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?

[OneJack]

If someone thinks they are new personal revelators of the Bible God, whose revelations are not subject to the written words of the Bible, then at least in this case, you are showing more honor to the Bible, than some brand new personal revelator.

Rev 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Are saying that new revelations from God today must be subject to the written words of the bible?

Of course. If anything is revealed to anyone from the God of the Bible today, then it won't conflict with His Book already written for us. And so, it will simply be a revelation of what the Bible already teaches and prophecies. Not necessarily a new revelation, but simply an interpretation not already commonly taught.

As already quoted once, new revelations conflicting with the Bible, is already forewarned in the Bible:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


And such fraudulence has already been done many times. Most notably Smith's Book of Mormon, which he calls, 'Another new testament'. Or, newer new testament. Or, a newer testament than the old new testament.

On a smaller scale, it would include all 'new' revelations of the Lord's coming again to earth. Which have decieved many, because they don't believe the only testament of Jesus Christ about His coming again:

Mar 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


Now, if someone has a personal revelation from God about their own life and service to God? Then so long as it does not contradict His written words, then they are free to hearken and act accordingly by personal faith toward God.

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The Scripture does not say, that there is no private interpretation of Scripture. It simply warns that without confirmation from Scriptures already written, they personal interpretations ought be kept to oneself.

If any interpretation is not disproven by Scripture, then it is a legitimate private interpretation of faith. But until there are two or most Scriptures saying so, then they ought not be taught to others as being Scripture of truth:


Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

You’re limiting the Lord God by the written words of the scripture, making the latter higher and above the Lord.

[RBD]

Sound review. Thanks.

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.

I.e. the spiritual truth behind physical activity. God does not respond to the inquiries and prayers of the disobedient, that does not inquire nor pray from the heart for guidance to obey:

Jas 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Though God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, He also is not a fool to answer the unbelieving and disobedient.

Pro 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

The physical fact is that rebellious king Saul still did not repent of his set path to destruction, even when getting an answer from his preferred source...

Scripture always interprets Scripture, to record not only the physical things done, but primarily to teach the spiritual things not seen.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

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.

1Ch 10:13
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: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

Not necessarily downplays Saul's disobedience, but introduces the spiritual relationship between the righteous Lord and the unrighteous, including His own unrighteous people, and even His own anointed kings.

And so we see two, not one case of the record being spiritual defined: In 1 Samuel, it's the Philistines that slay Saul, but we see in 1 Chron, that it's the Lord who slew him. The same is said many times of carrying away of Israel and Judah, that it was the LORD who destroyed them, which is by the hands of their enemies.

They are called the Lord's enemies on the one hand, and then the Lord's servants on the other.

What the Original Story Actually Emphasizes

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.

It shows the mercy of the LORD to use any means possible, to bring the rebellious to repentance, whether the witch's incantation, or a talking mule:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

However, His acts of mercy become proofs of hard hearted rebellion and condemnation, when His warnings are rejected:

Rom 2:3
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?...But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

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.

As you say, the Bible is a book of separate but complimentary narratives, written specifically for historical accuracy and spiritual enlightenment. It exposes the fault-finders, who forsake honest literary critique, only to play the superficial gotcha word game.

Mar 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

Luk 11:54
Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Psa 35:8
Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

They seek to ruin the integrity of a book, by forsaking critical integrity of literature. Most any writer can be taken out of context, so that their words are made to directly contradict each other on paper, but not in context and teaching.

[RBD]

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

Mat 6:7
But when ye speak, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[Athetotheist]

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

Mat 6:7
But when ye speak, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
(Mark 14:59)

[RBD]

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.

A fair historical review including personal character. However:

1. The simple answer is that all Scripture of God is both for historical and spiritual instruction: The recorded facts are in 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, with the spiritual insight in the latter:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


The case of King Saul is used in the greater instruction of Gd not answering enquiries of the rebellious, so that with Himself, He heard no such cry for help.

Psa 66:18
If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

Isa 1:15
And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Eze 14:3
Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?

