That day David fled from Saul and went to Achish king of Gath. But the servants of Achish said to him, “Isn’t this David, the king of the land? Isn’t he the one they sing about in their dances: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’?” – 1 Samuel 21:10-11

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 31, 2016): 1 Samuel 21

Earlier this week, during the active shooting situation at the U.S Navy Medical Center in San Diego, I caught part of an interview with a gentleman whose daughter and grandson were trapped inside a parking garage near the place where shots had been fired. They had gotten low in the back of the vehicle with tinted windows and were waiting out the situation. Grandpa was on the outside of the parking garage helpless to do anything as security personnel secured the building. But the question that plagued me was simply ‘what would you do?’ When things get desperate, what is your reaction? In this case, grandpa simply gave the best advice he could think off. In the middle of occupied territory, all you can do is stay low and hidden. Don’t move too much – something that was probably hard with a young boy in tow – and don’t give away your position. Stay where you are until it is safe come out. And grandpa was already pacing around the structure waiting for the moment that the structure was declared safe so that he could burst in and find his children. But there was really nothing else to do.

David was desperate. And the reality is that he really did not have a positive avenue of escape. Saul was hunting him down inside of Israel so even when he was at home he was already in enemy territory, and because he was a military commander, there would seem to be no safe havens outside of Israel either. But David has to go somewhere, and so he decides to go to Gath – the home of a former giant named Goliath.

It is likely that David’s intention was to go into Philistine country and attempt to remain anonymous. His hope was that if he and his friends could just keep their heads low, maybe they could spend time in and around Gath and no one would notice. And then, after Saul’s anger had died down a little, David could fade back into Israel – still attempting to stay under the radar and below anyone’s notice. But the reality was that David was much too famous for that strategy to work. David arrives in Gath and almost immediately is recognized. And not only is he recognized, but the people know all about his song. David is the one who has killed tens of thousands. This is the great leader of Israel, and some seem to believe, probably on the basis of the song, that David is the current king of the neighboring nation - and not the future king.

I am not sure whether it was a move of naiveté or genius for David to carry Goliath’s sword into Gath. (David had picked up the sword from the priest Ahimelek before venturing into Philistine territory.) David had been to Gath before, well, at least almost. After killing Goliath he had joined the army of Israel as they chased the Philistines back to the city. But now if he was recognized, the sword would also remind people of the day that he had defeated their national hero. The sword itself was not the best way to hide, but it was a way to remind the people of the military ability of the one who now stood in their midst. And hopefully it would provide a way for David to survive in the midst of his enemies.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Psalm 52

But do not kill them, Lord our shield, or my people will forget. In your might uproot them and bring them down. – Psalm 59:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 30, 2016): Psalm 59

William Shakespeare’s “Timon of Athens” tells the story of a man that is loved as long as he has money, but when the money runs out and Timon is left with nothing but creditors to confront, and his friends are nowhere to be found. Timon’s generosity ends up also being his ruin. At one point in the Story, Timon holds a feast for his friends, but when his guests uncover their dishes there is nothing but lukewarm water in their bowls. At this point in the story Timon throws his lukewarm water in the faces of his guests, who seem to come out of the woodwork to take but are mysteriously missing when he is in need of them. Timon yells at his surprised guests “Live loathed and long, most smiling, smooth, detested parasites” (Act 3, Scene 6). His friends never really deserved his generosity, but the tragedy for Timon is that he didn’t realize that fact until it was much too late.

We can almost hear Timon’s voice in the words of David in this Psalm. His prayer is that God would not slay his enemies, but that he might uproot them and bring them down. Timon’s voice is even clearer as we realize that the subject of the psalm is King Saul whom David has served and for whom he has played his music to calm his fears. King Saul, whom David has loved like a father just as he has loved Jonathan, the King’s son, like a brother. King Saul to whom David has dedicated his life – at least up until this point. Timon’s words almost sound strangely appropriate in this situation - Live loathed and long, most smiling, smooth, detested parasites.” Saul had taken the best of what David had to offer, but now he was just seeking to throw David away like a worthless piece of garbage.

