Did Saul Die For Consulting A Medium?

Is Spirit Communication Wrong Because Of The Statement In Chronicles?

Is The Bible Without Error?

Testing The Spirits?

The reference in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 10:13) to Saul's visit to a persecuted woman at Endor who could communicate with the departed (see and hear spirits) (1Samuel 28:5-25), is often used by Fundamentalists to deny God-ordained *Spirit Communion, and in order to make an honest and comprehensive analysis, this reference will be taken:
1) Firstly, by considering the statement in question as erroneous, and then:
2) Secondly, by considering the statement in question as correct at the time.

*Spirit Communion refers to the influence of the forces working for God upon those in the flesh and not simply to direct communication alone.

1) Saul And Medium: Considering The Statement As INCORRECT

The author in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 10:13), writing on behalf of the priesthood tribe of the Israelites, the Levites, seems to have assumed that Saul's visit to the woman at Endor was the reason for his death: "Saul died for asking counsel of a medium", and the Fundamentalists make much of this writing. However, if the Fundamentalists were free from their literalism, then they would see that it is stated in 1 Samuel 28:18 & 19 that the very reason, and only reason, for Saul's present predicament and impending death (the next day) was because he "obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek...and tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me*" (1 Samuel 28:18 & 19).

*i.e. With Samuel, who had already passed over.

The clear reason for Saul's death is given: Saul died because he did not do what God had told him to do, he did not execute God's command against the Amalekites, i.e. because he spared the life of the Amelekite king, Agag, when he should have executed him, and also Saul and his people kept the best spoils when they should have destroyed them: "...But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them" (1 Samuel 15:9); no other reason is given for Saul's death, apart from the actual physical means by which he died (by a sword). The apparent addition to this reason for Saul's demise by the author of 1 Chronicles 10:13 is not simply an addition - it is a contradiction.

There is a further consideration. Saul had already been enquiring diligently of the Lord for guidance and truth but so far had been without an answer. Therefore Saul takes a further course of action and asks his servants to find someone who can help discover the Lord's Will. Using the Hebrew word "darash" indicates that he was seeking the Lord's Will on the matter, as the Pentateuch uses this word for searching out and discerning Divine Will. So this appears to have been a most sincere attempt to discover the Lord's Will after exhausting other means i.e. by dreams, Urim, prophets (1 Sam 28:6), and indeed he seems to have found his answer.

The Literalist needs to honestly ask himself or herself this question: Why, if visiting the seer at Endor was so wrong in God's sight, did Saul get a correct answer to his question concerning his present predicament and future fate - which was according to God's plan for him? However, the Levite author seems to have erroneously decided (perhaps by general agreement with other priests), that as their own tribe could not provide the answer to Saul's enquiry (which they should have been able to provide), then going to the woman at Endor was against God's Will and so that can be given as a reason why he died. Again, even assuming the Levite(s) had the best intentions, it is opinion only, and moreover an opinion from a somewhat biased viewpoint. Furthermore, as stories were handed on from generation to generation before being written down, we can easily see a possible case of “Chinese whispers”.

"But", the Fundamentalist might say, "the Bible is without error and is infallible, if it is written then it is true and you just have to accept it". However, just because the Bible relates an incident or that someone said something, it does not mean that it is true.

It is not unknown for scribes to write contradictory statements in the Bible. Extremely relevant to this matter, let us take a classic example from this very context which lends itself to prove conclusively that not every account or opinion in the Bible can be accepted as a literal fact, nor indeed, should be regarded as literal fact:

Two different and contrary versions are given of Saul's death, one in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and another in 2 Samuel 1:8-10. The first version of Saul's death has Saul taking his own sword by himself and willingly falling on it because his armour bearer would not run him through (suicide): "Saul took his own sword and fell on it" (1 Samuel 31:4). The second Biblical version has Saul run through and killed by a sword held in the hand of an Amalekite: "... 'So I killed him,' the Amalekite told David..." (2 Samuel 1:10). Which version is true is a matter for discussion. There is no further mention of the Amalekite's claim in the Bible, no denial of its authenticity or otherwise, and it has equal credence as that written in the first version in 1 Samuel 31:4-6.

Perhaps the Literalist, attempting to justify this obvious discrepancy, will claim that the Amalekite's story was made up; but that would just be wishful thinking on the part of the Literalist because there is simply no Biblical hint of this - another reason why the Literalist must take this statement literally - he or she must not be guilty of twisting the truth in the Bible to suit a preferred theological opinion! There is just as strong a case that the first version is incorrect - both versions are reported in identical fashion with no reference to point to which is correct or incorrect.

Furthermore, why should it be assumed by the Literalist that the second version of Saul's death, the Amalekite's version (2 Samuel 1:10) is the one that is erroneous? Surely the original narrator or scribe of the first version (1 Samuel 31:4) could just as easily have been inventing his version of Saul's death for his own reasons, perhaps to save the morale of the Israelite nation as a whole. However, if we are going to be even moderately honest with ourselves, we have to admit that if an Amalekite could lie, so could an Israelite!

