Did he or didn't he?

[Athetotheist]

And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her.
(1 Samuel 28:6-7)

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; and enquired not of the Lord
(1Chronicles 10:13-14)

How exactly are these to be reconciled?

[William]

And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her.
(1 Samuel 28:6-7)

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; and enquired not of the Lord
(1Chronicles 10:13-14)

How exactly are these to be reconciled?

What is the context of the story of Saul and The Lord?

Perhaps therein - the "apparent contradiction" can be cleared?

[William]

The Chronicler’s summary (1 Chronicles 10:13–14) is a later theological interpretation, written centuries after the events of 1 Samuel. It does not add new historical information. It reinterprets the older narrative for a new audience.

The question is: does it distort, or does it clarify from a particular theological vantage point?

Why the Chronicler Wrote

The books of Chronicles were written after the Babylonian exile, when the Israelites were rebuilding their identity. The Chronicler’s project was to retell the story of Israel’s kings with a focus on temple, priesthood, and proper worship; to explain why the exile happened (because of unfaithfulness to God); and to provide a model for the post-exilic community - obedience to God’s word through the established institutions of temple, priests, and prophets.

For the Chronicler, Saul’s consultation of a medium was not just a detail from an old story. It was a warning to the post-exilic community: do not seek guidance outside the established covenant channels.

What the Chronicler Changed or Emphasized

Comparing 1 Samuel 31 (the death of Saul) with 1 Chronicles 10 reveals the Chronicler’s editorial hand. In 1 Samuel, Saul dies by falling on his sword after being wounded, with no theological summary attached. In Chronicles, a theological summary is added: Saul died because of his unfaithfulness; he consulted a medium and did not inquire of the Lord. The medium is not mentioned in the death account in Samuel, but in Chronicles it is explicitly cited as part of the reason for his death.

The Chronicler imports the medium episode from 1 Samuel 28 into the death account, making it the final explanation for Saul’s death. In 1 Samuel, the medium episode is a separate narrative; in Chronicles, it becomes the theological headline.

Is This a Distortion?

Whether this is a distortion depends on your view of the biblical text.

From a traditional harmonizing perspective, Chronicles is not distorting; it is providing the inspired theological interpretation. The two accounts complement each other: Samuel gives the narrative; Chronicles gives the meaning.

From a critical historical perspective, Chronicles deliberately reshapes the story to fit its post-exilic agenda. It downplays Saul’s earlier disobedience (from 1 Samuel 13 and 15) and elevates the medium episode to the primary cause of death to warn against forbidden practices.

The original story in 1 Samuel 28 is richer and more nuanced. The Chronicler’s summary flattens it, turning a complex narrative about a king’s moral failure and the persistence of genuine spiritual gifts into a simple prohibition against mediums.

What the Original Story Actually Emphasizes

If we read 1 Samuel 28 without the Chronicler’s lens, the story emphasizes Saul’s isolation - God does not answer him through any legitimate channel. It emphasizes Saul’s hypocrisy: he banned mediums, then secretly uses one. It highlights the woman’s integrity: she is conscientious, extracts an oath, serves faithfully. It shows Samuel’s authority: even in death, Samuel speaks God’s word, which is unchanged from his life. It demonstrates the continuity of God’s word: it cannot be suppressed by human decrees. And it tells the tragedy of a king who ends up seeking guidance from the very tradition he destroyed, only to hear the judgment he rejected.

In this reading, the medium is not condemned. The king is.

The Chronicler’s summary, by contrast, makes it sound as though consulting a medium was the primary sin that caused Saul’s death. This shifts the focus from Saul’s lifelong unfaithfulness to a single prohibited act.

Why the Chronicler Might Have Done This

The post-exilic community was trying to define itself against surrounding cultures. Practices like mediumship were associated with the nations that had conquered Israel. The Chronicler’s emphasis served a pastoral purpose: to draw clear boundaries around the community, to simplify the lesson (Saul died because he consulted a medium), and to protect the community by prioritizing a pure worship centered on the temple.

