And many others fell slain, because the battle was God's. And they occupied the land until the exile. – 1 Chronicles 5:22

Today's Scripture Reading (June 26, 2025): 1 Chronicles 5

We often use shorthand when we speak to each other. The problem is that this shorthand assumes we understand the frame of reference. In the United States, often due to media and other fictional stories, we are familiar with the shorthand that the country uses for some of its military and spy services. NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) may be a somewhat obscure military organization, and it often plays up that fact in the fictional television series. Still, most of us know, or at least think we know, what the real NCIS stands for and does. The same goes for organizations like the FBI and CIA, although it sometimes seems that our fictional universe sometimes confuses the two. Even regional variants, such as the GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation), have made appearances in our fictional novels (consider Karin Slaughter's "Will Trent" character).

Because of “Bond, James Bond,” we know all about MI6, Britain's spy agency, although we shouldn't tell them that, as they might not appreciate that terminology. But do you know what MI5 does? The primary difference between MI5 and MI6 is that MI5 focuses on domestic threats within the United Kingdom, while MI6 is a foreign intelligence-gathering service. MI5 is roughly the British equivalent of the American FBI, while MI6 is the British equivalent of the CIA. But all of this is nothing more than a shorthanded.

Have you ever heard of the CSIS? Probably not. I don't know of any hit television series that takes place in the CSIS, although there are a couple who have advertised the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police). CSIS is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Before we write them off as insignificant, the truth is that the lower-profile CSIS can often obtain information where the more well-known spy services fail to do so. It is one of the reasons why all allied foreign intelligence agencies need to communicate with each other, ensuring that everyone has the necessary information to maintain a safe world.

The reason for this trip through some of our alphabet groups is that a bit of shorthand is used here, and it was a shorthand that, on first read, I misinterpreted. I had to stop and think about what this passage said and connect it with the rest of the passage before I understood the message. The shorthand is at the end of this verse. "And they occupied the land until the exile" (1 Chronicles 5:22). The words, likely written by Ezra as the nation returned to Israel and Jerusalem from their Babylonian captivity, would seem to reflect the Babylonian experience. But that doesn't make sense.

Ezra didn't say it, but the reality is that the exile indicated here in a kind of shorthand was not the Babylonian experience from which Israel was just beginning to return but the Assyrian Exile from which the Northern Tribes never returned. It was that exile of which Ezra writes. And even as the Babylonian Exile came to an end, it was the Assyrian event that laid heavy on the heart of a Second Temple Priest named Ezra.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 6

The descendants of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Karmi, Hur and Shobal. – 1 Chronicles 4:1

Today's Scripture Reading (June 25, 2025): 1 Chronicles 4

I live in North America. Of late, those of us living in what has been called the New World have begun to recognize the debt that we owe to those who came before us on this land. I can trace my heritage in North America back about four hundred years, and while that seems like a long time, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the First Nations people who have inhabited the land for multiple times longer than my family. And so, although not everyone agrees, we take time to recognize those who have come before us and made their homes in this incredible land long before Europeans like me arrived. The form we use at various times of the year is as follows:

VantagePoint Community Church is located on Treaty 6 land, the traditional territory of the Cree, Saulteaux, Blackfoot, Métis, Dene, and Nakota Sioux.

We echo the words of those who have said, "We are all treaty people." As a church organization, we acknowledge that we benefit significantly from treaties with Canada's First Nations.

We share responsibility for respecting and honoring treaty relationships in this generation and those to come.  We recognize the teachings and wisdom of Indigenous elders and knowledge-keepers as we seek reconciliation with this place and all creation. Our commitment includes living in balance with the land and with nature.

Not everyone agrees with me, but I believe these words serve as a good reminder that we were not the first.

However, it does not appear that intelligent life originated on this land. Someone, and I don't know who emigrated from Asia (likely) first. They somehow crossed the Pacific Ocean and made a home in this new place. My ancestors made a home here 400 years ago, but the first visitors came thousands of years ago, and even they were visitors to this land.

As to how the first visitors got here, for a long time, we believed that these newcomers came to this place by crossing the Bering Land Bridge, a piece of land that is now submerged between Russia and Alaska in the Bering Sea. However, new scholarship throws doubt on that idea. The most recent scholarship suggests that the first visitors arrived across a different Pacific land bridge, or even a series of now-submerged islands south of the Bering Sea. It is not that no one came across the Bering land bridge, but rather that they were not the first visitors. I wish we had journals from these people so that we could experience how the first visitors arrived and the reason for such a drastic move. But we are left with a bit of a mystery as we try to piece together the early history of this world in which I live.

