this way?
The second question is, what kind of a woman is it that professes to be able to do what this God-forsaken wretch wants done? The passage describes her as “a woman with a familiar spirit.” But what kind of a woman is that? To answer that question it will be necessary to look at the expression in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew says she was a Ba-alath ohh. Two words are used in this description. The first word, “Ba-alath,” means “mistress.” The original meaning of the second word is “wine skin” or “leather bottle,” such as they used in the Orient. This wine-skin was water-tight and could be inflated. It became distended as the wine fermented. Then, figuratively, the term came to be applied to those who inflated their chests for the purpose of practising ventriloquism. The Bible tells us just what she was—she was “the mistress of an inflated thorax.” That is, she was a ventriloquist. She could throw her voice and make it appear that the sound came from another part of the room. Of course, she professed to do more than that. She professed to be able to bring up spirits. But the Bible tells us what she was: A ventriloquist.
The Bible, therefore, tells us that once a recreant, half-crazed, God-forsaken, credulous King of Israel went to consult a woman who lived in a cave and had the powers of a ventriloquist. Now, if a man goes to the opera he expects to hear music; if he goes to a ventriloquist he expects an exhibition of ventriloquizing. Saul went to a ventriloquist. The presumption is that he witnessed an exhibition of ventriloquism.
First he “disguised himself.” We can hardly blame him for that. He knew his course was not respectable. He takes two men with him. He travels perhaps six or seven miles after dark, and past the sentinels of the Philistines. At last he comes to the cave of the witch. The witch is at home. Business is dull. It may be better after the battle. Spiritualism (witchcraft) always experiences a revival after a war. Saul confronts her and says (verse 22)—”I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.” Now, there is not any doubt that the woman claimed to be able to “bring up” spirits. The request Saul makes does not astonish her in that respect. Nor is there any doubt that Saul in his present condition was willing to believe she could do it. But the Bible says she was a ventriloquist. Keep that in mind. Saul was deceived, but the author of this passage was not deceived.
The woman, however, is wary. Her business is under the ban. When a stranger asks for a drink of “Scotch” in America these days, he is usually reminded of the 18th Amendment. So she reminds Saul (verse 9)—”And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?” This shows the attitude of Scripture toward Spiritualism. Whenever any king followed the Bible he banned the witches. Saul, himself, banned the witches as long as he made any pretence of following the Lord. But now Saul is desperate. So, to reassure the woman (verse 10)—”And Saul swared to her by the Lord, saying, as the Lord liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.” Although Saul is disguised, the woman can see that he is greatly overwrought and terribly in earnest. Business had been bad and she determined to risk a seance.
Of course she would arrange her guests so that they would be in the light of the candles, and she herself would be in the dark. That was strictly ethical. To this day mediums always choose to operate in the dark. Not because the spirits are afraid of the light, but because the light cramps the medium’s style. Even a flashlight can upset a seance. Now she is ready for the “sitting.” It is about to begin. (Verse 11)—”Then said the woman, whom shall I bring up unto thee?” Notice this—this woman professed to be a clairvoyant—a mind-reader—everything that a first-class medium claims to be. But she had to ask, “Whom shall I bring up?” Why didn’t she know without asking? Why didn’t one of the spirits she claimed to be familiar with tell her who this was and what he wanted? (If the mediums could do any of the things they profess to be able to do they would not need to give seances at 1000 dols. a head. If they can tell me when I am going to die—six months hence—why can they not tell what the price of U.S. steel will be to-morrow morning?) She is ignorant. She has to ask Saul “Whom” she shall bring up.” Mediums have no knowledge that is not gotten by natural means. So Saul tells her. He says (verse 11)—“Bring me up Samuel.”
Now you may rest assured that all this while the witch has been busy in her mind. She must succeed, for times are hard. All the time she is asking herself, “Who is this person? What does he want?” She would give much to pierce that disguise. At the mention of Samuel she becomes doubly alert. Here is a clue. “Who,” she says to herself, “could be wanting Samuel?” Samuel, remember, is the old prophet who had brought all the hardships on the witches by saying (I. Samuel xv. 23)—“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” Saul wanted to show Samuel that while he might “rebel” he would never be guilty of “witchcraft.” Consequently, he ordered all the witches to be killed. And remember, too, that this woman would remember that, if she ever remembered anything. What Samuel said was the cause of her death sentence, and one usually remembers things like that. This is all the clue she needs—she pierces the disguise of her tall, gaunt visitor, and screams (verse 12)—“She cried with a loud voice, and the woman spake to Saul, saying why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul.” No wonder she screamed. You would have screamed too. She thought her hour had come. She thought Saul had laid a trap for her, and had succeeded in catching her, and now he would put her to death. Oh, I know the record, says (verse 12)—“And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice.” But remember that this whole interview is recorded from the point of view of the effect it had upon Saul and his two companions. Saul and his two companions thought the woman screamed because she saw Samuel. In reality she screamed because she saw and recognised Saul. The evidence that this was the cause of her fright is conclusive. If this witch actually could bring back departed spirits, and if she made a practice of bringing back the dead, and if she undertook the task of bringing back Samuel, with the expectation that Samuel’s spirit would really appear, why should she scream when she saw what she fully expected to see, and what she was used to seeing in the practice of her art? The bringing back of Samuel would have been merely a part of the day’s work. There would be nothing unusual in that. Accordingly there would be no reason for her scream as far as Samuel is concerned. But the fact that she did scream is recorded. Now, why did she scream? The context makes it plain why she screamed. “She cried with a loud voice, and the woman spake to Saul, saying, why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul” (verse 12).
