The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Samuel — Section 526

agency was concerned in what took place. 11 The woman saw Samuel," and she ulone (ver. 14), "and she cried out" (in refll or feigned surprise and feflr), "Why h11t1t thou deceived me? for thou art Saul." There is no intimation that the name of Samuel or the distinguished stature of her visitor had previously suggested who he was; nor of any "gestures of fearful menace such as he could only show toward& a deadly enemy, i. e. towards Saul" (Ewald, Stanley). It was from her descrip- tion of" gods ascending out of the earth," and of the well-known appearance of the venerable judge and prophet, that II he perceived that it was 8amuel,' and prostrated himself in abject homage before him whom he had formerly moved by his impor- tunity to comply with his request (eh. xv. 30); and while "stooping with his face ro the gTOund" he heard a voice which be was persuJded was the voice of Samuel. The evidence of an apparition or vision (for there can be no question concerning anything else) depended solely on the testimony of the woman; of the hearing of an unearthly voi_ce on th_at o_f Saul, :from whom also (unless his two servants were pre- sen~ at the time, winch 1s not_hke~y) th~ whole account must have been primarily denved. 2. It has been explained m vanous ways, e. g., that there was-(1) A real apparition of the prophet (Ecclus. xlvi. 20), either evoked by the conjurations of the woman (LXX., Josephus, Talmud), or effected by Divine power without her aid and contrary to her expectation (see, for authorities and arguments, Wordsworth: 'Com. ; ' \Vaterland, Delany, Sir W. Scott, 'Demonology;' Kitto, 'D. B. Illus. • • Lindsay, Hengstenberg, Keil). (2) An illusory appearance produced by demoniac~? ( or angelic) agency, and, according to some, employed as a medium of Divine revela- tion (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Gilpin, 'Dremonologia Sacra;' Hall, Patrick, M. Henry). (3) A mental impre,sswn or representation produced by Divine influence. (4) A super- stitious self-deception on the part of the woman, combined with a psychological ulentifying of herself with the deceased prophet (Erdmann). (5) A conscious decep- tion practised by her (perhaps not entirely without illusion) on the fearful and super- stitious mind of the king, fasting, wearied, terrified, and in the dark (Chandler, '117 • Scott, 'Existence of Evil Spirits;' Thenins); little other than a dream, though terribly real to him. The circumstances of the case were such that the almost dramatic language of the historian may be fairly understood as descriptive of what seemed to Saul, and was aftenvards popularly believed, rather than of the actual reality. All that occurred may be accounted for more satisfactorily on this hypo- thesis than any other. Almost every other involves assumptions concerning the po~·er of necromancy, the reappearance of the dead, evil spirits, &c., which are un- supported by Scripture and exceedingly improbable. A Divine interposition would baYe been unmistakably indicated in the narrative (which is not the case, ver. 21), inconsistent with the Divine refusal to answer Saul's inquiry, unnecessary in order to !"eproYe him further for the past (for there is no expressed reproof of his present crime), without adequate theocratic purpose, contrary to the holiness of God, and a confirmation (not a punishment) of "the anti-godly attempt of the sorceress. JI 3. Its ch-ief significance (however it may be explained) lies in the revelation which it makes of the <lepth of degradation to which Saul bad sunk and the effect of his apostasy. His "sin of divination" ( eh. xv. 23) led to despair, and was speedily followed by the full execution of the sentence of his rejection. The silence of God was the silence that precedes the thunderstorm and the earthquake. Observe that- I. THERE IS NO APPEAL FROM THE DIVINE JUDGMEN'l' TO ANY O'l'HER (vers. 16, 17). Saul appears to have clung- to the delusion that the sent~nce of Divine judgment uttered against him might be effectually resisted and entirely revoked; refused to acknowledge and submit to it, and hoped to succeed in his conflict·with it when suc- <;ess was plainly perceived by others to be impossible. Hence (and not merely to ,,-ratify his curiosity concerning his fate) he sought the counsel of Samuel. In answer t~, the voice (asking reproachfully the reason why he liad "disquieted JI the dead, and drawing forth the expression of his feelings and wi~h_es), he path_etically de- scribed his distress in consequence of the attack of the Pluhstmes and lus abandon· ment by God, and appealed for aid in his perplexity. Without supposing a desire of revenge on the part of the sorceress, ha~dir any other reply _could be mor~ a•:P-on!ant ...,,th his state of mind and deepest conv1Ct10ns than that whICh came to 1nm. Smee (by his own co11fession) l,c "-a.~ abando11ed by the Lorri, it was 'Jseless to expect etfectuiw en. xx, m. 1-25. J TUE FIi/ST 1:r1(1K OF SAMUEL. 537