And while there is no doubt that David is upset, his behavior outside of this Psalm may lead us to believe that there might be another reason for David’s request that God uproot rather than kill his enemy – that is, another reason other than that he wanted his enemy to serve as a visual reminder for his people of what happens when we violate God’s laws. The reality is that other than in the introductory statement to the Psalm, King Saul is simply not mentioned. David talks generically about his enemies. But if the introductory statement is right and the generic enemy that David is talking about is really Saul, then there may be nothing else that David felt he could do with Saul other than to ask God to allow him to “live loathed and long.” If David refused to take the life of the reigning King of Israel with his sword, something that we know David proved at least twice that he was unwilling to do, then it is unlikely that David would have felt that he could ask God to kill Saul either. The Philistine Goliath may have gone to the grave quickly, but Saul needed to “live loathed and long” – after all, Saul was the king, and good or bad, the cry remains the same – “Long live the King.”

David’s request might also have been about Saul’s redemption. His prayer might simply be reinterpreted as “God uproot him but do not kill him, that Saul might see the error of his ways and return to you.” Such an attitude would have been in keeping with a David who only wanted the best for his king – and who was willing to wait his turn before he began his own reign as King of Israel.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 21

Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to kill me?” – 1 Samuel 20:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 29, 2016): 1 Samuel 20

Maybe one of the saddest stories to come out of last weekend’s killer snowstorm which blanketed the Eastern coast of the United States and Canada involves the killing of a Good Samaritan in North Carolina by the very person he hoped to help. According to reports, a Good Samaritan (actually a group of Good Samaritans) stopped to help a motorist who had slid off the road in the icy conditions in North Carolina. Apparently the would be Good Samaritans also phoned the police. When the driver heard the call to the police, he opened fire at the group, hitting one of them. Then the driver walked up to his downed victim and just continued to fire his gun into his victim’s body. The driver seemed possessed by some kind of irrational rage. Police say that the driver appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

But the story reinforces the fact that sometimes things just don’t make sense. Why would a man in need of help lash out at those offering assistance. Obviously the drugs or alcohol had damaged the way that the man perceived the world. Unfortunately the result of the story is more likely to be that future Good Samaritans will think twice before they offer any help to a stranded motorist.

Often we know what we have done wrong to create anger in a certain situation, but sometimes the truth is that we don’t. Sometimes someone is angry and the real truth is that we have no idea why we are the ones to take the brunt of that anger. And David would seem to find himself in exactly that situation. He knows that Saul is angry, but what he can’t figure out is why. And David would seem to be very sincere in his ignorance. Make no mistake, David understands that he has been anointed as the next king of Israel, but David also knows that he will not take any action to make that a reality. Until the day that he becomes king, he will be nothing more than the best servant that Saul could hope for – and this becomes the source of David’s confusion.

Of course, Saul is hoping for more. His hope is that the prophecy of Samuel will end up being not true, and that, as a result, Saul will enjoy legacy. And it is that idea of legacy that gnaws like a drug at Saul’s brain. The idea of legacy, and the knowledge that God has stolen that legacy away from him, makes the king lash out in anger. Maybe he didn’t know that David was the king that would follow him interrupting his legacy, but he definitely suspected. Of all the people in Israel with the capability of being king, David headed the list. And that knowledge was all that was needed to spur Saul’s anger into overdrive.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Psalm 59

Saul said to Michal, “Why did you deceive me like this and send my enemy away so that he escaped?” Michal told him, “He said to me, ‘Let me get away. Why should I kill you?’” 1 Samuel 19:17

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 28, 2016): 1 Samuel 19

Donald Trump’s Achilles heel may be beginning to show. The reality star continues to lead in the polls, and it is beginning to look like he will lead in the polls as long as a plurality of candidates is involved, but there are an increasing number of Republicans who say that when push comes to shove, they will not vote for the Donald. Translation – as long as there are more than two or maybe three candidates in the race, then Donald Trump will likely keep his lead. But when the candidates are reduced to only two or three, Donald’s support group will remain stable and while the other candidate(s) simply fly right by him.

If that doesn’t happen and Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, then it looks like a number of Republicans will simply sit this election out. According to a recent New York Times opinion page, political columnist Peter Wehner will be one of them. He writes that he will not be able in good conscience to vote for Trump in this November’s election, even though he has voted Republican in every election since Ronald Reagan. He also admits that he will be unable to vote for Hillary Clinton or any of her Democratic colleagues because they stand for so much that he is against. So the only path left is one of abstention.