If the Literalist is going to remain consistent in his or her proclamation: "If it says it in the Bible then it is true", then he or she cannot justifiably claim that the Amalekite was lying out of vanity or for whatever reason - this would be contrary to the way the Literalist reads the Bible. If the Literalist now wishes to decide that statements spoken by people in the Bible are lies - without any reference at all to the fact that they are lies - then surely every statement made by someone in the Bible must have the same criteria applied?

The Literalist cannot have it both ways: he or she cannot twist something to suit the Dogma, he or she cannot justifiably apply an unquestioning literalism to some things and then dismiss other things as error to suit a whim, and perhaps claim it as Divinely inspired enlightenment! Furthermore, this type of arbitrary "interpretation" must also be expanded to all statements in the Bible.

In this context, there are only certain possibilities that could exist. Either:

a) The first version of Saul's death (1 Samuel 31:4) was true and:
(i) The Amalekite had fabricated his version of Saul's death (2 Samuel 1:10) for his own reasons;
(ii) Or the scribe who wrote about the Amalekite's version (2 Samuel 1:10) was writing about something that was invented either by himself or by his colleagues for their own reasons;
(iii) Or it was an account which had become changed from the original event through word-of-mouth corruption;

b) The first version of Saul's death (1 Samuel 31:4) was fabricated and:
(i) It was invented either by someone in the Israelite army or by the Levite priesthood because they did not like the fact that Saul was killed by an Amalekite, or it was fabricated for some other reason(s);
(ii) Or it was an account which had become changed from the original event through word-of-mouth corruption;

c) Both stories were held as fact by different factions within the Israelite nation and:
(i) There was never agreement on which version was true and so both were recorded;
(ii) One scribe did not know what the other had written;

d) Neither account was true.

However, among this uncertainty one thing is definitely irrefutable and rigidly incontrovertible: both accounts cannot be true because Saul of the Old Testament could only die once and by only one method!

One version must be false. Yet the Bible does not even remotely declare that either passage contains an untruth; we are expected by the Fundamentalist to somehow accept both contradictory versions as fact, perhaps saying: "It is God's inspired word, the people who wrote it were inspired by God, don't you think that God could make the Bible perfect?" But the literalistic religionist has not accounted for man's mind and his freewill which God never interferes with. Realising this, certainly adds credence to the fact that the writer of 1 Chronicles 10:13: "Saul died for asking counsel of a medium" was in error when he wrote what he did, whether he wrote it because it was an assumption, or because it strengthened the role of the Levites in the Israelites' minds because they, as God's chosen priests, should have been able to provide Saul's answers and not a medium!

It is also worth remembering the method of recording anything which happened in those days of old. While some things could be written down, more often than not events were passed on by word of mouth, through generation to generation, and while the tribes of Israel may have been most excellent at preserving their history through memory, it is not unreasonable to assume that some things might either be lost, changed or exaggerated, especially if there happened to be a difference of opinion among those people as to what actually did happen. If one takes into account the passing of time between the event of Saul's passing and the writing of Chronicles, one simply cannot rule out the possibility of human interference or error.

The overriding conclusion is that everything written in the Bible should be tested with the mind of the spirit and not simply taken in a literalistic way by the mind of the body as so many Fundamentalists do.

The irony of all this is apparent: The Literalist states that everything written in the Bible is without error and that everything is there because the authors were Divinely inspired, thus nothing should be questioned and must be accepted as fact; and yet when challenged concerning such blatant scriptural errancy (fallibility), the Literalist, in the same breath, may say that such things are mere details and those who question them are just doing so to avoid accepting God's truth. In reality, it is the Literalist who is not questioning anything and therefore avoiding God's truth in order to maintain the belief that he or she is comfortable with.

2) Re. Saul And Medium: Considering The Statement As CORRECT At The Time

Finally, there is another consideration which must be made. Let us consider that the sentence in 1 Chronicles 10:13 was not invented and is in fact truth. This would certainly not contradict Greater World Christian Spiritualism as laid down in the spiritual philosophy, not least because Christ abrogated the Law of Moses.

A brief summary of the three eras will bring a greater understanding of this matter. In our context there is God the Ruler, God the Saviour, and thirdly the Holy Spirit.

God needed to save His children everywhere from themselves and the spiritual consequences they would surely bring upon themselves by their spiritually ignorant manner of living. He took a debased and morally corrupt people and gave them a few basic rules that they immediately violated in a demonstrable manner. Even after repeated showing of Divine Power, there was a refusal to change from immoral ways which were certain to draw to themselves consequences that would take an age of suffering to expiate when the body was no more.