This is a point that has been consistently overlooked by the interpreters of this passage. I know it says (verse 12)—”And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice.” But it must be remembered that this whole interview is recorded from the point of view of the effect it had upon Saul and his two companions. There can be no doubt that both Saul and his companions were deceived. And it is from these two companions that the record comes. The woman would never tell it. Saul died the next day, and therefore he would have very little opportunity to tell it. And if he did tell it, he would tell it as he saw it. Most probably then this account comes from these two servants, who were thoroughly deceived. The thing the woman is trying to do is to pierce the disguise of Saul. The first words of the woman after her scream are—”Why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul?” The appearance of Samuel, if he had appeared, would not have helped her to recognise Saul. Her mind, up to this moment, has been centred on her visitor. She feels perfectly sure that Samuel is not coming into that cave. If she had had any notion that he was, she would have been far from there very soon after Saul mentioned Samuel’s name. But Saul’s disguise has created an apprehension in her mind. The appearance of Samuel, if he had appeared, would only have increased her apprehension. It would not have helped her to pierce the disguise. But there was no disturbance from any spirit. She concentrates on the disguise. She notes the awkward position he has assumed to conceal his unusual height. Perhaps she catches a glimpse of the insignia of royalty. Gradually an idea takes form in her poor brain. A tall man, with a body-guard, asking for the spirit of Samuel, on the eve of a battle with the Philistines, who can it be? Who but Saul the King of Israel? All this passes with incredible swiftness through her mind, and then she cries—”Why hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul.” And Saul, not Samuel, was the one she feared. And recognising Saul she screamed. No other interpretation fits the facts. I know Saul and his two companions thought she saw Samuel. But what she saw and what they thought she saw were two different things. It is always so when dupes visit a medium (witch).
Now it is evident that Saul himself saw nothing. If he had seen anything he would not have had to ask what form it was of. The passage never intimates in any way that Saul saw Samuel. The best the woman can do is to make him think that he sees Samuel. And that she does.
But now she has to answer Saul’s question—”What sawest thou?” Even then the woman does not assert that Samuel was present. Note what she says (verse 13)—”I saw gods ascending out of the earth.” Evidently she intended to make a longer seance and give Saul his money’s worth. She starts in like a regular medium by establishing a rather nebulous and uncertain communication with the spirits. She was going to have a little “static” to start with, and then “tune in” a little later. So she starts in as though the spirits were “trying to break through.” But Saul is too eager—too impatient for a slow seance. He wants action, and he wants it right away. He breaks in. “What form is he of?” She had spoken of “gods.” Again, that question shows that he himself saw nothing. Oh, well, the woman thinks, I can move as fast as he likes. He is paying for it. “What form is he of?” “Why” (verse 13) she says—”an old man cometh up and he is covered with a mantle.” She is “tuned in” now. Now you can see that it is quite a little jump from the “gods” to “an old man covered with a mantle.” But Saul doesn’t care—Saul doesn’t stop to think that gods are never old. He wants to talk with Samuel, and he is willing to dispense with the artistic niceties of the seance. She says she sees Samuel, and that is good enough for Saul (verse 14)—”And Saul perceived that it was Samuel.” “Perceived” from what? What evidence had he that Samuel was there? None at all, except the word of a witch.
He “perceived” whatever he “perceived” from the woman’s description, and not from anything he saw. And as for that description, she had seen Samuel in the flesh many a time, and probably had taken good care that Samuel did not see her. She knew Samuel was an old man when he died, and anybody could describe the dress of a prophet.
Up to this point her task has been comparatively easy. All she has had to do was to talk with Saul and tell him what she pretended to see. Now, however, Samuel is supposed to have appeared, and Samuel will have to begin to talk for himself. He always could do that when he was living. Think now, what power will this woman need most to complete the deception of this seance? If she is going to make Saul think Samuel is speaking, what will she have to do? The answer is plain enough. She will have to ventriloquize. And the passage tells us, to begin with, that that is her best accomplishment—she is an artist at it—in fact she is ba-alath obh, a ventriloquist. And how easy that would be—in a dark cave with its echo—in darkness where it is impossible to determine the direction of a voice or the location of a speaker—and with only a nervous, God-forsaken wretch to deceive. Nevertheless, since Saul is paying for it, she will give him an example of her best art.
Only one thing more she needs to know. She now knows that this is Saul, and that Saul wants to see Samuel, but she still has to find out what Saul wants of Samuel. How will she find that out? Well, for a ventriloquist that is very easy. She assumes a hoarse voice, as though Samuel had caught his death of cold lying in the grave, and says (verse 15)—”Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?” Pretty good leading question, isn’t it? But why did she have to ask it? Why does a clairvoyant have to ask leading questions? That is one of the inscrutable things about the business—but they do—and they have to. Now, as soon as Saul answers this leading question she will know what she wants to know—and the seance can proceed.