The bottom line of the problem, according to Wehner, is that Trump only seems to know how to take care of himself. He is not part of the process, he is above it. He is ignorant of the facts and has no interest in fixing that ignorance. He has become a point of tension within the Republican Party, and might just destroy it. In fact, one has to wonder how the Republican Party can reign themselves back from the brink that they seem to be currently running toward. Right now, they seem hopelessly fractured and beyond possible redemption. They are hurt and grasping at straws – and Donald Trump would seem to be one of those straws. The Republican Party currently seems to be a party without a direction. What they need is a leader that bring them back together, maybe another Ronald Reagan, but those are hard to find, and indeed none seem to be running. Without someone to draw the party together, we may find that the wounds in the party inflicted by the presence of Donald Trump might be impossible to heal – at least in the short term.  

Saul is beginning to be a national problem. He is narcissistic, self-absorbed and unable to grasp the reality of the situation in Israel, and he has no willingness to learn (if he had bad hair, we might begin to make some comparisons.) His family is fractured. And maybe the place where most of the hurt lies in the life of his daughter, Michal.  Jonathan, Saul’s son is at least consistent. He understands the great benefit that the presence of David is having on the reign of Saul. At every opportunity he reminds his father of the positives that David has brought to the kingdom. He defeated Goliath and has led the army well. And Saul, at least to a certain extent, is convinced by his son’s words.

But Michal, Saul’s daughter and David’s wife, finds herself fractured by the conflict. She warns David that Saul intends to kill him, but unlike her brother, she in unable to support her husband in the presence of her father. Instead, she hands her father one more reason to hate David – according to Michal, David threatened to kill her.

For Michal, she simply becomes a pawn from this point on in the growing conflict between Saul and David. And the biblical writings seem to indicate that she also becomes very bitter. Even after the death of Saul, the wounds inflicted on Michal seem impossible to heal. And her marriage to the man that she once claimed to love becomes more about convenience than love as the shadow of Saul continues to shape the marriage of his daughter.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 20

Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?” – 1 Samuel 18:8

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 27, 2016): 1 Samuel 18

In Jim Collins book “Good to Great,” Collins talks about the need for companies to get the right people on the bus, and then to make sure that these right people are sitting in the right seat – that place in the company where they make a difference by making the most of every opportunity, a place where they can lift the company to best place possible. Having the right people in the right seat has an exponential effect on any company, and it is absolutely essential in making a good company, a great one.

Saul becomes jealous about the way that the people proclaim David’s accomplishments, and especially how the accomplishments of David compared with his own. According to the cheers, David had killed his tens of thousands while Saul had killed his thousands. At first glance, the cheers of the people exalt both of the warriors. In the eyes of the people, there are only two true warriors in Israel – and one of them is the king. There is something significant about a king who does not just pretend to be a warrior, but rather who leads the nation from the frontline of the battle instead of directing the conflict from a boardroom back at the palace. There can be no doubt that the people knew that Saul was a significant player in Israel.

But so was David. The people proclaimed that David had killed his tens of thousands. (Okay, it probably doesn’t need to be said, but this is likely an exaggeration. The reality was that David had killed Goliath, and had run several very successful missions in the service of Saul. But tens of thousands, probably not.) David had quickly become a second significant player in the kingdom. In the eyes of Jim Collins, the credit for David really belonged to Saul. He had discovered the right person, recruited him onto the bus of Saul, and then made sure that David was in the right the place, or right seat, the place where David could make the greatest difference. The result was exponential, and even the people recognized that.

But Saul didn’t possess the humility to understand that, and ultimately that lack of humility would be a demon that would ruin his legacy and cause his downfall. In Saul’s defence, if that is possible, Saul understood what Samuel had told him. His kingdom was soon going to be handed over to another. And he was watching for the one who Samuel said would become king after him. And right now, with David’s star on the rise, there could be none other than him. David would never reign as king at any time during the life of Saul. But in Saul’s mind, David was God’s king – he was the one who was going to receive the kingdom - and Saul had resolved that Saul wasn’t going to go quietly.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 19

He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. – 1 Samuel 17:43

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 26, 2016): 1 Samuel 17

Apparently the ninth planet of the Solar System has been found, and ironically it has been found by the same Astronomer who was responsible for killing Pluto. The new planet, currently appropriately called Planet Nine, has yet to be physically seen, but it is inferred by the movement of a number of trans-Neptunian objects (objects on the other side of the orbit of Neptune.) And according the movement of these objects, whatever is out there is massive – probably five to ten times bigger than earth. Brown jokes that he has been looking for a ninth planet in an effort to please his daughter. Although she was barely born at the time of the demotion of Pluto, apparently she still is not sure how she feels about her father’s role in the planet’s demise. But she has also promised to forgive dad if he finds a planet to replace Pluto. Enter Planet Nine, the largest trans-Neptunian object found to date – at least, that is the hope.  

