The Pulpit Commentary — Joshua — Section 17

ra.ther tlmn from· that which they are, or do, themselves. Samuel haR this further cha.mcteristic peculiar to himself; he inaugurated the new system against his own previous convictions. He him.self regarded the new departure as a lamentable abandonment of wha,t ha,d hitherto been the ideal, the ideal of Sinai and of Ebal and Gerizim. Ancl yet, as soon as he saw that the change was inevitable, with all the generosity and wisdom of a noble nature and an open mind, he flung himself into the new movemeQt, if not with enthusiasm, at least with energy and devotion. If a, new constitution must come, it should be the very best that he could make it. The people Imel refused to listen to him and had insisted on their own cravings ; . that should not make him stand moodily aloof while they blindly followed the evil .models of Canaanitish monarchies. At first he did his utmost to make the old system meet the requirements of the age; when he found out that this was im- possible, he had the courage to own it to himself, and the nobleness to transfer his . energies to the movement which he personally ilislikecl. As was natural, his .interest in it grew with the work ; and that which at first he would have prevented from existing, he before long loved and fostered as ms own child. The judgeship of Samuel resembles that of Eli more than that of the previous Judges, but it was not the same. Samuel and Eli were alike in this, that both were ecclesiastic·s holding the highest civil office, and that the office was permanent and not provisional. Rut Samuel, though a Levite and a N azarite, was not of the family of AB.ron, and therefore could not be, as Eli was, hlgh-priest. On the other hand, Samuel was what Eli was not, a prophet, and from the first was recognised _as such (1 Sam. iii. 19-21). This supernatural fact a great deal more than com- .pensated for his not holding a hlgh-priestly office. Indeed, in Eli's time, the .Priesthoocl had fallen so low that probably the office gained far more influence from _his personal character and civil ilignity than it conferred by its peculiar sanctity. On the whole, the history of the Jewish priesthood, from Aaron to Caiaphas, is the history of a tremendous failure ; a conspicuous illustration of the maxim, corruptio optimi fit pessimn. A Levite by birth, a Naza1ite by the devotion of his parents, judge by the election of the people, prophet by the consecration of Jehovah, Samuel united in himself a.11 the moral and spiritual gifts by whlch he could most powerfnlly influence the people whom he had .to rule. How long an interval elapsed between the death of Eli and the election of Samuel we clo not know ; but the trouble into which the tictory of the PI,ilistines at Aphek plunged the land woula make the people soon feel the need of another ruler : and the fact of Samuel being already recognised as n. prophet would point him out as the mn.n. No1· is it quite certain whether his being judge led him to assemble the people at Mizpeh, or whether his Yictory lecl to his being elected judge. Be this a.s it may, on the very so.me field of Aphek, he so broke the power of the invading Philistines that for years they never a.gain crossed the frontier, and moreover had to surrender the cities nea,r the frontier which they had won from the Israelites. The warlike Amorites also, in the western mountains of Jucls;a, now withdrew from their connexion with the Philistines, a.ml accepted the protectorate of Israel. But we are, perhaps, not to suppose that the Philistine yoke wa,s absolutely thrown off; at any rate, perfect liberty, if it was regained for a time, was lost a.gain befoi-o long. The shameful state of subjugation in which we find the Israelites in the eecond year of Saul's reign (1 Sam. xiii.) must have begun under the rnle of S:i.muel. ... In his ch!),l·acter of Nazai-ite it is natural to compare Samuel with the predecessor  XX INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORICAL BOORS: