A reader asked us to look at an item titled "Communication with deceased in the Bible" which was originally in Portuguese, but which we had translated by one of those neat little web translation thingies (so it seems rough, but we have the jist). Apparently in some quarters some are actually using the Bible to support the idea that talking to the dead is an approved hobby, with particular appeal to an author named Kardec who thinks talking to dead people will be of some use.

The article begins easily enough with a claim that the Bible supports the mere idea that spirits survive death, which is not something that needs to be disagreed with here. But from here, it is reasoned, that perhaps the forbiddance of necromancy, clearly acknowledged to exist in the OT, contained a hidden "because" that gives us permission to do it anyway as long as we take care to do the proper dance. Of course the OT has no "don't do this because..." -- it just says, no necromancy, period. Anything further is merely an excuse seeking a reason. But even so, what reasons are supposed? In sum, it seems to be that the only reason for the prohibition was that it was meant to stop people from assuming godlike powers upon the dead, or from using them as brokers of God's patronage.

Now there can be little doubt that this was probably a key reason for prohibiting necromancy. But the matter now becomes showing positive affirmation for exceptions, and in this the author contorts in an extreme. 1 John 4:1, which says to "test the spirits," is taken as a case of contacting spirits! But as is made clear in 4:1-2, the "spirits" referred to are not decesased human spirits, but rather, the Spirit of God on one hand and deceiving spirits on the other. There is nothing to suggest that the latter are formerly human spirits; the most that the author can find in suipport of this idea is a passage from Josephus that says that demons are the spirits of perverse men; but the quote given from Josephus he provides no source for, and the sentiment expressed would not at all express Jewish beliefs as I have found in any scholarly source.

Of course the author inevitably argues that it is possible to dance around the exclusions of Scripture on necromancy by suggesting that if you find a good purpose and a good spirit (unline Saul at the witch of Endor's) you will be in the clear. As evidence of such options we are pointed to little, save Jesus conversing with Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration. Yet the author misses the salient point that God possesses power over life and death. We do not. Even if Moses and Elijah were called forth (which is not stated in the text, for that matter); even if we allow for the error made that Elijah did not die (and the author actually imitates an atheist canard here, citing 1 Cor. 15:50 against that point! -- again, nothing tells us that Elijah was taken to the abode of God!); by what rights does the author presume to have the discretion to cross the bridge from life to death, a prerogative held by God throughout the Bible -- who says likewise He will not share His glory with another? As the giver of life this is not likely to be a power or privilege God will share.

In all of this, the author also commits a simple error of assuming that what CAN be done, by extension, MAY be done. The example Lazarus (to say nothing of Saul) do show well enough that it was believed that contacting the dead was possible or considered possible. Indeed the forbiddance of necromancy says that by itself. But when it comes to exegesis, all that is sensible flies out the window. We are told that "the term resurrection also was used to indicate the influence of deceased on livings creature (TM 14,2; Mc 6,14-16)" but neither passage referenced says any such thing; there is no such thing in the Bible at all. References to angels as men, as at the end of Mark, are taken to mean that they are literally men (!) who have died, but the fact is that Jewish belief concerning angels at this time does not cohere with this thesis. Indeed, the author gets all wrong an understanding of Peter being mistaken for an angel in Acts; this reflects a Jewish belief in guardian angels who took on the appearance of the persons they guarded. It does not mean that the angel "is a spirit of a human being that died before."

In the end, what we learn from this most is that there is more than one way to contrive explanations for your favorite vice being not so bad after all. However, we also learn that it takes staying uneducated to keep your boat from sinking.