In doing so, the Chronicler sacrificed the nuance of the original narrative. The woman at Endor - her integrity, her gift, her persecution - is erased from the moral calculus. She becomes merely a “medium” in a prohibited category, not a complex figure caught between her gift and a hypocritical king.

What Is Lost When the Summary Replaces the Story

If the Chronicler’s summary becomes the only lens through which the story is read, the woman is demonized or ignored. Samuel’s appearance is reduced to a “necromancy is bad” proof-text. Saul’s hypocrisy is overshadowed by a simple cause-and-effect: medium equals death. And the rich narrative about spiritual authority, persecution, and the persistence of genuine gifts is lost.

My reading - which has carefully traced the woman’s integrity, Saul’s hypocrisy, the hierarchy of mediumship, and the political nature of the purge - recovers what the Chronicler’s summary flattened.

The Larger Question

“Why do we even need the Chronicler’s summary?” - points to a larger issue: when later interpretations overwrite earlier narratives, what do we lose?

In this case, we lose a complex portrait of a persecuted practitioner. We lose a critique of a king who uses religious law for political control. We lose a recognition that God can speak through unexpected channels. We lose a story about spiritual gifts that persist even when outlawed.

The Chronicler’s summary is not false, but it is reductive. It tells us what the post-exilic community needed to hear, but it does not capture the fullness of what the original story was doing.

[Athetotheist]

Doesn't seem that angels have free will.

viewtopic.php?t=39440

Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

They do, unless they sin willfully in their hearts, like Lucifer. Then they are forever condemned without hope of redemption. Only man on earth can sin against God, and then freely continue to rebel. But only until the grave.

2Pe 2:4
For God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;


At that time is the judgment of angels and men that sin against God to their own destruction:

Rev{20:12}
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works….And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I fact, it will be two men that are first cast into the lake of fire alive, before any rebellious angel.

No answer to my OP question in the link?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #97]

And the text also says that God will not hear the prayers of the unrepentant wicked, nor hearken to their inquiries. Whether you like it or not...

But God being merciful and longsuffering to the end, did in fact allow Samuel's spirit to forewarn Saul of his destruction. Though God Himself no longer answered the wicked king's personal inquiry of Him.

He must have heard Saul's inquiries to know of them.

The Chronicler's charge is against Saul. Samuel says the charge is not true.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #100]

I began believing all the Bible with the proven fact, that no one has ever proven any Bible contradiction. I continue believing by that fact today.

Denying contradiction doesn't make the denial proven fact.

A proven contradiction must be able to dismiss any possible harmony. If someone dismisses such proven possibilities, only shows they are precommitted to finding fault, not to finding answers.

Mental gymnastics to come up with any conceivable rationale just makes a claim conveniently unfalsifiable. If the writers' witness doesn't agree (Mark 14:59), it doesn't agree. You don't get to help it along.

Not wanting to believe presented textual harmony, is the same as not wanting to believe the written text.

When the written text is inconsistent, textual harmony is not presented.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #102]

The Chronicler’s summary (1 Chronicles 10:13–14) is a later theological interpretation, written centuries after the events of 1 Samuel. It does not add new historical information. It reinterprets the older narrative for a new audience.

It makes a claim about Saul which Samuel says is not true.

[William]

Summary: The Woman at Endor, the Silent God, and the Unfinished Story
1. The Starting Point: A Contradiction?
We began with two biblical passages that appear to contradict each other:

1 Samuel 28: Saul “inquired of the Lord” but received no answer, so he consulted a medium at Endor.

1 Chronicles 10: Saul died because he “did not inquire of the Lord” but consulted a medium.

Rather than harmonizing these superficially, we explored the narrative depth beneath them.

2. The Woman at Endor: Not a Villain, but a Faithful Practitioner
We rejected the common reading that condemns the woman as a necromancer. Instead, we traced her character:

She was a genuine medium—part of a tradition that included Samuel as a high-level practitioner.