2. Don't overplay the witch's 'integrity', since it's God's law against witches and witchcraft. It was not her 'legitimate' craft that summoned Samuel, but God who used her setting to give Saul one final unheeded warning from Samuel.

1Sa 28:12
And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.

The witch was shocked and afraid at the true appearance of Samuel, not professionally satisfied with her craft.

[RBD]

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.

It only takes a false Christ to say there are lies in Scriptures of God.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

And it only takes an unbeliever to believe the lies about Scriptures of God.

Mar 7:6
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

[RBD]

You’re limiting the Lord God by the written words of the scripture, making the latter higher and above the Lord.

So says the one not limiting God's words only to the truth, but also being lies.

The Scriptures of God are higher and above any false Christ, that lies against Scriptures of God.

Scriptural inerrancy means that once anyone begins to lie against any Scripture's truth, they lie against the truth of all Scriptures. God's words are one truth word:


Psa 119:11
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Psa 119:17
Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live, and keep thy word.

John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Anyone not believing all God's words are true, reject keeping all His word, and be sanctified by His truth.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #115]

I don't discard the books of the bible but I do refrain from worshiping it as The Word of GOD.
My approach to and relationship with GOD is not legalistic or bound by the words in any book.

I consider the legalistic approach to be specific to those still on the teat - who - as a consequence - remain unevolved and stunted in growth - comfortably enclosed in those parameters.

GOD is living - and my relationship with GOD is not dependent at all on the bindings. My GOD resides outside of the constrictions of those parameters.

This is not to say that I have any disrespect for biblical writings but that I understand in principle that those who follow Christ inevitably come to The Father and that is something which - no matter how versed in biblical legalism - can ever achieve.

In essence, I refuse to confuse the map with the territory. This is because the territory is boundless.

The Bible is not God. It is a one human collection of writings that bear witness to encounters with God. It is not to be worshipped, nor is it identical with "The Word of God" in the sense of a fixed, inerrant legal document.

A legalistic approach to the Bible - treating it as a rulebook, attempting to harmonizing every apparent contradiction, using it to control access to GOD - is a stage. It is for those still nursing, still needing boundaries and certainty. But it is not the goal. It is not maturity.

Those who remain in legalism remain unevolved and stunted. They are comfortable within the parameters. They mistake the container for the content, the rules for the relationship.

GOD is living. My relationship with God is not dependent on any book. It is direct, dynamic, and outside the constraints of any human system, including the biblical canon.

Those who follow Christ come to the Father. This is the heart of it. The path is not biblical mastery. It is not doctrinal precision. It is following Christ - which is a living relationship, not a textual compliance. And that relationship, no matter how biblically illiterate, leads to the Father. Conversely, no amount of biblical legalism can achieve that relationship. It is not a matter of knowledge or correct interpretation. It is a matter of presence, attention, and following.

[OneJack]

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.

It only takes a false Christ to say there are lies in Scriptures of God.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

You don't know who the false prophets and false Christs are in our time today, do you? Did you hear from God that 'it only takes a false Christ to say there are lies in the bible/scriptures?

And it only takes an unbeliever to believe the lies about Scriptures of God.

Mar 7:6,
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Face the mirror RBD, your object and focus of your faith in God is, no wonder, the bible, per se, not the real and eternally living Christ Jesus, who is beside you/me/them all the time.

[OneJack]

You’re limiting the Lord God by the written words of the scripture, making the latter higher and above the Lord.

So says the one not limiting God's words only to the truth, but also being lies.

The Scriptures of God are higher and above any false Christ, that lies against Scriptures of God.

Scriptural inerrancy means that once anyone begins to lie against any Scripture's truth, they lie against the truth of all Scriptures. God's words are one truth word:


Psa 119:11
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Psa 119:17
Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live, and keep thy word.

John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Have you heard and learned from God your notion of 'scriptural inerrancy,' RBD? Where in the bible can we read that God and Jesus says the scriptures are inerrant, verbatim?

Anyone not believing all God's words are true, reject keeping all His word, and be sanctified by His truth.

Where in the bible can we read your notion in this regard, verbatim, RBD?