The Narrow Path Ministries

Deut. 18:10-11

There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. (NKJV)

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (NIV)

"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. (NASB)

Is to forbid a thing a recongition that the thing forbidden is possible? In other words, did God forbid, for example, the consulting or calling up the dead because such a thing is possible (though detestable) or because he simply did not want the Israelites to copy pagan practices, even though the actual act is not possible?

He doesn't say "Don't consult the dead because that's a bunch of poppycock." he just says "don't do it," which seems to suggest that such a thing is actually possible. I know that the witch of endor called up samuel, but there is a dispute over whether that was actually Samuel or a demon masquerading as samuel.

TK

TK wrote: Is to forbid a thing a recongition that the thing forbidden is possible? In other words, did God forbid, for example, the consulting or calling up the dead because such a thing is possible (though detestable) or because he simply did not want the Israelites to copy pagan practices, even though the actual act is not possible?

He doesn't say "Don't consult the dead because that's a bunch of poppycock." he just says "don't do it," which seems to suggest that such a thing is actually possible. I know that the witch of endor called up samuel, but there is a dispute over whether that was actually Samuel or a demon masquerading as samuel.

Ouch. I don't care for the theory that it was a demon acting as Samuel. The answer in that seance was likely of God's action to rebuke Saul -- for even Samuel, as a prophet, couldn't choose to respond.

Currently I am of a mindset to minimize attributing supernatural events to Satan or demons, yet another translation says:
Deut 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (KJV+ e-sword.net)
I have treated the idea of "familiar spirits" as an indication of demonic influence -- to give a sense to people, or to provide facts about people, to make the people in the seance feel they have seen or heard a family member. Now I see that such translation may not be the best translation.

Even if Deut 18:11 doesn't promote the idea that there are familiar spirits, it seems that the hypnotic retrieval of past lives would actually be a variation of a parlor trick being done in the spiritual realm. Only demons could know something from the past and then make that knowledge available to someone today, so the information could be "confirmed."

mikew wrote:Ouch. I don't care for the theory that it was a demon acting as Samuel. The answer in that seance was likely of God's action to rebuke Saul -- for even Samuel, as a prophet, couldn't choose to respond.

Mike, it was definitely the work of an evil spirit. If "talking" to a serpent was dangerous for man to do, just imagine what talking to the dead will do!

Deadly Deceptions

"Says the prophet Isaiah: "When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:19, 20. If men had been willing to receive the truth so plainly stated in the Scriptures concerning the nature of man and the state of the dead, they would see in the claims and manifestations of spiritualism the working of Satan with power and signs and lying wonders. But rather than yield the liberty so agreeable to the carnal heart, and renounce the sins which they love, multitudes close their eyes to the light and walk straight on, regardless of warnings, while Satan weaves his snares about them, and they become his prey. "Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved," therefore "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 11.

Those who oppose the teachings of spiritualism are assailing, not men alone, but Satan and his angels. They have entered upon a contest against principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places. Satan will not yield one inch of ground except as he is driven back by the power of heavenly messengers. The people of God should be able to meet him, as did our Saviour, with the words: "It is written." Satan can quote Scripture now as in the days of Christ, and he will pervert its teachings to sustain his delusions. Those who would stand in this time of peril must understand for themselves the testimony of the Scriptures.

Many will be confronted by the spirits of devils personating beloved relatives or friends and declaring the most dangerous heresies. These visitants will appeal to our tenderest sympathies and will work miracles to sustain their pretensions. We must be prepared to withstand them with the Bible truth that the dead know not anything and that they who thus appear are the spirits of devils."

Currently I am of a mindset to minimize attributing supernatural events to Satan or demons, yet another translation says: Deut 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (KJV+ e-sword.net)
I have treated the idea of "familiar spirits" as an indication of demonic influence -- to give a sense to people, or to provide facts about people, to make the people in the seance feel they have seen or heard a family member. Now I see that such translation may not be the best translation.

Even if Deut 18:11 doesn't promote the idea that there are familiar spirits, it seems that the hypnotic retrieval of past lives would actually be a variation of a parlor trick being done in the spiritual realm. Only demons could know something from the past and then make that knowledge available to someone today, so the information could be "confirmed."

I think it is fairly clear what the Lord desires. He doen't want His people speaking to the dead. The thing we miss when discussing Saul and the with of Endor is that Saul was completely rejected by the Lord at that time. Saul was desperate and out of the protection of God. He was on his own.

Who is Saul talking to in 1 Samuel 28?

TK quoted:

Deut. 18:10-11

There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. (NKJV)

Since the dead are dead until God raises them to life, it is very dangerous to imagine that the dead are alive somewhere, and to attempt communications with them. What actually happens to those that attempt it is that a demon impersonates the person with whom the medium attempts to communicate.

When my Grandfather Ben was a teenager, he and a friend (we'll call him "Joe") went to see a medium just for laughs. When Joe indicated to the medium that he wished to communicate with his dead mother, someone spoke through the medium with a voice that was exactly like that of Joe's mother. Joe asked questions and the voice gave answers which seemingly only his grandmother could do. Joe was astonished and convinced. What he thought was simply a fun thing to do turned out to be very serious indeed.