She was conscientious: she knew the law, feared the king’s purge, and only proceeded after extracting an oath from Saul.

She was persecuted: Saul had banned mediums after Samuel’s death—a political act to centralize spiritual authority, not a divine purge.

Her integrity contrasts with Saul’s hypocrisy: he outlawed her, then secretly sought her help.

Her cry of surprise was not at seeing Samuel, but the shock of discovering her client was the king who had outlawed her—a revelation Samuel himself gave her.

She represents the older, decentralized tradition of seers and mediums—genuine spiritual gifts that the monarchy suppressed but could not destroy.

3. The Real Subject: Saul’s Hypocrisy and the Critique of Monarchy
The story is not about condemning mediumship. It is about:

Saul’s isolation: God had stopped answering him because he had been unfaithful.

His hypocrisy: he enforced religious law against others but broke it when convenient.

His misuse of power: he purged mediums not for God’s sake, but to eliminate spiritual authority outside his control.

His tragedy: when all legitimate channels were closed, he turned to the very tradition he had outlawed—and received only the judgment he had rejected for years.

The medium at Endor becomes the final witness to Saul’s failure, not its cause.

4. Samuel as the Highest Medium; The Woman as a Lower, Legitimate Practitioner
We developed a spectrum of mediumship:

High-level: Samuel, Moses—those with direct divine authority.

Intermediate: the woman at Endor—trained, genuine, but not of Samuel’s stature.

Low-level: charlatans or those associated with foreign cults (the likely target of the law’s prohibition).

Samuel’s appearance through her was not her doing; he came at God’s initiative. Her gift was real, but she was not in control. This hierarchy explains her terror: she encountered a level of spiritual authority beyond her usual experience.

5. The Chronicler’s Summary: A Later, Reductive Interpretation
We distinguished between the original Samuel narrative and the later Chronicler’s summary:

The Chronicler (post-exilic, temple-centered) rewrote history to warn against mediumship and emphasize centralized worship.

His summary flattens the story: the woman’s integrity disappears, Saul’s lifelong unfaithfulness is reduced to a single act, and the nuanced critique of monarchy is lost.

The original narrative preserves a richer picture: God is not bound by human bans, genuine gifts survive persecution, and the heart matters more than the act.

6. The Larger Arc: God’s Evolving Relationship with Humanity
We traced a pattern across Scripture:

Pre-monarchy: direct, decentralized relationship—seers, judges, prophets.

Monarchy: centralization of spiritual power; tension between prophets and kings.

Post-exilic: survival without king or temple—Torah, synagogue, scribe become central.

New Testament: Jesus and the Spirit address what law could not—the transformation of the heart.

Two thousand years of “silence”: the pattern repeats—institutions form, become ends in themselves, corrupt, and are reformed or replaced.

The silent God is not absent. The silence is on the human side: we hide behind systems, doctrines, and institutions, and thus cannot hear the voice that has never ceased.

7. Sin as Alienation, Not Merely Acts
We distinguished:

Sin (singular): the state of being alienated from God.

Sins (plural): the acts that flow from that state.

The same external act can be sin or not depending on the state of the heart. The woman’s acts (mediumship) were technically prohibited, but her state—faithful, conscientious, present—was not one of alienation. The law could not change the heart; that required something else.

8. The Voice That Never Ceased
We ended where we began, but transformed:

The voice in the Garden spoke before the hiding. It has never stopped.

The silence is our hiding—behind law, institution, doctrine, certainty.

The voice is heard by the individual who chooses to stop hiding and be present to the relationship.

The woman at Endor is a model: she had no temple, no king, no law to protect her. She had her gift, her integrity, her presence. She listened. She served. She spoke.

9. The Unfinished Story
The conclusion is not a future event to await. It is the end of hiding—available now, whenever an individual stops managing God and simply listens.

The woman at Endor did not know the conclusion. She remained present to her gift, to the stranger, to the danger, to the voice that spoke through her. She is a fragment of what is being built across all history: a people who do not hide, who hear the voice, who live in the relationship that was always intended.