The story of Pluto’s demise hinges on Brown’s discovery of Eris, the only trans-Neptunian object at the time larger than Pluto. Eris’ discovery, along with a number of other trans-Neptunian objects, caused the scientific community to redefine of the idea of a planet – there were simply so many of these objects out there on the other side of Neptune. If they were allowed to be called a planet, somehow the idea of a planet would have been seen as being devalued by the presence of so many of these objects. Instead these objects, along with Pluto, were to be identified as dwarf-planets. Pluto was simply not all that special anymore. Thus it could no longer be called a planet. And then there were eight – until the discovery of Planet Nine.

Goliath was a giant – and that made him special. There were very few that could match his stature. Add to that that he was a warrior of great strength and the result was that meant, at least in his own eyes, that the warrior that would come to meet him would also be special – he would be a planet among great number of common warriors. In fact, in a very real way, Goliath’s self-esteem was probably reinforced by the kind of warrior that the enemy would send into battle to meet him. And, until this point, there had been no one on the side of Israel who was special enough to dare to meet him on the battlefield.

And then finally a warrior appears in the form of a child. It was possibly the greatest insult that could have been delivered to the great warrior. The one who Israel sent out to meet him was not one of their best warriors, it was not even a common soldier looking to make a name for himself. It was child with no armour, and this child was too weak to even hold a sword. And for Goliath, that was simply an unbelievable insult. It also made Goliath severely over confidant – a condition that God would use to orchestrate the great warrior’s demise.                

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 18

Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him. – 1 Samuel 16:23

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 25, 2016): 1 Samuel 16

The question “Who is at fault?” for any situation raises some interesting philosophical question. And often the question isn’t as clear cut as we might want it to be. For instance, one of the troubling questions in our current political environment is the one that asks “who is at fault for the current situation in the Middle East and the existence of ISIS.” The easy answer is to lay the blame at the feet of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Leader of ISIS who his followers have declared is a caliph, a political and spiritual descendent of the Prophet Muhammad. But the easy answer maybe isn’t the most accurate. ISIS itself seems to exist as a wave that is currently rolling over the area we know of as “The Levant.” It doesn’t take much imagination to imagine ISIS continuing to exist even if the United States gets its way and captures the Islamic Leader. But if that’s true, then what caused the wave. And several scholars have laid the responsibility for that on the shoulders of the cultural West and the actions that they have taken in the area surrounding The Levant without really understanding the region. But the question of fault doesn’t really end there. The presence of Israel in the Levant, an action that goes back to 1948 and a decision to give the Jews a homeland, also plays a part. But the tendrils of blame extend even further back than that. In fact, the seeds of the conflict in The Levant may be able to be laid at the feet of the conflict between the Jews and Muhammad centuries ago – a conflict that seems to be the immediate cause of some of Muhammad’s more violent ideas, and the seed for the concept of Jihad or Moral War. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi might be the immediate target for fault, but the reality of these other conditions mean that the tide of ISIS will roll even if he is not in command.

The other immediate cause is one that we often miss, especially in the current political debate. ISIS wants direct conflict with the United States. In their mind, this is the fight that will turn the tide, not just in the Levant but in the entire world, to their advantage. If they can goad the United States into placing a military presence in the Middle East and defeat them there, then there will be nothing that will be able to stop them. And they have a prophecy which states that they would win such a conflict. And so, the United States has decided to try to stay out of the area. This is the time for the Islamic neighbors to react, because for the United States to react would be just another element of blame that would eventually be placed back on them.