One of the things we must keep in mind as we read the history we call 1 Chronicles is that this history was written very late in Jewish history. It is the result of some written records, but it also incorporates a generous amount of oral history. These were stories that the people knew; they had told these stories around campfires and passed them from generation to generation.

We believe Chronicles was written by a man named Ezra, a priest who was an instrumental leader at the beginning of the Second Temple era (c. 400-300 B.C.E.). And so, he develops a bit of a shorthand. Ezra opens this section of Chronicles with the words "The descendants of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Karmi, Hur and Shobal" (1 Chronicles 4:1). He assumes that his reader will understand that he is not speaking of a group of brothers, but of fathers and sons. Judah was the father to Perez, Perez was the father of Hezron, and so on down the line.

However, because Ezra and the scribes who copied this book wrote it so far down the line, errors do creep in. I know some can't believe that I would say that, but the errors are minor and easily understood. In this case, the problem is with Karmi. This name looks like an error. We are not aware of a son of Hezron named Karmi (or sometimes Carmi). We do know that Hezron had a son named Caleb and that Caleb had a son named Hur. So, it seems that Karmi should be Caleb.

Or maybe we are missing something. And it would be so much easier if we had a journal written by Caleb to tell us the story rather than having to piece things together from a book written a thousand years later.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 5

And these were the children born to him [David] there [Jerusalem]: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel. – 1 Chronicles 3:5

Today's Scripture Reading (June 24, 2025): 1 Chronicles 3

From 1950 until 1997, Reader's Digest published a series of abridged or condensed novels. Each book, published between four and six times a year, contained four or five stories. The stories had been condensed, meaning that they were much shorter than the original. I remember the advertising at the time stating that "you won't even know what's missing." I suppose that's true if you've never read the original. However, if you had read the original, why would you bother reading a condensed version of the same book?

Admittedly, as an avid reader, some books could be shortened a little without sacrificing the story. One of those might be Herman Melville's "Moby Dick." Moby Dick has several editorial chapters that address the political situation of the day. These chapters serve as asides that essentially preach a brief sermon but don't significantly advance the plot. Unless you have read the book, you probably won't miss these "asides." But even with "Moby Dick," I don't think you could make it short enough that you could put it in a book with three or four other novels without leaving out something essential. On the other hand, Stephen King's "The Stand" is over a thousand pages, and I can't imagine wanting to shorten it at all.

There might be reasons for shortening a novel, and first among those reasons might be expanding their readership beyond the avid reader. However, if you want everything the author envisioned for the story, I would recommend ditching the condensed book and reading the original author's intended story.

Does the Bible condense the story? The surprising answer is yes. There are several instances where the Bible condenses the story, and one of those instances would seem to be regarding the children born to David and Bathsheba. (Note: Bathsheba in this text is actually "Bethshua," which we assume is an alternate spelling of Bathsheba.) Here, we find that David and Bathsheba had four sons: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. The surprise isn't the number of sons the couple had but the order in which they were listed. Shammua, the oldest, might have been the child that David and Bathsheba conceived on the day David saw Bathsheba bathing on the rooftop unless that son died before he was named. But the reality is that we know relatively nothing about Shammua, Shobab, and Nathan. But if these sons are listed in order of birth, one of the big surprises is that Solomon is listed as the youngest. That is not what Samuel seems to tell us. In the aftermath of the death of the first son born to David and Bathsheba, Samuel says this:

Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah (2 Samuel 12:24-25).

Some argue that in the light of this passage, Solomon must have been the second son born to David and Bathsheba. That might be true, although then we have to decide why the order is presented as it is here and in 2 Samuel 5, which reads, " These are the names of the children born to him there [Jerusalem]: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet" (2 Samuel 5:14-16). In both passages, Solomon is mentioned in the fourth spot.

