He then ordered the cook to bring the piece which he had directed him to set aside, and to place it before Saul, namely the leg and העליה (the article in the place of the relative; see Ewald, 331, b.); i.e., not what was over it, viz., the broth poured upon it (Dathe and Maurer),...
Show full excerpt
He then ordered the cook to bring the piece which he had directed him to set aside, and to place it before Saul, namely the leg and העליה (the article in the place of the relative; see Ewald, 331, b.); i.e., not what was over it, viz., the broth poured upon it (Dathe and Maurer), but what was attached to it (Luther). The reference, however, is not to the kidney as the choicest portion (Thenius), for the kidneys were burned upon the altar in the case of all the slain sacrifices ( Leviticus 3:4 ), and only the flesh of the animals offered in sacrifice was applied to the sacrificial meal. What was attached to the leg, therefore, can only have been such of the fat upon the flesh as was not intended for the altar. Whether the right or left leg, is not stated: the earlier commentators decide in favour of the left, because the right leg fell to the share of the priests ( Leviticus 7:32 .). But as Samuel conducted the whole of the sacrificial ceremony, he may also have offered the sacrifice itself by virtue of his prophetic calling, so that the right leg would fall to his share, and he might have it reserved for his guest. In any case, however, the leg, as the largest and best portion, was to be a piece of honour for Saul (see Genesis 43:34 ). There is no reason to seek for any further symbolical meaning in it.