The convoluted idea of fault is also a problem with which the biblical writings often flirt. And the Bible comes to an interesting conclusion – in the end of every problem, the fault belongs to God. This idea of fault is plain in this passage as the author describes the evil spirit as “coming from God.” The idea behind the phrase is the belief that God is in total control. He had the power to stop the spirit, but for some reason chose not to. From a more modern interpretation, we would probably attribute the evil spirit to the choices that Saul had made throughout life, but for the Hebrew fault laid in the lap of the one who had the power to stop it, but didn’t.     

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 17

“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night. – 1 Samuel 15:11

“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night. – 1 Samuel 15:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 24, 2016): 1 Samuel 15

If there is one thing that the current round of political debates prove, it is that we excel in describing the world through our own political glasses – we see and describe what it is that we want to see. Sometimes it seems that each candidate sees the world in their own way. Hillary Clinton has apparently found Barak Obama and had some kind of spiritual experience with him. Bernie Sanders wants to rewrite his record on guns, Donald Trump believes in freedom as long as it doesn’t include Muslims, and the list goes on. Fact checkers are kept employed every time someone speaks just to make sure that the words are on the level.

And maybe this should be expected, because in reality we all see the world through our own glasses. Objectivity is ultimately impossible. I am the product of the way that I was bought up, of the influence that my extended family has had me, my friends, my education, all of this has created who I am. But it has also created who I see God to be.

It might be that this verse is one of the most revealing passages when it comes down to the question of how we see God. Because how we interpret these words will dig deep into who we believe that God really is. Tradition seems to say that these words are intended to be anthropomorphic in nature – this is nothing more than God speaking as if he were a human. Of course, God being who he is and being unmovable and totally knowing everything, could never really regret anything. He knew, before he placed the crown on Saul’s head, that this man would end up being an unsuitable king. He knew exactly what Saul was going to do long before Saul actually did it. He had to, he is God. But the problem with that approach is that it raises other questions. If God knew that Saul would fail, why did he bother placing him on the throne in the first place? Were there really no other options in all of Israel for a suitable king? Or is it really possible that Saul was nothing more than a placeholder on the way to David?

But the question extends far beyond just the remaking of Saul as a king. It can extend even back into the Garden of Eden. If God knew that Adam and Eve were going to fail, then what was the point of humanity anyway? If this is true, then the character of God would seem to be in serious question. The question that comes from the opponents of Christianity would seem to be well deserved. How could a good God create something that he knew was going to become so evil. If humanity never even had a chance to do good, really, what was the point?

To be honest, with my cultural glasses on (and I might be wrong) this reasoning makes me very uncomfortable. I am much more comfortable taking these words at face value, and not as an anthropomorphized response of God. I am willing to re-examine some of the other scripture passages that lead us to believe in the unmovable, all-knowing God, than to re-evaluate passages like this one. I want to believe that God regretted making Saul king – that he did not know that Saul would fail him, just as he did not know that Adam and Eve would sin in the garden. Oh, he may have known that the possibility of failure existed – but he didn’t know for sure. With my glasses, I see a God who is moved by the things we do on the earth. A God who is excited over the good and deeply saddened by the bad. He is a God who moves through the experience with us, knowing all of the possibilities that lay ahead, but not sure of the turns that we might decide to take. I believe in a God who regrets and I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing, because in my mind it is an essential characteristic of a God who is good, rather than just one who is powerful.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 16

They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the LORD by eating meat that has blood in it.” – 1 Samuel 14:32-33

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 23, 2016): 1 Samuel 14

Prohibition in the early 20^th century seemed to have two primary results on society. First, it created a legalistic pride on the part of its supporters. To be a part of the prohibition movement meant that you were morally a cut above the rest of the world. I recently saw a poster from that period that described the effect of alcohol consumption through life and, according to the poster, that path started with one drink and it ended with crime and suicide. This was the path of alcohol – and there could be no other. So, to not be a part of that path meant that you were morally a cut above – and who wouldn’t want to be morally better than everyone else?  (Thus, legalistic pride reigned.) But the second result was that prohibition produced a criminal element and enterprise that would not have existed without it. Prohibition heightened the desire in some segments of society for alcohol, and presented us with a portion of the population that would do anything to obtain it. The pro-prohibition claims were overblown, which was the truth, but the opposite reaction to prohibition also made the error of minimizing the dangers. The truth was somewhere in the middle. But with prohibition, society was flung to the extremes.