Then Ben told the medium that he, too, wanted to talk to his mother. Again, a voice exactly like the voice of Ben's mother spoke through the medium. Again, the "voice" seemed to know only what Ben's mother could know. However, Ben's mother had not yet died! It seems that the demon did not know this (They are not omniscient). Yet, it seems odd that the demon could know so much about Ben's mother without even knowing that she was still alive.

My sister-in-law had a friend (We'll call her Lucy) who was visiting her friend Sarah. They decided to play with The Ouija board which Sarah's mother frequently used. To them it was just a bit of fun. But amazingly they found that the Ouija board began to spell answers to their questions. Then it began to spell out the name of a person who had lived in the 16th century. It claimed to have been the spirit of this person. The name was spelled with an archaic spelling. The girls looked the name up in an encyclopedia, and found that such a person had actually existed in the 16th century. But the name in the encyclopedia had a modern spelling.
It stated that the man had committed a crime and had been hung. When the girls asked the Ouija board about the crime, it bounced around in such a way, that the girls interpreted it as anger. They began to become frightened. Yet they continued to communicate with it. Then it asked the girls a question: "Is there still a God?"

I have never heard of a human being asking such a question. One might ask, "Is there a God?" But to ask, "Is there still a God?" suggests that the person had once experienced God and then totally lost touch with God.

There's no doubt in my mind that a demon was impersonating the criminal from the 16th century in order to deceive the girls. I think even some of the near-death experiences of which we hear, are brought into people's minds by demons. There is a very common experience where the person walks down a long tunnel toward a bright light, a light which he associates with great joy and gladness. Christian and non-Christian alike have the same tunnel experience. The demons would like us to think that [1] We are naturally immortal and [2] It doesn't matter whether or not we are Christians. We all go to a wonderful place after death.

Nice thoughts Paidion.

So, if calling up the dead or consulting with the dead isn't possible(and i tend to think it is not), what was God actually forbidding? Why wouldnt God just state that the dead are not able to be consulted and those that claim otherwise are consulting with demons, therefore dont do it?

TK

TK wrote:So, if calling up the dead or consulting with the dead isn't possible(and i tend to think it is not), what was God actually forbidding?

That's just it TK, I don't think I or Paidon suggested calling up the dead isn't possible. While I can't speak for Paidon I will simply say this. When you play with fire you're bound to be burned. Calling up the dead is no different. Demons and spiritual forces will certainly heed the call when called upon. So when someone thinks they are speaking with their dead uncle from Cleveland they may actually be speaking with a demon.

In the story of Jesus and the Demoniac who was Jesus speaking with, the man or Legion?

Why wouldnt God just state that the dead are not able to be consulted and those that claim otherwise are consulting with demons, therefore dont do it?

Um, I think He did and was quite clear about it.

Lev 20:27 "Men and women among you who act as mediums or psychics must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense."

The dead are dead, and no human being is able to "call them up". When the time comes for God to raise them to life, He will not be not be restoring bodies to the already living; rather He will be bringing the dead back to life.

I can't tell you why God did not say what you suggested to those who attempted to communicate with the dead. Often God doesn't tell all. If He did, we wouldn't have any theological disagreements, would we? Perhaps God wants us to think and ponder and come to some conclusions through the rationality with which He has blessed us. Humanity was created in the image of God, and I think rationality and the ability to make choices are two of the main aspects of that image.

So God often gives us instructions without explaining why these are necessary. I follow Christ's instructions not to take an oath, but to let my answer be a simple "yes" or "no". Yet, I do not know why it is wrong to take an oath. Perhaps it is not morally wrong, but in keeping with Christ's instructions, it is at least better to refrain from doing so.

well, i know that we shouldnt ask why.

but i've been listening throught the pentateuch lately and it is difficult not to ask why about quite a lot of things, particularly in leviticus and deut, like this one:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. deut. 22:28-29

I don't quite get that one. seems like a rather barbaric way of getting the woman you desire, since apparently the girl cannot refuse the marriage. Not sure why the remedy here is not simply to stone the rapist. of course, if the passage really isnt talking about rape but a consensual situation, then it is more understandable. but a few versions say "rape" and other versions say "seizes her." it sounds as if it is talking about a forced situation.

TK

TK wrote:well, i know that we shouldnt ask why.

but i've been listening throught the pentateuch lately and it is difficult not to ask why about quite a lot of things, particularly in leviticus and deut, like this one:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. deut. 22:28-29

I don't quite get that one. seems like a rather barbaric way of getting the woman you desire, since apparently the girl cannot refuse the marriage. Not sure why the remedy here is not simply to stone the rapist. of course, if the passage really isnt talking about rape but a consensual situation, then it is more understandable. but a few versions say "rape" and other versions say "seizes her." it sounds as if it is talking about a forced situation.

TK

TK, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?