Why? I think the account in 2 Samuel 12 may be abridged, just as the chronology given in Matthew 1 is also condensed. It might even be that none of the Shammua, Shobab, and Nathan lived past their childhood. Solomon might have been the only child of David and Bathsheba to survive childhood, thereby strengthening the cherished relationship that David had with Solomon, who was even chosen to succeed him rather than one of his older brothers. It might also be that the tragedy that is told in 2 Samuel 12 is much more profound than just the death of one child and the life of the next. However, there was a pain in the relationship between David and Bathsheba that was much deeper and more unspeakable than the narrative lets on. And a suffering that matches the depth of some of our worst pains.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 4

Ram was the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, the leader of the people of Judah. – 1 Chronicles 2:10

Today's Scripture Reading (June 23, 2025): 1 Chronicles 2

Martin Luther wrote that "faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times" (Martin Luther). I love the quote, but I might like to expand on it a bit. Faith isn't just about God's grace but about his providence. Genuine faith understands that God is in control, even in the moments when it seems that no one is. Even when things seem to go wrong, faith understands that God is still on the throne and that can be trusted.

Enter Nahshon. Nahshon was a leader of the Tribe of Judah. It is interesting, at least to me, that while Nahshon was the leader of Judah, he was not the one who spied out the Promised Land from the tribe of Judah. That would have been Caleb. And, of course, Caleb, along with Joshua, were the only ones who voted according to their faith. Giants may have inhabited the Land of Canaan, but both men had a faith that said that they could take the land because God was on their side. Of course, for those of us who remember the story, Caleb and Joshua were in the minority, and so instead of taking the land, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for the next forty years.

Sometimes, I think we believe that, outside of Moses and possibly Aaron, Joshua and Caleb were the only men of faith living among the Israelites at that time. But I think we would be wrong, and we might be surprised at some of the other people of faith living at the time. I think Nahshon would have been one of those people of faith.

According to the ancient rabbis, Nahshon was an instrumental character at the time of the crossing of the Red Sea. On the movie screen, Moses waves his staff at the Red Sea, and the water separates. However, ancient rabbis didn't believe that the parting of the water was that immediate. The Bible tells us that, over forty years later, at the crossing of the Jordan River, the feet of the priests had to get wet before the river parted. But at the Red Sea, Moses waved his rod, and, in faith, Nahshon ran into the water, getting soaked up to his neck before the water finally parted.

Nahshon might have been a great man of faith, but he did not get to enter the Promised Land. Nahshon would die in the wilderness wanderings despite his faith. Yet, I suspect he still believed that God was in control.

All of this meant that Nahshon didn't get to meet his daughter-in-law, the wife of his son, Salmon, and a key character in the story of the taking of Jericho, Rahab. However, the life and faith of Nahshon are remembered through his mention here and in the lineage of Jesus that we read in Matthew.

Ram the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon the father of Salmon,

Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab.

                                                            Matthew 1:4-5

 Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 3

Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. – 1 Chronicles 1:3

Today's Scripture Reading (June 22, 2025): 1 Chronicles 1

It appears that every culture has its own set of longevity myths. It is the foundation of ideas like "The Fountain of Youth," movies like" Cocoon," and rumors of the benefits of inaccessible places, usually high up in a remote portion of a mountain range, like "Shangri La." There, people live, but time refuses to take a toll on their bodies; at least, it refuses to have an effect as long as the person remains in this location of longevity. We are still creating these myths. Several people believe that there is no reason that anyone who reads these words should die unless they are involved in an extraordinary accident. According to these dreamers, medical science will soon advance to a place where all diseases can be cured and where aging can be slowed down to an imperceptible crawl. While these dreamers are far from the majority, these people walk among us and share their beliefs with anyone willing to listen. Shangri-La has been found and is located throughout the Earth.

There was a belief in the early Christian church that the Apostle John would never die. The Apostle himself addresses this immortality rumor at the end of his Gospel. John concludes his telling of the Gospel story with these words, part of a conversation between Jesus and Peter about John;

Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you" (John 21:22-23)?

I have often wondered if this comment might be the real purpose behind the writing of John's Gospel. Perhaps John's Gospel was simply a tool the disciple used, not just to fill in the blanks left by the other Gospel writers but also to say goodbye to Christians in far-flung places of the known world. He had heard rumors that he would live forever, but deep inside, John knew they were false. He may have survived the attacks of the power structure around him that were intended to result in his death, but he also knew the ravages with which age was impacting his body. Maybe his hand shook now as he wrote the end of his story. Death was coming, and the Gospel was just one way of letting them know that soon he would be gone.

