Which Witch?

Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had removed from the land those who were mediums and spiritists.  So the Philistines gathered together and came and camped in Shunem; and Saul gathered all Israel together and they camped in Gilboa.  When Saul saw the camp of the Philistines, he was afraid and his heart trembled greatly.  When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets.  Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor." (1 Samuel 28:3-7 NASB)

One of the elements to Scripture few people dispute is the prohibition against communing with the dead or other form of 'fortunetelling'.  So, seances, tarot cards, rolling bones, scrying, and other forms of 'divination' are unequivocally prohibited in Scripture.

 In modern Christian circles, this has led some believers to then discount such things as faked by those who claim to practice them.  For those, this passage poses a whole lot of problems. For some believers, those things are believed to be real, but also real dangerous; the realm of demons.  For those, this passage poses a whole lot of problems.  There's no real way to look at this passage comfortably.

A few things to point out leading up to this event: 1) Saul has tried, as a righteous king, to empty the land of those who practice divination through communing with the dead.  2) His attempt failed (like his righteousness).  3) Everyone but he knew it.  4) Saul knows the 'terminology' enough to suggest his familiarity with such practices.  So, the popular practice was to permit their existence; but to keep them secret from the king.  The people used and seem to rely on such people.  And Saul seems to be from such a background.

I think of the setting something like today, where there is commonly found a 'horoscope' in any newspaper, along with a 'religion section'.  So everyone knows where they are.  The signs in every major city and many small towns advertising a 'fortune teller' are another indicator.  They're everywhere, and seem to be popular enough to remain in business.  That is the sort of setting I imagine except that in this context, there are no papers, no road signs, and these people are illegal, so underground.  Somewhat like 'drug dealers' everyone knows, but no one talks about; popular enough to remain in 'business' but no one knows with whom.

At this time Saul is in a dangerous place.  He is facing all the Philistines once again (he did this before in 1 Samuel 14), and he has tried to get a word from God about what to do.  He tries by dreams, prophets, and the 'Urim' of the priests.  Nothing works.  This is not like he can't figure out what God is saying, this is silence.  He's afraid.  So, he asks about not just a medium, but a leader-woman of mediums, sort of a 'super-spirit-channel-surfing-chic'.  And his servants, the ones supposedly responsible for carrying out the kings mandate against such people, know exactly where to find one close by.  This story keeps escalating the weirdness.

Saul disguises himself and goes, meets the nameless 'super-spirit-channel-surfing-chic', and has her call up Samuel.  Now, a couple of things are troubling here.  First, Samuel dies in right relation with God, so I would think that he would be found in God's presence.  If I'm right, then, for him to appear, he would need to appear from God's presence.  So how can one practicing what is prohibited by God successfully pull someone from His presence?  But wait, there's more!

Samuel speaks, and isn't happy to be 'disturbed'.  He then tells Saul what he least wanted to hear, "You're going to die"; but Samuel tells him like this, "...tomorrow, you and your sons will be with me."  I take that to mean that where Samuel is, so they will also be, in the presence of God.  For Saul, with his 'rejection' by God, I thought that unlikely; perhaps rejected from being king, but not as one of God's people.  Even so, Samuel is, through this process prohibited by God, performing what God would not do Himself (and therefore didn't want to happen?).  How is that possible?

I don't know.  Seriously, I don't think anyone looking at this from a 21st Century perspective knows.  Unless we develop time travel and can go back and actually witness this event, we have no real hope of understanding, and even then understanding wouldn't be assured.  So no one knows, but I wonder if one of these possibilities exist:

