THE history of Israel, viewed as the Theocracy, or Kingdom of God, consists of three periods:

First, that under the guidance of Prophets (from Moses to Samuel); Secondly, that under the rule of Kings

(from Saul to the Babylonish Captivity); and, Thirdly, that under the reign of High-Priests (from Ezra to the

birth of Jesus Christ).

Thus the Theocracy had passed through its full typical development in all its stages, wh en He came, to

Whom they all pointed: Jesus Christ, the Prophet, King, and High-priest of the Kingdom of God. The period

described in the present volume closes one of these stages, and commences another. The connecting link

between them was Samuel - who alone fully realized the mission of the Judges, and who was also Divinely

appointed to inaugurate the new institution of royalty in Israel. That royalty next appeared in its twofold

possibility -or, as we might express it, in its negative and positive aspects. Saul embodied the royal ideal of

the people, while David represented the Scriptural ideal of royalty in its conscious subjection to the will of

the Heavenly King. Saul was, so to speak, the king after Israel's, David after God's own heart. But with the

actual introduction of monarchy the first period had come to an end, and a new era begun, which was

intended to continue till the third and last preliminary stage was reached, which prepared the way for the

Advent of Him, Who was the fulfillment of the typical meaning of all.

From what has been said it will be inferred that the period about to be described must have witnessed the

birth of new ideas, and the manifestation of new spiritual facts; otherwise spiritual advancement would not

have kept pace with outward progress. But it is in the rhythm of these two that the real meaning of Scripture

history lies, marking, as it does, the pari passu inner and outer development of the kingdom of God. On the

other hand, the appearance of new ideas and spiritual facts would necessarily bring out in sharper contrast

the old that was passing away, and even lead to occasional antagonism. Of course, these new ideas and

facts would not at first be fully understood or realized. They rather pointed towards a goal which was to be

reached in the course of history. For nothing could be more fatal to the proper understanding of Holy

Scripture, or of the purposes of God in His dealings with His ancient people, than to transport into olden

times the full spiritual privileges, the knowledge of Divine truth, or even that of right and duty, which we

now enjoy. It is not to do honor, but dishonor, to the Spirit of God to overlook the educational process of

gradual development, which is not only a necessity of our nature, but explains our history. A miracle of

might could, indeed, have placed the age of Samuel on the same spiritual level with that of the New

Testament, at least so far as regards the communication of the same measure of truth. But such an exhibition

of power would have eliminated the moral element in the educational progress of Israel, with the discipline of

wisdom, mercy, and truth which it implied, and, indeed, have rendered the whole Old Testament history

What has been stated will lead the student to expect certain special difficulties in this part of the history.

These concern, in our opinion, the substance more than the form or letter of the text, and raise doctrinal and

philosophical rather than critical and exegetical questions. The calling and later reje ction of Saul; his

qualification for the work by the influence of the Spirit of God, and afterwards the sending of a spirit of evil

from the Lord; in general, the agency of the Spirit of God in Old Testament times, as distinguished from the

abiding Presence of the Comforter under the Christian dispensation, and, in connection with it, the origin

and the character of the Schools of the Prophets and of prophetic inspiration - these will readily occur to the

reader as instances of what we mean. As examples of another class of difficulties, he will recall such

questions as those connected with the ban upon Amalek, the consultation of the witch of Endor, and in

general with the lower moral standpoint evidently occupied by those of that time, even by David himself.

Such questions could not be passed over. They are inseparably connected with the Scriptural narratives,

and they touch the very foundations of our faith. In accordance with the plan of progressive advance which

I set before myself in the successive volumes of this Bible History, I have endeavored to discuss them as