According to the Bible, the person who lived the longest in all of creation was a man named Methuselah, who died at the age of 969. Scholars have attempted to assign an alternate meaning to the ages recorded in Genesis; perhaps they were simply indicating the length of certain family dynasties, or maybe the word we have translated as 'years' should be understood as 'months.' If Methuselah died at the age of 969 lunar months, he would have been approximately 78 years old, which falls within a much more comfortable age range for our skeptical minds. However, the problem with this idea is that if it is to be applied to all the ages mentioned in the early sections of the Bible, then Enoch would have become the father of Methuselah when he was about five years old.

But if we take Genesis as we find it if we can find it in our hearts to admit that maybe God kept these saints alive longer in the early days than he does now (and this meaning would seem to be supported by what appears to be a change of heart on the part of God in Genesis 6:3 - Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years"), then Methuselah died during the same year that the great flood occurred. He was the last of this list of men, other than Noah himself, to live until the flood. And part of me has always wondered if God was waiting for Methuselah to die before he brought the flood or if Methuselah perished in the flood.

Ancient traditions have sought to answer that very question. According to the Book of Enoch, a work that dates back to approximately 200 years before the birth of Christ, Enoch tells his son Methuselah that God will one day bring a great flood upon the Earth. This revelation might explain why Noah accepted the news of the flood so easily from God; the story of the impending flood had already been told in his family for a few generations. It was a story that Noah had heard directly from his grandfather, Methuselah.

According to the Book of Jasher, a rabbinic text from the 16^th Century, Methuselah and Noah went around together trying to encourage the people of the Earth to return to God. But they failed. Jasher tells us that Methuselah lived to see the building of the Ark but died seven days before the flood began because God had promised that this good man would not die with those who were unrighteous. 

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 2

They went into the inner part of the house as if to get some wheat, and they stabbed him in the stomach. Then Rekab and his brother Baanah slipped away. – 2 Samuel 4:6

Today's Scripture Reading (June 21, 2025): 2 Samuel 4

Albert Frederick Arthur George was born on December 14, 1895. Unfortunately, the date, December 14, was the anniversary of the day that his grandfather died. Grandpa had passed away on December 14, 1861. The result was that as the child was born, the family was unsure how -Grandma, who was still alive, would react. Grandpa's name had been Albert, and Grandma had never gotten over the loss of her husband, even though by the time the baby was born, Grandpa Albert had been gone for thirty-four years. Then, someone suggested that maybe Grandma's mood would be improved if the newborn's parents decided to name the child Albert. Mom and Dad, or George and Mary, agreed. The baby was named Albert, and Grandma was informed of the news. It worked, and Grandma received the news and wrote back to the proud parents. "I am all impatience to see the new one, born on such a sad day but rather more dear to me, especially as he will be called by that dear name which is a byword for all that is great and good."

None of this would be significant except that Grandma was Queen Victoria, and the parents of the young Albert were King George V and Queen Mary of Teck. Young Albert was the second male child to be born, so in popular language, he was "The Spare" and was unlikely ever to become King of the United Kingdom, which would be left to his older brother. Edward. So, Albert grew up, he had a stammer and was not a very public person. But that was okay because it was his brother who was destined to be King. George V passed away on January 20, 1936, and Albert's older brother Edward became King Edward VIII. But his reign didn't last long; within a year, Edward VIII abdicated the throne, and Albert became someone he never considered he would be: a king. Albert also found himself at a crossroads. This stammering, shy man could step up and become the King that the nation needed, or he could ignore his responsibilities and become someone less.

Albert decided to restore the confidence of the people in the monarchy by taking the Regnal name that matched his father, George V. Grandma might have been excited to see a King Albert take the throne if she were still alive, but the nation needed the steady hand of his father, so Albert became King George VI. I think George VI was precisely the King the planet required as the world went to war. George VI and his Queen Elizabeth, the one most of us remember as "the Queen Mother," were instrumental in consoling the people as World War II progressed, often visiting bombed-out areas of London to help those who had been hurt. However, Albert's on-hand approach was not a foregone conclusion, as Edward VIII left the throne behind. It was a reign that Albert had begun to prepare for as soon as he realized he would be King. Albert seemed to know that the world needed and deserved a consequential King as the complications of the twentieth century progressed.

Ish-bosheth, a surviving son of Saul, rose to the throne of Israel after his father's death, but he found himself in conflict with the Tribe of Judah, which had crowned David as their King. For two years, the battle raged until Abner, the leader of Ish-bosheth's army, was killed in battle. At the death of Abner, it seemed that Ish-bosheth had lost confidence in his ability to win against David. That loss of confidence was fatal.