1. All dead before Jesus' life went to Sheol regardless of their relationship with God, without separation from each other and there was no 'presence of God' as we think of it, after death.  A problem with this is that there was in vogue at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry a concept of 'Paradise' and the 'Bosom of Abraham' to describe the afterlife of the righteous as separate from the 'unrighteous', and Jesus does not correct these beliefs. Actually He uses them in His ministry, parables, and even mentions paradise on the cross.  So some sort of division between the righteous and unrighteous seems to have existed even before Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.
2. God prohibits any method of determining the 'future' or direction for events that does not derive from Him; but other methods do exist and exist powerfully.  Let's assume that they only exist in the purview of the demonic which would put them squarely in the realm of God's enemy, the devil, Satan.  If they are not of God, and yet powerful, then that is the most reasonable place to put them.  The problem here is that if there is a separation between the righteous and unrighteous, then how can Satan's power extend to the side of the righteous dead?  I would suspect that the only way this could truly happen is if the separation was collectively not in the presence or before the Throne of God; separated from each other, but still not in the presence of God (although, really, what's not truly in His presence?).  But that's not an adequate answer.  If this practice is of Satan, then how can Samuel be 'pulled up' without God's permission?  And if God permits it, why would He now give an answer to Saul and validate such a method at the same time?  Regardless who you read or what they claim, the answer is not obvious, nor easy.
3. God prohibits such practices, and they do not 'work' not really.  They are false methods of seeking knowledge that only belongs to God.  What the witch of En-Dor actually did wasn't supposed to work, and it surprised her when it did (which is why she screamed when Samuel pops up).  Unfortunately, this is very unlikely when the Scripture is taken at face value.  When the witch screams, she cries out that it's really Saul, the one she just said wanted to take her life.  It doesn't seem to be Samuel she's afraid of, but the knowledge that Saul is trapping her; knowledge gained in the process she is using to 'cause' Samuel to ascend.  This process really is 'bringing' Samuel up, in other words, what's she doing is causing it to happen.  Sorry, but that's how the text is written.  So, while God may be permitting this to happen, it's happening from what the witch is doing. 

There are more options, flavors of what I have here, but even these are closely related, so how many options are there really?  Not a lot.  With the discomfort caused by incompatible theological views crammed into a framework based on belief in the infallible inspiration of Scripture, I am left carrying that 'discomfort' into my application.  So here it goes:

My 'takeaway' from this encounter with the witch of En-Dor is that the kingdom of Satan is real and powerful.  Therefore my response to its existence is one of aggressive tactics.  I must be sensitive to my Master's Spirit's leading and guiding, attacking where He directs, being defensive where He places me, and always assured of victory.  I cannot be assured that this kingdom will fall on its own, without intervention.  People will be deceived by this power.

The reality I'm left with is that my Master views this other kingdom as usurping what is rightfully His, and therefore is to be destroyed.  I am His servant, His knight, and His to use in His destruction of the rival kingdom.  But I am under no illusion that this kingdom is 'figurative' or 'imaginary'.  The enemy is real and possesses real power.  Therefore I must stand in the power of my Master, wearing His armor, using His sword, and totally dependent upon His Spirit.  It's time to suit up!

The Wait of The World 2: More Lessons Learned

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel,
  "My way is hidden from the LORD, And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God"? 

  (Isaiah 40:27 NASB)

One element of Hebrew poetry is parallelism, and within that can sometimes be found chiastic structures (parallels forming an 'X').  The reason chiastic structures are important elements is that the 'crux' of the structure forms the focal element of the poem.  So it helps understanding the poem to be able to spot these structures.

In this verse is the only full chiastic structure I could find in the last passage of Isaiah 40 (v. 27-31).  There could be many more before this, and this could form a part of a larger chiastic structure, but I didn't look anywhere but in the last 5 verses.  The reason this one is interesting is what forms the crux.

The major parallel structure is found in the quote, and the parallel is chiastic in nature.  There are three repeated elements, and they are repeated in exact reverse in the second half of the parallel (see the image below).  So elements A, B, and C are repeated in a, b, and c, but in reverse order.  This focuses importance on element B/b.

The way these elements show up in the quote is as follows:

• A = 'hidden'
• a = 'escapes notice'
• B = 'my way'
• b = 'justice due me'
• C = 'LORD'
• c = 'my God'

So, literally:

Hidden / my way / from the LORD
Of my God / the justice due me / escapes the notice

So the focus of the quote (and therefore the exiled Israelites) is their way and their justice.  It's on them. 

