I Samuel 28:24-30:24

You've got it. Let's dive into this pivotal passage in I Samuel.

Hook

What's truly striking here isn't just Saul's desperate act of consulting a medium, but the stark contrast between his futile attempt to control the future and David's subsequent, divinely guided recovery of his lost family and possessions. The narrative forces us to question the nature of divine communication and human agency in moments of crisis.

Context

This section of I Samuel is deeply embedded in the tumultuous late monarchy of Israel. Saul, the first king, is increasingly portrayed as isolated and abandoned by God, his reign marked by disobedience. Samuel, the prophet who anointed Saul, has recently died, creating a spiritual void. This void is precisely what Saul attempts to fill through illicit means. Historically, the prohibition against consulting mediums (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) is a cornerstone of Israelite religious law, emphasizing a direct relationship with God rather than intermediaries. Saul's transgression, therefore, is not just a personal failing but a public defiance of a fundamental covenantal principle. The Philistine threat looms large, a constant external pressure that amplifies the internal instability of Israel under Saul.

Text Snapshot

The Philistines mustered their forces for war, to take the field against Israel. Achish said to David, “You know, of course, that you and your men must march out with my forces.” David answered Achish, “You surely know what your servant will do.” “In that case,” Achish replied to David, “I will appoint you my bodyguard for life.”

Now Samuel had died and all Israel made lament for him; and he was buried in his own town of Ramah. And Saul had forbidden [recourse to] ghosts and familiar spirits in the land.

The Philistines mustered and they marched to Shunem and encamped; and Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. When Saul saw the Philistine force, his heart trembled with fear. And Saul inquired of GOD, but GOD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets. Then Saul said to his courtiers, “Find me a woman who consults ghosts, so that I can go to her and inquire through her.” And his courtiers told him that there was a woman in En-dor who consulted ghosts.

Saul disguised himself; he put on different clothes and set out with two men. They came to the woman by night, and he said, “Please divine for me by a ghost. Bring up for me the one I shall name to you.” But the woman answered him, “You know what Saul has done, how he has banned [the use of] ghosts and familiar spirits in the land. So why are you laying a trap for me, to get me killed?” Saul swore to her by GOD: “As GOD lives, you won’t get into trouble over this.” At that, the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” He answered, “Bring up Samuel for me.”

Then the woman recognized Samuel, and she shrieked loudly, and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!” The king answered her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being coming up from the earth.” “What does he look like?” he asked her. “It is an old man coming up,” she said, “and he is wrapped in a robe.” Then Saul knew that it was Samuel; and he bowed low in homage with his face to the ground.

Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me and brought me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly troubled. The Philistines are attacking me and God has turned away from me—and no longer answers me, either by prophets or in dreams. So I have called you to tell me what I am to do.”

Samuel said, “Why do you ask me, seeing that GOD has turned away from you and has become your adversary? GOD has done what was foretold through me: GOD has torn the kingship out of your hands and has given it to your fellow, to David, because you did not obey GOD and did not execute [God’s] wrath upon the Amalekites. That is why GOD has done this to you today. Further, GOD will deliver the Israelites who are with you into the hands of the Philistines. Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me; and GOD will also deliver the Israelite forces into the hands of the Philistines.”

At once Saul flung himself prone on the ground, terrified by Samuel’s words. Besides, there was no strength in him, for he had not eaten anything all day and all night. The woman went up to Saul and, seeing how greatly disturbed he was, she said to him, “Your handmaid listened to you; I took my life in my hands and heeded the request you made of me. So now you listen to me: Let me set before you a bit of food. Eat, and then you will have the strength to go on your way.” He refused, saying, “I will not eat.” But when his courtiers as well as the woman urged him, he listened to them; he got up from the ground and sat on the bed. The woman had a stall-fed calf in the house; she hastily slaughtered it, and took flour and kneaded it, and baked some unleavened cakes. She set this before Saul and his courtiers, and they ate. Then they rose and left the same night.