Two of Ish-bosheth's captains, Baanah and Rechab, realized that they would not have the exalted positions they had hoped for in the Kingdom of Ish-bosheth. As a result, they took it upon themselves to murder Ish-bosheth, hoping that King David would reward their service. And so, Ish-bosheth dies at the hands of his supporters, essentially because he is an inadequate King and completely unprepared to do what a King would have to do.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 1

Sons were born to David in Hebron: His firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel. – 2 Samuel 3:2

Today's Scripture Reading (June 20, 2025): 2 Samuel 3

On two occasions, I have memorized and delivered as a worship message the text from Jesus's "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). It was a thought-provoking experience. The first time I did it, I instructed my audience to place their Bibles and notes under their chairs and listen to the words as if they were hearing them for the first time. I admit that, as I committed to memorizing the text, I built a connection between myself and the words of Jesus. The "Sermon on the Mount" has become one of those guiding passages for me through which I frequently struggle. If there is an essential passage that I think every Christian should know, it begins with this sermon of Jesus. However, essential or foundational does not mean easy. "The Sermon on the Mount" continues to be one of those texts that is very hard to put into practice. Daring to live a God-centered life begins with reading what God expects from us. However, if we are going to make a difference, we need to put into practice the words we have read.

Have you ever wondered if people who should have read the Bible have read it? I have, and for me, that question begins with the Kings of Israel. The idea that the kings must read the Law was part of God's instructions for all future kings. It is part of the instructions God gave to Moses centuries before a King was placed over the people of Israel. In his last set of speeches before the people of Israel, Moses told them;

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite … When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this Law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this Law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the Law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel (Deuteronomy 17:14-15, 18-20, emphasis mine).

The King was to write the Law down and read it every day of his life so that he would know what it contained. One of the instructions pertaining to Kings found in the Law was this; "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold" (Deuteronomy 17:17).

The King was to write down the Law. I wonder if David or Solomon fulfilled this part of the spiritual expectations as they began their reigns over Israel or if they overlooked this aspect of their activities. If they had, it should have changed their behavior. David settles down in Hebron, from where he will rule for seven years. During those seven years, he will have six children, born from six different wives. Some wonder why the Bible never condemns this polygamy. But the truth is that the Bible has already condemned the behavior in Deuteronomy. So now, the story of David illustrates the consequences of disobeying God.

The story of the effect of David's polygamy is written in the impact it has on his children. And it all starts with Amnon, who rapes his sister and then is killed by a brother. But the story won't end there. It will proceed through sons like Absalom, who will kill Amnon, and Adonijah, who will attempt to seize the throne from his father, as well as other trials of the children of David. Perhaps if David had written down the Law, and maybe if we had bothered to write down the "Sermon on the Mount," David's and our lives would be different and better.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 4

Then the men of Judah came to Hebron, and there they anointed David king over the tribe of Judah. – 2 Samuel 2:4a

Today's Scripture Reading (June 19, 2025): 2 Samuel 2

I have been intrigued by the mystery of the Princes in the Tower ever since I discovered the story in my teens. What exactly happened to these two boys? The oldest of the princes should probably be referred to as a King. Edward was twelve at the time of his Father's death. Dear old Dad was Edward IV of England. Because of the new King's young age, his Father had declared that his brother, the new King's uncle, would serve as protector until a time when Edward V could reign on his own. But Edward's reign was cut short. After only two and a half months, Parliament moved to name Richard, the King's protector, as the King of England. Richard reigned as Richard III.

Richard seemed to understand that he needed to protect what was now his throne, and so he had the young former King, as well as his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, aged nine, confined to the Tower of London. What happened next to the two boys is the mystery that history has left for us. The two royal brothers were never seen again. Presumably, at some point, they were killed. Some of the theories included that they were left in the Tower of London with no provisions and eventually starved to death. Richard III, the villain of the story, although it is not certain that he was involved in the boys' death, died in battle fighting against the House of Tudor, descendants of King Edward III and alternate claimants to the throne. Henry defeated Richard and became Henry VII, launching the House of Tudor.

An interesting question that has arisen from the civil war we know as "The War of the Roses" is, who was the usurper on the throne? Some argue that it was Richard III; after all, he was the one who seems to have deposed his nephew, Edward V. Others point to the fact that Edward V was never actually King because his coronation never took place, partially because Uncle Richard kept delaying that moment. Hence, Richard III was the lawful King of England because Parliament declared that Richard was King. If you were a fan of the Tudors, you believe that no one from the Plantagenet dynasty and the House of York, which included Edward IV and V, as well as Richard III, was the rightful King of England.