That's what this poem taught the first audience, what they understood it to mean.  Is it any less of a critical lesson today?  We as believers and followers of Jesus are in 'exile' in a sense since we're not home yet.  We long for that home, for restoration, for completeness, and for the presence of our King.  Yet it's the focus on our situation, what we don't have, what we want, our rights and entitlements that keeps us from experiencing the Kingdom; the presence of our King in this exiled state.
This is the dangerous trap I fall into; focus on my way and my entitlement.  It blinds me to the eternal qualities of my Master.  What I have heard, what I have known of my Master I forget and ignore because I'm too focused on my own stuff.  The power I lack and the endurance I need come from the One I have been ignoring!  The solution I seek through my own power and ability is obscured by my own self-centered (and therefore self-destructive) attitude. 


Today is time for a change.  The challenge for me is learn this lesson for today, all day, every hour; in dealing with my customers, my family, my co-workers, and my community.  Will I focus on the eternal qualities of my Master, will I 'hope expectantly' in my Master knowing what I have heard, and living that out?  The alternative isn't pretty, and hasn't been working; so the only thing I have to lose is more time spent as a loser.  I think I can do without more of that.

What About the Village People?

Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents.  And the land could not sustain them while dwelling together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to remain together.  And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock. Now the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land.  So Abram said to Lot, "Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers.  "Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left."  Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere -- this was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah -- like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar.  So Lot chose for himself all the valley of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward. Thus they separated from each other.  Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom.  Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD.  The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.  I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered.  Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you."  Then Abram moved his tent and came and dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and there he built an altar to the LORD. (Genesis 13:5-18 NASB)

After returning from Egypt, the extensive amount of grazing required for both Abram and Lot was too much for the around them to support.  To solve the strife between the two sets of shepherds, Abram let Lot choose where he would go.  Looking about, Lot saw that the areas around the Jordan were more lush than the mountain and hills of Canaan.  He chose the Jordan region.

It says that Lot settled among the cities of the "valley", and specifically beside Sodom.  It also comments that even then, the men of Sodom were evil and tremendous failures to God.  As the chapters progress, it becomes clear that Lot's choice was a very bad one.

Another note is that the Canaanites and the "Perizzites", or villagers, were then in the land too.  So, this problem was affecting more than just the herdsmen, flocks, and herds of Abram and Lot.  The people who actually lived and worked the land were also affected, even if not involved in the dispute.  The villagers of Canaan watched as Lot took his things and headed for the Jordan Valley.  They witnessed what would probably not have been the solution reached by the "city-states" around them.

After Lot leaves, God speaks to Abram.  Standing on the hills around Beth-El and the "Ruins" God asks him to look around, north, south, east and west.  Not only will all this land be his but his offspring will be as numerous as the dust of the land.  This is the promise to a man with a barren wife.  God then tells him to walk around his future gift to his descendants.  He goes from Beth-El to Hebron; or from the middle of Canaan to a hill country mid way between Beth-El and the southern edge of Canaan.  There he parks himself in the trees of Mamre.  This, along with the Oak of Moreh, become favorite hang outs of Abram.  There he builds another altar to God.

Do I consider the people outside my "church" when dealing with things inside it?  What I mean by that is do I consider the "others", or just the person I'm dealing with, or just my point of view, or just what this means to my place of worship?  Even if I'm not being "selfish", am I being "kingdom minded"?  There are great promises of my Master, things He has in His mind to accomplish in my community.  He doesn't need me to do them, but if I want to be a part of what He does, I need to accept and submit to His perspective at the cost of my own.

What if I wind up with the lesser options?  What if I get less than everyone else?  What happens to my family?  What happens to my favorite songs, favorite "chair" in the worship center, and my position of respect?  What if I loose respect because I took the lower seat at the table, and was left there?  Well, as long as I don't loose my relationship with my Master.  I'm good with all the rest (or at least I should be).