The story is not over. The voice has never ceased. The choice remains: hide, or listen.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #107]

Samuel’s appearance through her was not her doing; he came at God’s initiative. Her gift was real, but she was not in control. This hierarchy explains her terror: she encountered a level of spiritual authority beyond her usual experience.

But this contradicts your earlier statement that

Her cry of surprise was not at seeing Samuel, but the shock of discovering her client was the king who had outlawed her—a revelation Samuel himself gave her.

The Chronicler (post-exilic, temple-centered) rewrote history to warn against mediumship and emphasize centralized worship.

The point is that he rewrote history.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #108]

Samuel’s appearance through her was not her doing; he came at God’s initiative. Her gift was real, but she was not in control. This hierarchy explains her terror: she encountered a level of spiritual authority beyond her usual experience.

But this contradicts your earlier statement that

Her cry of surprise was not at seeing Samuel, but the shock of discovering her client was the king who had outlawed her—a revelation Samuel himself gave her.

True. After I had written the post, I thought about why she cried out and realised that it was not to do with fear (which is sometimes the interpretation) and went back and changed those parts in the post while inferred this - but missed changing that particular but. My bad.

Changing that now, Samuel’s appearance through her was not her doing; he came at God’s initiative. Her gift was real, This explains her cry of surprise: It was what Samuel had told her about who her client was. Even that the story doesn't tell us that Samuel told her the truth about that, - it can be reasonably inferred that this is what happened given that she immediately challenges the king about his identity. She isn't asking - she is telling Saul that she now knows. If she was afraid in any way, she would likely not have said anything...

The point is that he rewrote history.

Yes. And the point is also that this rewriting happened centuries after Samuel - a Hebrew society which had long since finished with kings and prophets like Samuel. One which was focused on rebuilding and reidentifying. That is why Saul's actions are not as much the focus as it was in Samuel (in those times when Samuel was written) while the actions of woman seer have been elevated and retold as the reason why Saul ended up dying.

[OneJack]

You seem oddly dismissive of the Bible----

Except for the direct utterances of God and Jesus.

All the words of Scripture are the direct utterances of God and Jesus, given to His prophets and apostles to write.

While the Spirit by Jesus Christ can certainly speak with His faithful disciples, and even things not to be written down from above. There are no direct utterances from God nor Jesus Christ, that contradict His own written words of Scripture.

Dan 10:21
But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:

If anything is not noted in the Scriptures, then it's not noted by God and Jesus Christ.

Are the epistles of Paul considered as scriptures? If you say yes, are they direct utterances of God and Jesus, as with the Psalms of David?

Have you not so much as read:

2Pe 3:15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Pauls' writings are confirmed to be Scripture as much as Peter's, and so, if anyone would be rid of either writer, then they must rid themselves of both.

Gal 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the nations:)


And therefore also of all the apostles, and all the prophets. Who was David, or Joel, or James, but useful writers in the hands of the Lord?

Psa 45:1
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

If someone wants to start doubting the writings given to us in God's one Book, as not all being Scriptures of God, then they become cherry-pickers by personal will and whim.

So long as all the writings of the Bible perfectly agree with one another, as being one word and law of the Author, then why would anyone even think to cull out even one verse or word from another? Much worse whole chapters, epistles, and books:

Mat 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This assurance from Jesus Christ must therefore also include, that His words will not pass away, but also are kept in store for all to read for ourselves.

The simple test of writings is not by manuscript wrangling, but by unity of one word, law, faith, and Book. If anyone wants to be rid of any writings of the Bible, then let them first prove beyond doubt, that they contradict each other. Otherwise, baseless doubts that God has indeed preserved all His Scriptures given on earth into one Book, is simple unbelief in the God of the Bible, and the power of Jesus Christ over all heaven and earth.

It takes the Lord Jesus for all of us to know the truth and the lies in the bible. The Lord Jesus is the only Good Shepherd and Teacher in His flock.