We have a similar argument when examining David. Was he a usurper? Some would point to this verse and the concept that the people of Judah crowned him as King over the Tribe of Judah, believing that this passage proves he wasn't a usurper of the throne. However, Judah wasn't Israel. Richard III was also proclaimed by the Parliament to be King, despite his nephews languishing in their imprisonment in the Tower. However, unlike Richard III, David had also been anointed by Samuel as the next King.

Perhaps the best we can conclude is that from God's point of view, David was the ordained King of Israel. However, from a human perspective, David was a usurper because he was not of the line of Saul or even of Saul's tribe, the Tribe of Benjamin.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 3

"I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and their drivers in hot pursuit. – 2 Samuel 1:6

Today's Scripture Reading (June 18, 2025): 2 Samuel 1

In my late teens, I spent some time working the night shift at a major department store. My shift started at 11:00 pm, and I worked until 7:00 the next morning. The job involved a combination of janitorial duties and night watchman responsibilities. Essentially, the insurance company for the store required someone to be present in the store all night. The store's solution was the team on which I served, consisting of four or five of us, depending on the night, who cleaned and guarded the store.

Not that they trusted us. Every once in a while, they would leave some money for us to "find." The money was a test to see if we would turn it in or keep it and pretend we didn't know it was there. The unfortunate part of the plan was that even if someone kept the test money, there was no way of knowing which member of the team stumbled upon the cash. And usually, it was a very insignificant amount. I'm not sure that any of us ever kept the money. We dutifully turned it back in, maybe partially because we knew it was a test.

Sin often seems to be a lot like the money at the department store. It is frequently not that we set out to sin but rather that we stumble upon something that forces us to make a choice. Perhaps we could call it a sin of opportunity, and it isn't much different from the original sin of Adam and Eve. We don't intend to steal or lie, but when an opportunity arises or a question is asked, we have to decide what our next move should be. We also want to project an image of ourselves that may not accurately reflect what exists inside us.

A young Amalekite comes to David with a story. Some seem to believe that the story is fundamentally true, but I am not among them. This kid wants to be seen as important, and so he is willing to weave a tale. I suspect that the only true statement the young man makes is that he happened to be on Mount Gilboa on the day in question. The story this young man tells is that he arrived at Mount Gilboa and stumbled upon King Saul. The enemy was all around, and Saul was mortally wounded. But he hadn't yet died; in fact, he was still standing leaning on his spear. The King had requested that this young man would kill him so that he didn't fall into the hands of his enemy. The man complied with the request and then took the King's crown and armband to bring to David. He believed that by bringing this news to David about the demise of his enemy, he would be rewarded by the new King.

What really happened? I think that the first thing the young man says is the truth: he happened to be on Mount Gilboa. What he was doing there in the middle of a battle is a good question that remains unanswered. I believe that the young Amalekite might have even been close enough to hear the conversation between Saul and his armor-bearer. Saul had asked his armor-bearer to kill him, but his armor-bearer had refused. Instead, Saul had fallen on his own sword. And then his armor-bearer had done the same.

It was at this point that the Amalekite stole into the camp. With everyone dead, he picked up the crown and the band that Saul had worn on his arm and escaped the gruesome scene. As he makes his way toward David's camp, he brings not only the King's crown but he develops what he thought was an outstanding story, even if it was a lie. But the story is just a lie of opportunity and a tale that the young Amalekite fatally misunderstands

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 2

When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. – 1 Samuel 31:5

Today's Scripture Reading (June 17, 2025): 1 Samuel 31

An armor-bearer had a vast range of duties. They were the ones who were sent with messages from their leaders to other battle groups. The armor-bearer could be used as a scout. They carried supplies and provided their battle groups with food and water. Armor-bearers were often enlisted to assist the injured and escort them to a safe location where they could receive help. However, one of the most important duties was to protect the one who employed them. In this case, Saul's armor-bearer was responsible for protecting the king's life. When David takes his armor-bearer with him to scout out Saul's army, he is taking someone who has sworn an oath to protect his life. Saul's armor-bearer would have made the same oath. Armor-bearers occupied a place of intense trust among the soldiers of an army.