But before the seance proceeds, let me point out the fact that this question which the witch puts in the mouth of Samuel stamps the whole seance as a fraud. That is the last thing Samuel would have said—”Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?” Would a man like Samuel, who hated witchcraft, grant to this scrawny witch, or to the recreant Saul, the power to disturb his soul’s eternal repose? Does the Bible anywhere teach that a wicked witch can at will call a saint back from glory? Any man who thinks it does is simply a Moron. That is “witch talk,” not the talk of a saint from glory. But let the seance proceed. Saul must now answer the question the witch has put in the mouth of Samuel. He must tell “why.” Accordingly, he says (verse 15)—”I am sore distressed, for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams; therefore, I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.” What a fool Saul was. What a fool any man is to think he can outwit Almighty God. By this answer Saul reveals to the witch all that is in his mind. She has now all the information she needs. She knows her guest is Saul, knows that he wants Samuel, and knows what he wants Samuel for. All she needs now is to do a little quick thinking, and to put the results into the mouth of Samuel. So she begins by saying a very obvious thing (verse 16), something that Samuel or any other sane person would be apt to say—”Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?” The witch herself could see what a fool Saul was. She marvelled that a King could have so little sense. I wonder that she had the self-control to wait until this point in the seance to ask it. But, by asking it now, she gets time to think of what Samuel would naturally say further. Quickly her mind goes back to that interview which Samuel once had with Saul. And how well she would remember it. Every word of it would be indelibly printed on the pages of her memory. Why? Simply because it was the cause of a death sentence that included her. And it all comes back to her—all that Samuel had said to Saul on that momentous occasion. Such a striking fulfilment of prophecy seems for the moment to thrill even this vile wretch of a witch, and she begins to speak, almost forgetting that this is a seance (verse 17)—”And the Lord hath done to him as he spake by me.” Remember she is representing Samuel as the speaker. And Samuel is supposed to be speaking directly to Saul. But the woman forgets that for the slightest fraction of a moment. She says—”The Lord hath done to him.” And then she realises her mistake. Samuel is supposedly addressing Saul directly. How will he address him? Certainly in the second person. Samuel should say—”The Lord hath done to thee.” And if Samuel had been speaking, that is what he would have said. But the woman is speaking—she is impersonating Samuel—and as she looks at Saul and thinks of his condition, she says—”The Lord hath done to him.” She uses the third person. Now, what will she do? To go back and correct her mistake would only make it more apparent. She must trust to the disturbed condition of Saul—and go on. And that is just what she does. “The Lord hath done to him, and he spake by me.” Now, she is back on solid ground—if Saul has not detected her slip. And he hadn’t. His poor muddled brain was in no condition to detect errors.
But what shall she say to Saul now? What would Samuel be likely to say? Well, as has been pointed out, she knew what he did say to Saul on one occasion. And she reasons that Samuel would likely say something of the same kind if he could at this moment. Samuel had said (I. Samuel xv. 28)—”The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine.” This was on the occasion of Saul’s failure to destroy the Amalekites. So the witch feels that she will be on safe ground if she just repeats that. And she does. (Verse 47)—”For the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand and hath given it to thy neighbour, even David.” You see she just takes what Samuel said, and brings it up to date by mentioning David. And this sounds a good deal more like Samuel than that witchy question she first put into Samuel’s mouth—”Why has thou disquieted me to bring me up?” Next thing is, “Why did God rend the kingdom from Saul?” Of course she knew that, and so she says (speaking for Samuel) (verse 48)—”Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.” That is all in Chap. xv. Just like a medium! A medium never tells anything that cannot be found out by natural means. Once in a long while a medium may make a good guess.
And now to give content to this seance she must venture a guess. And how little a guess it was! She knew how discouraged Israel’s King was. She knew how his cowardly heart was quaking. She knew God had departed from him. She knew that when God departed from Israel there was little hope of victory. She knew Saul and his sons would be on the battlefield. She knew if Israel lost the battle they would probably be slain. She knew that. Everybody knew that! And as she knew all this, is the next verse much of a prophecy? Would Samuel have to come back from glory just to tell this? (Verse 19)—“Moreover, the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me; the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.” And would Samuel have said—“Tomorrow shalt thou be with me?” Was Saul going to be with Samuel?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the most successful seance ever staged. The Bible gives Spiritualism the pen, and allows it to write its own story. Spiritualism takes the pen and does its best. And when it has done its best—taking it just as Spiritualism writes it, the result is a travesty. It reveals its own weakness. It merely shows that the God-forsaken dupe that put himself in the hands of a medium can be fooled by tricks that should be apparent even to a child. It is written to show what an unscrupulous medium can do with a credulous fool. And suicide is the outcome of it all. (I. Sam. xxxi. 4)—“Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.” “So Saul died.” (I. Sam. xxxi. 6.)