The Philistines mustered all their forces at Aphek, while Israel was encamping at the spring in Jezreel. The Philistine lords came marching, each with his units of hundreds and of thousands; and David and his men came marching last, with Achish. The Philistine officers asked, “Who are those Hebrews?” “Why, that’s David, the servant of King Saul of Israel,” Achish answered the Philistine officers. “He has been with me for a year or more, and I have found no fault in him from the day he defected until now.” But the Philistine officers were angry with him; and the Philistine officers said to him, “Send the man back; let him go back to the place you assigned him. He shall not march down with us to the battle, or else he may become our adversary in battle. For with what could that fellow appease his master if not with the heads of those involved? Remember, he is the David of whom they sang as they danced: Saul has slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands.”

Achish summoned David and said to him, “As GOD lives, you have been honest, and I would like to have you serve in my forces; for I have found no fault with you from the day you joined me until now. But you are not acceptable to the other lords. So go back in peace, and do nothing to displease the Philistine lords.”

David, however, said to Achish, “But what have I done, what fault have you found in your servant from the day I appeared before you to this day, that I should not go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?” Achish replied to David, “I know; you are as acceptable to me as an angel of God. But the Philistine officers have decided that you must not march out with us to the battle. So rise early in the morning, you and your lord’s servants who came with you—rise early in the morning, and leave as soon as it is light.”

Accordingly, David and his men rose early in the morning to leave, to return to the land of the Philistines, while the Philistines marched up to Jezreel. By the time David and his men arrived in Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negeb and against Ziklag; they had stormed Ziklag and burned it down. They had taken the women in it captive, low-born and high-born alike; they did not kill any, but carried them off and went their way. When David and his men came to the town and found it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive, David and the troops with him broke into tears, until they had no strength left for weeping. David’s two wives had been taken captive, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail wife of Nabal from Carmel. David was in great danger, for the troops threatened to stone him; for all the troops were embittered on account of their sons and daughters. But David sought strength in the ETERNAL his God. David said to the priest Abiathar son of Ahimelech, “Bring the ephod up to me.” When Abiathar brought up the ephod to David, David inquired of GOD, “Shall I pursue those raiders? Will I overtake them?” The reply came, “Pursue, for you shall overtake and you shall rescue.”

So David and the six hundred men with him set out, and they came to the Wadi Besor, where a halt was made by those who were to be left behind. David continued the pursuit with four hundred men; two hundred men had halted, too faint to cross the Wadi Besor. In the open country, they came upon an Egyptian—and brought him to David. They gave him food to eat and water to drink; he was also given a piece of pressed fig cake and two cakes of raisins. He ate and regained his strength, for he had eaten no food and drunk no water for three days and three nights. Then David asked him, “To whom do you belong and where are you from?” “I am an Egyptian lad,” he answered, “the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I fell ill three days ago. We had raided the Negeb of the Cherethites, and [the Negeb] of Judah, and the Negeb of Caleb; we also burned down Ziklag.” And David said to him, “Can you lead me down to that band?” He replied, “Swear to me by God that you will not kill me or deliver me into my master’s hands, and I will lead you down to that band.”

So he led him down, and there they were, scattered all over the ground, eating and drinking and making merry because of all the vast spoil they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah. David attacked them from before dawn until the evening of the next day; none of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and got away. David rescued everything the Amalekites had taken; David also rescued his two wives. Nothing of theirs was missing—young or old, sons or daughters, spoil or anything else that had been carried off—David recovered everything. David took all the flocks and herds, which [the troops] drove ahead of the other livestock; and they declared, “This is David’s spoil.”