The idea of “everything in moderation” has been presented as an alternate path to the extremes of movements like prohibition. There is a discussion among some about the absolute failure of “everything in moderation,” especially in areas like dieting. But the truth is that “everything in moderation” was never supposed to be a blanket philosophy for life. It has to be understood as a reactionary philosophy that stands against the dangers of legalism. And there are some areas of life where moderation simply makes sense.

Kind Saul had produced his own prohibition. No one in his army was to eat until the enemy had been defeated. But the prohibition was not well thought through. Israel defeats their enemy in battle and the enemy runs. But the army of Israel is exhausted. They don’t have the energy needed to follow the enemy and mop up after the battle, instead they fall on the plunder of animals that have been left behind. With the initial battle done, the priority of Saul’s fighting men shifted to their stomachs - it was time to eat. But they were so hungry that they failed to prepare the meal in a way that was in keeping with the Law of Moses. As a result, the army of Israel was guilty of sin. And while Saul would attempt to blame the soldiers, the fault was really his. Moderation would have been a better plan. The grand feast could wait until after the victory, but by prohibiting food altogether, Saul was unwittingly setting his army up for both moral and military failure. In this, Saul’s son Jonathan proved wiser than his father. He understood the principle of moderation (1 Samuel 14:29-30).

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 15

I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the LORD’s favor.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.” – 1 Samuel 13:14

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 22, 2016): 1 Samuel 13

Virgil tells the story of “the Trojan Horse” in his work “Aenid” written somewhere between 29 and 19 B.C.E. The story tells the mythical story of how the Greeks won the Trojan War. The people of Troy were secure behind the walls of their city, and so the Greeks decided to try some kind of trick in order to gain the victory. The trick came in the form of a giant wooden horse with a unit of elite Greek soldiers hidden inside it. According to the story, the Greeks told the Trojan’s that the horse was gift for the goddess Minerva (or Athena), who the Greeks had dishonored the previous day. The Trojan priest Laocoon is suspicious of the gift and warns the citizens of Troy – “Do not trust the horse, Trojans! Whatever it is, I fear the Danaans (Greeks), even when they bring gifts.” But Lacocoon is killed by a snake, which the Trojans believed is a sign that the priest had displeased Minerva with his words. On Minerva’s behalf, they welcome the horse into their city. What else could they do since it was apparent that Minerva had already accepted her gift? That night, while Troy slept, the Greek soldier snuck out of the horse and opened the city gates of the city to the Greek army who had returned under cover of darkness. That night Troy was destroyed.

“I had to” might just be the worst words ever spoken. It is the hope of every military commander, that somehow they will be able to maneuver the enemy into a position where they “have to do” something. The perceived lack of choice is the first step towards failure. It is seen even in the earliest battles, with the story of the Trojan horse that must be accepted into the city because of its acceptance by the gods, to stories where the enemy is left a perfectly viable way to escape, only to find out when they try to escape that the path is nothing more than a trap. The first step to winning in anything is making the opponent truly believe that this is the only way.

Saul has found himself in a predicament. The problem is that even though God has chosen him to be king, he does not really trust God. He really only trusts in the superiority of his own forces. So as he sets up to fight against the Philistines, he is told to wait for Samuel (the representative of God fulfilling the offices of Judge, Prophet and High Priest) before enjoining the attack. But the army becomes unsettled as Samuel is perceived as being late. And the army that Saul has raised begins to leave him, weakening his confidence that he can succeed in the coming battle.

So Saul's lack of faith leads him to believe that he has no choice but to offer a sacrifice on his own. And in doing this, he breaks the Mosaic Law and offers an unauthorized sacrifice to God. His hope really isn’t in God, but it is that the sacrifice would strengthen the faith of the remaining members of his army and keep them with him. Saul feels that he must offer the sacrifice, something he felt he had to do, but in doing so he lost the favor of God. And in losing the favor of God, he lost the battle and the ability to be successful as king – and no army could regain that for him.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 14

If you fear the LORD and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God—good! – 1 Samuel 12:14

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 21, 2016): 1 Samuel 12

On Thursday, November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln arrived at Gettysburg Pennsylvania. On that afternoon he would deliver one of his more memorable speeches, a speech that has come to be known as “The Gettysburg Address.” The speech came four and a half months after the Union victory in the Battle of Gettysburg. The purpose of the address was to dedicate a portion of the battlefield to bury those who had died in the battle. But what the speech became was a short summary of the principles of human equality as described by the Declaration of Independence. Starting with the iconic words “Four score and seven years ago,” a reference to the start of the American Revolution in 1776, Lincoln began to describe the founding principles of the nation in the light of the current civil conflict that was being fought in the United States. And in the process of the speech, he redefined the Civil War as a struggle, not just of the Union forces against the Confederate Army, but also a fight over the principles of human equality.

