The election of Saul as king, and the consequent establish- ment of the monarchy, seem to form a fitting conclusion to the work of the last Israelite ' judge ' ; but the last days of Samuel were destined to be embittered by the foolish action of the king whom he had been chiefly instrumental in appointing. In accordance with the command of Jehovah as announced by Samuel, Saul wages a war of extermination against the Amalekites. but, in deference to the wishes of his people, spares Agag the king and the best of the spoil. Samuel la divmely informed of the king's action, and openly taxes him with disobeying the commands of Jehovah. Saul seeks to palliate his offence, but Samuel ignores his excuses and announces his rejection. He thereupon confesses his sin, and begs for for- giveness ; but Samuel merely reiterates his sentence, interpreting the rending of hia cloak by Saul as a sign that the latter's kingdom has been 'rent' from him. In response, however, to Saul's apjieal. he consents to honour him once more before the people by joining vnth him in the worship of Jehovah. He then slays Agap with his own hands, and depart* to his house at Ramah. This incident marks the close of Samuel's public life; for 'he came no more to see Saul until the day of his death,' but remained in seclusion at Ramah (see art. Ramau), where he died and was buried.
Tlie above sketch of the contents of the later document shows clearly that the writer rejjarded Saimiel as exercisin*^ a far wider sphere of infhience than the unknown seer of the earlier narrative. The po^iition, indeed, which he a.ssi^s to Samuel is that of a second Moses, who rules over the people as the representative of Jehovah, and whose mission it is to win the people from their apostasy to the service of the only true God. Further, he depicts him as exercising the office of a * judge' (in the sense in which that term is employed m the pre-
Deuteronomic Book of Judges (2^-16")), and de- livering Israel from the hands of their Philistine oppressors : thus Israel's desire for a king can only be e.xplained as an act of rebellion against Jehovah.
The contrast between the two representations of Samuel is very marked, and at first sight it would appear as if the one must necessarily exclude the other. But though there can be no doubt as to the greater historical value of the earlier narrative, w'hich bears all the marks of a high antiquity, it by no means follows that the later narrative must be rejected as unhistoriual. For it must be re- membered (l)that the later is not founded on, but is clearly independent of, the earlier narrative ; and (2) that the view which is taken of the standpoint of the later author does not of necessity affect the general truth of his narrative. Hence, though the earlier narrative contains no account of Samuel's childhood, of his connexion with Eli at Shiloh, and of his intercession on behalf of the people, we have no grounds for regarding these facts as other than historical. It cannot be doubted, however, that the/orwi in which they have been preserved to U3 has been largely coloured bv the later ' prophetic* point of view. Interpreted by this later stand- point, the establishment of the monarchy, or rather the election of David's predecessor as king, has little to recommend it, and is not unnaturally described as one of many acts of apostasy on the part of ancient Israel. For the purpose of this narrative, it must be remembered, is religiotis ; and it does not lie within the writer's scope to estimate the importance of this event in thepontical history of the nation. His interest rather centres in the person of Samuel the prophet, and there is on this account a marked tendency to magnify his office and to overestimate his influence. The extent to which this tendency has allected the narrative is illustrated in a very striking manner by the story of Samuel's intercession on behalf of the people at Mizpah {V"-). That Samuel did intercede for the people may be inferred from Jer 15^ ; but that his intercession was followed by the subjugation of the Philistines (7'^) cannot be reconciled with the subsequent history (see the account of Saul's campaign against the Philistines 13*-I4*^ and especially 14^^ 'and there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul'). In like manner, we may conclude that the repre- sentation of Samuel as a * prophet,' and his aver- sion to the monarchy, reflect the point of view of a later age, and have but little foundation in fact. Looking back over the past history of Israel, the writer clearly regards Samuel as the last of the old order of jud^res, and also as the forerunner of the new order of prophets. Tiiat his estimate in the main is a correct one cannot be <lenied : it is clear, however, that it has largely influenced his por- trayal of Samuel's life and work.
In conclusion, it may be pointed out that the account of the anointing of David by Samuel (16'"^^), and the second e.xplanation of the proverb, 'Is Saul also among the prophets?' (19^^"**), can only be regarded as late and unhistorical (see below, p. 386 f.). They illustrate that tendency to increase the importance of tlie heroes of the nation, and to connect them with the beginnings of later institutions, which in later times became especially characteristic of Jewish writings.