I can't imagine what it was like to be Saul's armor-bearer on this dark day. Not only were Saul and his sons injured, but there was no way he could complete one of his responsibilities: getting them to safety where they could be helped. Then, Saul asks this trustworthy man to kill him so that he won't fall into the hands of his enemies. But his armor-bearer, charged with the task of protecting the king, just couldn't do it. His job was to save lives, not to end them. The armor-bearer's fear was well-placed.

A little later, an Amalekite would claim to have done precisely what Saul's armor-bearer had been asked to do.

"I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and their drivers in hot pursuit. When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, 'What can I do?'

"He asked me, 'Who are you?'

"'An Amalekite,' I answered.

"Then he said to me, 'Stand here by me and kill me! I'm in the throes of death, but I'm still alive.'

"So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord" (2 Samuel 1:6-10).

David had the Amalekite killed because he dared to lift his sword against the reigning King of Israel, proving that maybe the armor-bearer was right to refuse. But with Saul and his sons dead, the armor-bearer had failed at the one task Saul and God had given to him. As a result of his failure, the armor-bearer felt that there was no choice left to him but to join his leader in death.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 1

But all the evil men and troublemakers among David's followers said, "Because they did not go out with us, we will not share with them the plunder we recovered. However, each man may take his wife and children and go." – 1 Samuel 30:22

Today's Scripture Reading (June 16, 2025): 1 Samuel 30

The Apostle Paul gave his readers an excellent image of what the Church was supposed to look like. It is a great image of what any organization should look like. Every organization functions because it has people who fulfill a varied number of tasks. We can't all fulfill the same role; if we did, the organization would fail. And it is more than just an arbitrary decision where some lead and others follow. It involves having different people complete all the tasks that the organization needs to accomplish to survive. All the tasks must be done, but they need to be done by the right people, people who are gifted at the task at hand.

Organizational Theorist Jim Collins, in his book "Good to Great," suggested the analogy of getting people on a bus. According to Collins, it is possible to have all of the right people on the bus, but if they are in the wrong seats, then the organization will prosper as it should. There are many things in the Christian Church that I can do, but some tasks I do better than others. And there are many more things that need to be done, which I would hopelessly fail to accomplish. Success only results when we get the right people in the right seats of the organization

When it comes to importance, the truth is that we are all important because required tasks don't get accomplished unless we all do our job. Often, the importance chart is presented in an upside-down manner. The success of a store doesn't depend on the CEO or the accountant who handles the money; success depends on the people hired to meet the customers on the front line, the ones who help the people who come through the door to find the product that they want and make sure that they are going to be satisfied with their purpose. And often, these people, while being the most important, are also the lowest paid. Perhaps that should prompt us to reconsider our pay structure.

The men on the front line of David's battle have a suggestion. The people rescued should be reunited with their families. Still, the spoils, the material things taken during a raid, should be divided only among those who actually went into battle and raised a sword against the enemy. And on a superficial level, that almost makes sense. Except that supply lines and support personnel were also crucial to the army's success. Those who did the actual fighting would not have been successful without the support of the people who kept things moving behind the scenes. To use Jim Collins's terminology, for the army to succeed, they needed everyone to be in the right seat on the bus.

Interestingly, the author of Samuel tells the reader that these men who wanted to keep the spoils for only those who did the fighting were evil and troublemakers. Perhaps a better word might be 'selfish.' They wanted more of the spoils for themselves and didn't care about cutting out the people who had done the necessary jobs in support of the fighters. It was not the way that David believed the army should run. And under his leadership, he would ensure that everyone received what was fair, following the instructions God had given. 

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 31

Achish answered, "I know that you have been as pleasing in my eyes as an angel of God; nevertheless, the Philistine commanders have said, 'He must not go up with us into battle.' – 1 Samuel 29:9

Today's Scripture Reading (June 15, 2025): 1 Samuel 29

We know Rene Descartes as a philosopher, among many other things, but what I think we often forget is that his career began as a mercenary. Descartes' original desire was to become a military officer, and in following that plan, he enlisted as a soldier for hire with the Protestant Dutch States Army in Breda, Netherlands. There, he began to study military engineering. A year later, while with the Catholic League, Descartes was present at the Battle of the White Mountain (1620) near Prague, which is now part of the Czech Republic. The Battle of the White Mountain was a pivotal event in the early stages of the Thirty Years' War.

While Descartes at the Battle of White Mountain, he fought against the side on which France would enter the war fifteen years later, although there is no evidence that he ever took up arms against his native land; the timing was wrong. Whether Descartes would have fought against France might have been an interesting question to ask.