Therefore God laid down a series of stringent laws to protect them from themselves, one of which was to prevent them from consciously drawing to themselves dark forces through their worship of dark spirits in order to bring to themselves material wealth and power. Anyone who has made the basic lessons of life their own will know that like attracts like, and it does not stretch the imagination to see what a disobedient and debased people - who, for instance, thought little of sacrificing their own children for personal gain (Jer. 32:35) - would draw to themselves in regard to disembodied spirits. Even a brief look at Greater World spiritual philosophy would reveal that such association would ensure that their harvest would be an evil harvest indeed. Therefore, the law prohibiting spirit contact was a wise and redeeming law for such people.

"Test The Spirits" And "The Discerning Of Spirits"

However, the spirituality within society changed dramatically with Christ the Redeemer, and then the overwhelming bestowal of the Holy Spirit was possible because of the hearts and minds willing to accept a higher Truth. The disciples of Jesus the Christ were very aware of the benefits and necessity of Spirit Communion as it was meant to be used, and they received a wide variety of the gifts of the Spirit including "the discerning of spirits" (1 Corinthians 12:10) which Christ had made possible by His earthly sojourn and Great Sacrifice.

"The discerning of spirits" is not about Christians judging other people who are still in the flesh - as some so-named "Biblical Christians" perhaps claim when they judge people to see whether they accept their notion of salvation or not (their concept of having the Holy Spirit); neither is it solely about assessing spiritually whether a person in the flesh is attempting to live the Christ-life that they preach, neither is it about judging people concerning strange-sounding vocalisations wholly incomprehensible to themselves and others when they brush with the Supernatural in their churches.

The "discerning of spirits" is very much about seeing and hearing spirits from the Spiritual World and testing them in the Name of Christ to discern "whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1) because many fallen spirits are in the world seeking to trip up those in the flesh to drag them down into their own sad predicament. Sadly, this spiritual gift is lost on the Fundamentalist who has, perhaps sincerely, misunderstood the sacredness of Spirit Communion and therefore attempts to turn it into something else that is less helpful and more hindering to God's children.

If only the Fundamentalist could look at matters spiritually instead of with the physical mind, the Holy Spirit could transfigure this world: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit" (John 4:24). One has to be truly spiritually discerning. One should certainly never believe everything that comes from spirits. But the Fundamentalists' literalistic approach is just not good enough. They would say that a person must admit that Jesus lived on the Earth in the flesh and was the Christ. But so many people and spirits can claim this and yet be under the power of one who is an enemy of Christ. This is where proper spiritual discernment is needed.

How does one "test the spirits" when we know so little about Truth while we are still bound in the flesh? We apply the criteria equally to all beings whether bound by the flesh or free from the body - it is a vast unseen universe and in reality there are no divisions. The attitude built up by years of life on Earth does not pass with the change called death; what was believed is still there in the next state of being.

So, to begin with, if a person - or a spirit coming back through a person - claims to speak on behalf of the Christ and yet they come with words of flattery, saying that you have the right to have the material or earthly things that the selfish have instead of taking the Pilgrim's Way; tempting you to lay aside your desire to serve God with prayer, effort and sacrifice; telling you that you have done so well that you can now rest instead of redoubling your efforts; giving out teachings that are not worthy of highly evolved spiritual beings from the Christ Spheres - then you can know that the words come from one who has not entered into the Truth according to the Christ and who is an unevolved soul. They may or may not have bad intentions toward the medium but after a little persuasion they can control the medium who chooses another easier way instead of that laid down by the Christ. Everything passed on through religious people or spirits must be sifted for the Truth according to that laid down by Jesus the Christ.

Concerning the gift of the "discerning of spirits", let us think spiritually about the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). Here, we see plainly how Jesus demonstrated the proper use of Spirit Communion, and He made sure that it was witnessed for the record by handpicking disciples to accompany Him. Jesus withdrew into peace and quiet away from the idle crowds who seek entertainment and not spiritual advancement, and He entered into a prayerful state before communicating with those who were once in a body of flesh (Moses and Elias). One wonders how the Literalist can honestly say that Samuel's appearance to Saul is "evil" or that it was "not really Samuel but a demon", when Jesus Himself clearly showed us that it is possible, nay, desirable, to gain spiritual guidance (that which He would accomplish with His decease) from so called "dead" prophets through God's overseeing care. And Jesus asked us to follow Him.

Society had changed; before Christ there was basic preparation for the rightful use of Spirit Communion (not just Spirit Communication); after Christ, due solely to His Incarnation and all it entailed, it was possible for the vastly greater introduction of Spirit Communion in the Name of Christ.

The Fundamentalist claim that Christian Spiritualism is against God's Will because of the mention of Saul's visit to the woman at Endor bears no weight in the light of Christ's titanic achievements with regard to the opening up of the gifts of the holy spirit which includes the discerning of spirits as far as Spirit Communication is concerned.

May discerning people have the courage and humility to truly put their faith and trust in God's loving kindness and open up Divine revelation through the sacred gift of Spirit Communion, instead of stifling not only the spirit within but also the Holy Spirit by living in fear behind a deceptively comfortable veil of a literalistic teaching which appears to be designed to not only limit but in some cases hinder and delay spiritual growth, understanding and revelation as to what is really going on in God's Greater World.