When David reached the two hundred men who were too faint to follow David and who had been left at the Wadi Besor, they came out to welcome David and the troops with him; David came forward with the troops and greeted them. But all the mean and churlish ones among the men who had accompanied David spoke up, “Since they did not accompany us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we seized—except that each may take his wife and children and go.” David, however, spoke up, “You must not do that, my brothers, in view of what GOD has granted us, guarding us and delivering into our hands the band that attacked us. How could anyone agree with you in this matter? The share of those who remain with the baggage shall be the same as the share of those who go down to battle; they shall share alike.” So from that day on it was made a fixed rule for Israel, continuing to the present day.

When David reached Ziklag, he sent some of the spoil to the elders of Judah [and] to his friends, saying, “This is a present for you from our spoil of GOD’s enemies.” [He sent the spoil to the elders] in Bethel, Ramoth-negeb, and Jattir; in Aroer, Siphmoth, and Eshtemoa; in Racal, in the towns of the Jerahmeelites, and in the towns of the Kenites; in Hormah, Bor-ashan, and Athach; and to those in Hebron—all the places where David and his men had roamed.

(Source: Sefaria)

Close Reading

Insight 1: The Echoes of Divine Rejection and the Glimmer of Hope

The passage opens with a tense negotiation between David and Achish, the Philistine king. Achish, clearly trusting David implicitly, states, "You know, of course, that you and your men must march out with my forces." David's response, "You surely know what your servant will do," is deliberately ambiguous, a masterclass in political maneuvering. He's not committing to fighting against Israel, but rather to fulfilling his role as Achish's loyal subordinate. This sets the stage for David's precarious position, walking a tightrope between Philistine allegiance and his Israelite identity.

The narrative then pivots sharply to Saul's desperate plight. The death of Samuel, the spiritual anchor of Israel, is immediately followed by Saul's futile attempt to consult God. The repeated phrase, "GOD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets," underscores his utter spiritual desolation. This is the void that drives him to seek out the forbidden: a woman who consults ghosts. His command to his courtiers, "Find me a woman who consults ghosts, so that I can go to her and inquire through her," is a stark admission of his failure and a desperate grasp at any means of guidance. The woman of En-dor's immediate recognition of Saul and her fear – "You know what Saul has done, how he has banned [the use of] ghosts and familiar spirits in the land. So why are you laying a trap for me, to get me killed?" – highlights the illegitimacy and danger of Saul's actions, not just religiously but politically.

The encounter with Samuel's spirit is the dramatic climax of this section. Samuel's pronouncements are chillingly direct: "GOD has torn the kingship out of your hands and has given it to your fellow, to David." This is the prophetic confirmation of Saul's downfall, the very thing he desperately tried to avoid. The reason is reiterated: "because you did not obey GOD and did not execute [God’s] wrath upon the Amalekites." This echoes the original sin that sealed Saul's fate, as described in I Samuel 15. The prophecy of his and his sons' imminent death ("Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me") is a devastating blow, leaving Saul utterly broken, physically and spiritually.

In stark contrast, the narrative shifts back to David. Having been excused from the Philistine battle, he returns to find Ziklag razed and his family taken captive. The despair is palpable: "David and the troops with him broke into tears, until they had no strength left for weeping." The immediate threat of mutiny from his own men – "the troops threatened to stone him" – plunges David into "great danger." Yet, it is in this moment of profound crisis that David exhibits his characteristic faith and leadership. "But David sought strength in the ETERNAL his God." He calls for the ephod, the priestly garment used for divine consultation, and inquires of God: "Shall I pursue those raiders? Will I overtake them?" The divine response is swift and decisive: "Pursue, for you shall overtake and you shall rescue." This is the turning point, a clear demonstration of God's continued presence and guidance for David, a stark counterpoint to Saul's spiritual isolation.

Insight 2: The Ambiguity of "Urim" and the Nature of Prophecy

Saul's desperate plea for guidance is met with silence from God, specifically through "dreams or by Urim or by prophets." The mention of "Urim" is particularly interesting. While often translated as a priestly oracle, its exact nature is debated. The footnote in Sefaria connects it to Exodus 28:30 and I Samuel 14:41, where it's part of the high priest's breastplate, used for discerning God's will. However, its function and how it was employed remain somewhat mysterious, adding to the sense of a lost or inaccessible divine connection for Saul.

