wholly unto Jehovah," is regarded by Keil as implying that the sacrifice was not, as ordinarily, cut up, but

laid undivided on the altar. But this view is, on many grounds, untenable; and the expression, which is also

otherwise used (Leviticus 6:22; Deuteronomy 33:10; Ps alm 51:19) is probably intended to point to the

symbolical meaning of the burnt-offering, as wholly consumed (Leviticus 1:9).

It is thus that we understand 1 Samuel 7:13. Indeed, the expression: "the hand of Jehovah was against (or

rather, upon) the Philistines all the days of Samuel," implies that the hostilities between the two parties

continued, although no further incursions were attempted, and the Philistines stood on the defensive rather

than took the offensive.

Of course, outside these two cities. The expression, "with the coasts thereof," refers to the towns restored

to Israel, and not to Ekron or Gath.

Of course, not the Gilgal in the Jordan-valley, but that formerly referred to in Joshua 12:23.

According to Jewish tradition, Samuel, like Solomon, died at the age of fifty-two. He is said to have

become prematurely old.

Josephus adds "Bethel" (Ant., 6. 3, 2), implying that one of the two sons "judged" at Bethel, the other at

Beersheba. But this suggestion - for it amounts to no more than that - is wholly unsupported.

The rendering of the Authorised Version, they "perverted judgment," is stronger than the original, which

means, "they inclined," or "bent," judgment.

The word "it" seems necessary to give the sense of the Hebrew correctly.

This is the nearest approximation to a full rendering of the Hebrew expression.

It is noteworthy that Samuel introduces no personal element, nor complains of their charges against his

sons. If I have not remarked in the text on the absence of all prayer before making such an application, as,

contrasted with the conduct of Samuel, it is not that I am insensible to it, but that I wish to present the

matter in its objective rather than its subjective aspect.

Not the manner of the king.

This account of the origin of monarchy in Israel seems to us to have also another important bearing. It is

impossible to regard it as either unauthentic or of much later origin. For the manifest tendency of the Jewish

mind in later periods increasingly was to surround existing institutions with a halo of glory in their origin.

This would especially be the case in reference to the origin of monarchy, associated as it was in later times

with the house of David. Of anti-monarchical tendencies we discover no real trace. An account so

disparaging to royalty would never have been invented, least of all in later times. The thoughtful reader will

find in what we have just marked a principle which has a wide application in the criticism of Old Testament

history.

It is only such a view of the character of Saul which, I venture to think, satisfactorily accounts for his

choice in the first instance, and then for his fall and final rejection. But thus read, there is a strict unity about

his whole history, and his outward religiousness and the deeper defects of this religion appear consistent

with each other.

1 Samuel 9:1; comp. 14:51. The notice, therefore, in 1 Chronicles 8:33, 9:39, must probably be a clerical

error, though Keil suggests that, as in other pla ces, the reference is to a "grandfather," or even more remote