Nothing but the strongest necessity could justify (as by God's answer to Samuel it ditl justify) the commencement of a system which temied to repress the development of the free life of the individual Israelites, a life which might otherwise have attained much sooner the realization of tlie perfect liberty of tlie ideal believer in God. A king, how- ever, was better than destruction by the Philistines jr absorption by the Canaanites.
II. The Method of Atpointment. — 1. The Choice. — (a) In the case of Saul. The subordina- tion of the 'lay' to the 'religious' element in Israel is clearly seen in the action of the elders. Even if (as is hardly probable) any of them had an idea of a king possessing merely secular author- ity, no trace of such a feeling is shown, as they unite in seeking the sanction and the power of the religious authority. Further, Samuel even after consenting to their wish gives them strictly no "oice in tlie appointment, lie is guided to anoint Saul privately, and the public decision is made by lot, after wliieli Saul is presented to the people as him whom the Ixird hath chosen,' and they shout •God Bjive the king' (IS 10« [E>]). Naturally, after the first success, a ))ublic assemhly is called by Samuel to ensure the ratification by the people of the choice already made (1 S 11" [Jj), he taking the opportunity of convincin;' the people that a visible kinj/ would not have ueen necessary had they served Goii fully, and of urging them to serve Him faithfully under the new arrangement (1 S 12 [i:»]).t
(5) In the case of David also the appointment was from above (IS 16" ' midrashie'), but effect
* It Is. of oourM, Rttll pomlhle that the /orm of the objection* attritmlfl to Suiuivl la one ' uioiiI<l»-*i by the ex{>eHenoea of m lat^-r n^e' (t>river, Dt. p. il'i). but the lurrmtlve u 11 atandji prohalilv repreeenta bi» artiiul fccllnifi.
I Such In tlie KenrrsI rcault we npiH-u- la nmch bj oomblnlng kll the <UU In 1 S ; buf^OTJf lUH.
was not given to it until after Saul's death, when the men of Judah anointed him as their king (2 S 2*), and not fully until seven years later, when 'all the tribes of Israel' anointed him king over all Israel. They did this, however, only after receiving certain stipulations from David (2 S 5"). The virtual omission of these by Solomon, and their definite rejection by Rehoboam, caused the division of the kingdom.
(c) In other cases in David's line of which particu- lars have come down to us, the reigning king freely chose his successor from among his sons (1 Iv l'"-^, but this was preferably the firstborn, 2 Ch 21').* Naturally, on the restoration of Joash to his rights, Jehoiada the priest took the opjiortunity of obtain- ing from him and the people an agreement to serve the Lord, the observance of whose worship was bound up with the national constitntion and national prosperity (2 K 11"). So again (also after consiiiracies by others) the peoi>le appointed Azariah-Lzziah (2 K 14'^'). Josiali (2 K 21*'), and, on the untimely death of Josiali, his son .lehoahaz (2 K a;!*'), riie appointment of Ahaziah by the
{leople waa due solely to his being the only son eft to his father, Jehoram having apparently designated another son before both his and his own death (2 Ch 21" 22').
2. The Anomting.f — Besides the reference given above, see ANOINTING, §§ 8, 9. The only king of the northern dynasty whose anointing is mentioned is Jehu (2 K Sr), where the act is strictly private, like that of Saul and of David by Samuel. Many have thou;;ht from the absence of all mention in other cases that only those kinjjs were anointed whose claims to the throne were disputed, but this is very unlikely. The cases of private anointing are mentioned as showing to the recipient God's choice and puri)ose : the public anointing is men tioned only on special occa-sions, just in the same way as the words ' God save the king' are recorded (1 K 1 ' -• K 11 'i Till- fr.'.|ncnry of tlif t.-rm the Loi!i> s aiiiiiiitcd ' cdiilirms this i i S 24'" M'. 2 S 1" I'J'-' [Heb. "']). It has been suggested that kings were anointed in order that they might fulfil priestly functions (see below), hut there is no bint of this. The ceremony was perhaps already purely archaic in Saul's time. The WTiter, however, of IS 16" ('midraahic') connects it with the gift of the spirit, t
III. The External Marks.— (o) Sceptre (OtP). — This very primitive sign of supreme authority ia used of the Israelitish king in Ps 45', and perhaps nowhere else. See SCEl'TRE.
(6) Hjiefir (n-;n). — This, both among pre-Moham- medan (W. K. Smith, Kinship, p. 171) and modern Aral.s (Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 2.'i'.l), marks the iircsence of the sheikh. It was in the hand of Saul when David played to him (1 S IS'" [J')), by his side at mealtime (20" [J']), in his hand when lie sat at council (22" [.I')), planted by his |>illow as he slept in camp (26' tl^'])- Ub is afso saiil by the Aiiialekite to have leaned on it when he was dying (2 S 1' [E'J).§ These examples suggest that Saul did not use the sceptre ; but it should be noticed that in the first three passages the mora oireusi\e