The contrast between Saul's inability to receive prophecy and David's direct consultation through the ephod is crucial. When David is in crisis, he doesn't hesitate to seek God's counsel through the established priestly means. This highlights not just David's faith, but also the legitimacy of his method compared to Saul's illicit pursuit of forbidden knowledge. The text emphasizes that God answers David, providing clear instructions for action. This reinforces the idea that divine communication is available to those who are in covenantal relationship with God, not to those who try to bypass or manipulate it.

The description of the woman of En-dor's practice also raises questions about the nature of supernatural phenomena in the biblical text. While the text presents the appearance of Samuel as a divine being, the commentators grapple with whether this was a genuine spiritual manifestation or a clever deception. Radak, for instance, offers a detailed explanation of various methods of necromancy, suggesting that even if the woman employed trickery, the appearance of Samuel might still be interpreted as divinely permitted to convey a message to Saul. This ambiguity invites the reader to consider the porous boundary between the spiritual and the earthly, and the different ways divine messages, or their simulacra, can be perceived.

Insight 3: Thematic Resonance: Kingship, Disobedience, and Legacy

The core tension throughout this passage lies in the unfolding drama of kingship and its consequences. Saul, the divinely rejected king, is actively seeking to understand and perhaps alter his fate, but he is met only with confirmation of his downfall. Samuel's words are a brutal reminder of Saul's disobedience: "because you did not obey GOD and did not execute [God’s] wrath upon the Amalekites." This specific act of defiance, the failure to utterly destroy the Amalekites as commanded, is presented as the catalyst for his loss of the throne. This highlights the absolute nature of divine commands for Saul and the severe consequences of disobedience.

In contrast, David, the chosen successor, is shown to be acting with a different kind of authority. His ambiguous response to Achish, his subsequent legitimate consultation with God, and his decisive leadership in recovering his family and possessions all point to a king who, despite his own flaws, is deeply connected to God's will. His decree regarding the spoils of war – "The share of those who remain with the baggage shall be the same as the share of those who go down to battle; they shall share alike" – establishes a precedent of fairness and communal responsibility, a foundational element of good leadership. This also serves as a subtle rebuke to the "mean and churlish ones" among his men, who sought to hoard the spoils.

The passage is a powerful exploration of legacy. Saul's legacy is one of failure, disobedience, and isolation. His reign ends in ignominy, prophesied by the very prophet he defied. David's emerging legacy, however, is one of faith, resilience, and divinely sanctioned leadership. His ability to overcome the immediate crisis, to rally his men, and to establish a just policy for sharing spoils positions him as the rightful heir to the throne, not just by divine appointment, but by his demonstrated character and actions. The very mention of David's name in the Philistine officers' discussion – "Remember, he is the David of whom they sang as they danced: Saul has slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands" – underscores the shift in power and prominence, a testament to David's rising star and Saul's diminishing one.

Two Angles

Angle 1: The Phenomenological Approach (Radak and Metzudat David)

Commentators like Radak and Metzudat David focus on the mechanics and phenomenology of the supernatural event, often seeking to explain how the woman of En-dor might have operated. Radak, for instance, delves into various interpretations of necromancy, distinguishing between different types of mediums and their alleged methods. He mentions the idea of speaking from between the bones of the body or from under the ground, and even explores the concept of a skull (גלגלת) being used in some practices. He posits that the woman might have used trickery, such as speaking from a hidden place with a muffled voice, to simulate the appearance of a spirit.