David has moved into Philistine territory to escape Saul. There, David and his followers had agreed to fight as mercenaries with the Philistine army against their enemies. One of those enemies was Israel.

As Achish and his associates prepare for an inevitable battle against Israel, I am not convinced this wasn't the moment that David had dreaded. Some scholars argue that David was willing, and perhaps even eager, to take up a sword against Saul and his army, but this seems to contradict everything we know about David. At that moment, David had to appear as though he wanted to fight, but I think he also knew he couldn't take up arms and fight against Saul and Israel.

Whatever might have been the reality about David's mental condition, God was still in control. While Achish was convinced that David could be trusted to fight against his native land, believing him to be an angel (malak) sent by the Philistine gods (elohim), the other Philistine commanders, under the direction of God, were not convinced. They did not want to fight against Israel with David in their midst.

David was given the way out that he needed. He was sent away from the fight. Achish hoped that David wouldn't be offended, But God knew that he had to keep David available for a fight that had not yet begun. David's future was in Israel, not Philistia. Even if, right now, he fought in support of these enemies of Israel.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 30

Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" "I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has departed from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do." – 1 Samuel 28:15

Today's Scripture Reading (June 14, 2025): 1 Samuel 28

This passage not only describes one of the weirdest incidents in Samuel, but it is one of the strangest stories in the entire Bible. It takes place around 1010 B.C.E., or approximately 3,000 years ago. Samuel has been dead for a year, maybe two. Saul is fighting a war on two fronts. He is fighting against the Philistines, but he is also fighting an uprising within his own ranks, led by David. David had risen through Saul's ranks and had become popular with both the people and the soldiers. David became so popular that Saul saw him as a competitor for the throne of Israel. Which, of course, he was, but not because of anything David had done. God had chosen him to be King after Saul's death as a result of Saul's sin. Saul disagreed and was trying to eliminate his former General.

Saul and David did not get along. But neither did Saul and Samuel. Saul had considered Samuel a thorn in his side ever since Saul had risen to power. The two were constantly bickering, but on top of that, before Samuel had died, he had anointed David as King. Anointing someone outside of Saul's family as the next king did not help the relationship between Samuel and Saul.

If you have ever had someone die who was a royal pain but who also you knew was wise, then you are getting close to the relationship that Saul and Samuel had together. Samuel was a pain, but when push came to shove, Saul knew that he needed Samuel.

Samuel had forbidden the practice of the occult arts in Israel, and Saul had maintained that ban. The reason for this ban is one of the story's surprises. These practices were not banned because they were ineffective. We struggle with that. They were banned because God had never intended for his people to delve into the future. God's people were to trust God in the eternal now. Whatever you are going through right now, God desires that you will trust Him in this moment, not that you will consult a psychic to find out what is going to happen in the future. We are to make the most of this moment in our lives and trust God for the future. This concept is one of the issues that I have with Christian End Times Prophecy; our pursuit of End Times Prophecy violates this principle. It is not that it is impossible to see into the future and know the end date, although no one has, as of yet, been successful. The biblical principle is that we live fully with God in this moment, doing as He asks us, with full knowledge that we can trust God with whatever the future might hold.

But Saul can't wait, and so he violates this principle of God. In a moment of stress, Saul begins to seek a spiritist despite having previously banned them. He is told that there is one living covertly in Endor, a village in Galilee. Saul disguised himself, which was probably quite a feat considering that he was a very tall man, and goes to a woman we traditionally think of as the Witch of Endor. The woman is hesitant. Her practice has been outlawed. Maybe because the practice was illegal, she wanted more money to perform the deed. And here we get into some confusion. Some believe that the woman was a fraud and that when Samuel appeared, she was in a state of shock. Others think that she was the genuine article, but the appearance of Samuel was a moment of revelation. Not only did she see Samuel, but she suddenly also knew the identity of the one who had asked for him, Saul, the same one who vowed that all of the people like her should be put to death. Whatever the actual circumstance might have been, Samuel is brought up, and he is not happy.

The witch is a pagan. She is not a believer in the one true God. Yet even she understood that what she was witnessing was different from any other time that she had plied her craft. The word she uses, which we have translated as "a ghostly figure," is actually the word elohim, a term used to describe God. But we should not interpret that to mean that Samuel was somehow deified. However, to this pagan woman, this ghost was noticeably different. As she watched Samuel's spirit rise from the ground, there was no doubt that this was Samuel, the prophet.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 29