Metzudat David, in the verse about the woman hastily preparing unleavened cakes (ותופהו מצות), focuses on the immediacy of her actions, implying she was rushing to prepare food for Saul so as not to delay him. This linguistic focus on the verb "to bake" (אפה) and the resultant unleavened bread (מצות) suggests an effort to understand the practical details of the scene. Both these approaches, while acknowledging the biblical prohibition, tend to investigate the phenomena described, attempting to reconcile the narrative with potential human or even supernatural explanations, often highlighting the deceptive elements involved while leaving room for genuine divine intervention or permitted spiritual activity. They are less concerned with the theological implications of Saul's transgression and more with the observed event itself.

Angle 2: The Theological and Halakhic Approach (Rambam and the Prohibition)

In contrast, the theological and halakhic approach, epitomized by the explicit prohibition in the Torah and the interpretations that prioritize its theological weight, views the entire episode through the lens of divine law and consequence. The Rambam (Maimonides), while not directly commenting on this specific verse in the provided snippets, in his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Idolatry 7:3), unequivocally condemns consulting mediums and sorcerers, classifying these practices as forbidden idolatry. This perspective underscores that Saul's action is not merely a personal failing but a severe violation of covenantal law.

From this angle, the appearance of Samuel is not a matter of how it was achieved, but that it was achieved and the implications thereof. Even if the woman employed trickery, the fact that Saul resorted to such forbidden means is the primary issue. The commentators who adhere to this view would emphasize that any perceived communication from the deceased, or any prophecy received through such illicit channels, is inherently suspect and void of divine sanction. The focus here is on Saul's profound spiritual sickness, his rejection of God's established means of communication (prophets, dreams, Urim), and his embrace of the forbidden, which leads to his inevitable doom. The message is not about the occult's efficacy, but about the dire consequences of abandoning God's path.

Practice Implication

This passage profoundly impacts how we approach difficult decisions and seek guidance. Saul's trajectory demonstrates the danger of desperation leading us to bypass established, legitimate channels of wisdom and support. When faced with uncertainty or crisis, the temptation to seek quick fixes or forbidden knowledge—whether it's through gossip, unfounded speculation, or even unhealthy coping mechanisms—can be overwhelming.

The contrast with David offers a crucial lesson: in times of distress, our first and most reliable recourse should be to "seek strength in the Eternal our God." This means engaging with established sources of wisdom, whether through prayer, study of sacred texts, consulting trusted mentors or communal leaders, and engaging in reasoned deliberation. David's immediate request for the ephod signifies his commitment to seeking divine guidance through the proper channels, even when facing immense personal loss and the threat of his own men. This suggests that true guidance isn't found in desperate, illicit attempts to control the uncontrollable, but in patiently and faithfully engaging with God's presence through avenues of faith and ethical action. It reminds us that while the path may be fraught with difficulty, seeking answers within established frameworks of faith and community offers the most authentic and sustainable route to resolution and rescue.

Chevruta Mini

Question 1: The Nature of the "Appearing"

Considering that the Torah prohibits consulting spirits, and knowing the theological dangers associated with such practices, how should we understand the appearance of Samuel? Is it a genuine divine intervention permitted to convey a crucial message to Saul in his final moments, or is it a manifestation of the forbidden practice, perhaps amplified by the woman's skills and Saul's desperate belief, that ultimately serves to confirm his doom without actual divine endorsement? What are the implications of each interpretation for our understanding of God's relationship with those who have fallen away?

Question 2: David's Ambiguity vs. Saul's Desperation

David's response to Achish ("You surely know what your servant will do") is deliberately vague, allowing him to maintain his precarious position without betraying his loyalties. Saul, on the other hand, is overtly desperate, actively seeking forbidden knowledge. What does this contrast reveal about the nature of effective leadership, particularly in navigating complex political and spiritual landscapes? Does David's strategic ambiguity offer a model for ethical navigation, or is Saul's raw desperation a more honest portrayal of the human condition when facing existential threats?

Takeaway

The passage starkly illustrates that true divine guidance is sought through legitimate faith, not desperate transgression, and that genuine leadership involves seeking God's will even amidst personal ruin.