While the speech is well remembered, there is one portion of the speech that Abraham Lincoln appears to have changed as he was speaking that afternoon in Gettysburg. And it comes in the conclusion of the address. What Abraham Lincoln said, according to all of the reports that we have of the speech, is this - … we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (Abraham Lincoln – The Gettysburg Address). But two words spoken by Abraham Lincoln consistently do not appear in the copies of the speech that we have from before Lincoln actually gave the speech – and those words were “under God.” It appears that the words were added by Lincoln in the process of making the speech. He wanted to remind the nation that the things they wanted to achieve could only be achieved by a nation that existed in relationship with God. And underscoring this relationship was important enough to Lincoln that he added it to the conclusion of the speech.

Samuel makes the same point during his farewell address. He provides a summary of the events that has led Israel to this point in their history and the appointing of Israel’s first King. But Samuel also warns the people and the king that their success is still dependent on their willingness to be a nation which is essentially “under God.” The presence of an earthly king did not change the fact that Israel was designed to be a theocracy – a nation in which God was the king. And as long as the people and the king honored God, then they would find success. But when they lost track of God, then they would struggle.    

Samuel was reluctantly giving the nation their first king, but he refused to wash his hands of what came next. God was still on the throne. Samuel understood that. And so did Lincoln. And, therefore, the new birth of freedom (Lincoln) or of the nation (Samuel) could not happen outside of God.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 13

He took a pair of oxen, cut them into pieces, and sent the pieces by messengers throughout Israel, proclaiming, “This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel.” Then the terror of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out together as one. – 1 Samuel 11:7

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 20, 2016): 1 Samuel 11

“When you make a death threat to someone, you don't write it down on paper and send it to them by mail. You say it to their face and you make sure they never forget the look in your eyes. Make sure they remember that look, until the day you kill them.” The quote is attributed to Luigi Giuliano, the boss of the Giuliano Clan in Naples. But, maybe more importantly, the quote just seems to sound so Mafia-like, and exactly what we would expect from the leader of a crime family.

Unfortunately, so do the words of Saul in this passage. He may not have looked into the eyes of those that he threatened, but the act of killing an animal and sending out the animal’s body parts to the various people that he was communicating with provided a very clear message. You are either with me, or you are against me. And now the choice is in your hands. You can support me in the conflict that is at hand, and reap the benefits of being on my side, or you can stay at home while others fight the battle for you, and be numbered among my enemies. The animal body parts screamed the question – what exactly is it that you are going to do?

But while it might be a move of intimidation worthy of the modern day Mafia, it probably had a very real and important purpose. Up until this point, Israel had existed as nothing more than a loosely connected group of tribes. But now it was time for the tribe to become a nation. And that meant that the time had come for an all for one, and one for all moment. It was time for the nation to stand up for each other.

Jabesh-Gilead was a town within the area of the half-tribe of Manasseh. When the Ammonites attacked, it was very clear exactly what they expected to happen. They expected to have to go up against the Tribe of Manasseh. But Saul had a different idea. The Ammonites had disrespected not just Manasseh, but Israel. And if Saul had his way, it was Israel that was going to respond.

And the invitation to the tribes asking for their response was sent out in a letter written with the body parts of a dead ox.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 12

Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the LORD anointed you ruler over his inheritance? – 1 Samuel 10:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 19, 2016): 1 Samuel 10

President Zachary Taylor’s campaign in the 1848 American Presidential Election was “For President of the People.” Taylor considered himself a fierce independent, in spite of the fact that he shared many beliefs similar to the Whig Party in the United States. But there were also some inconsistencies in the man. He was a southern land owner who openly said that he would sign a bill prohibiting the practice of owning slaves if such a bill ever reached his desk. He was staunchly against secession as a way of handling national disputes, but also seems to have developed a non-interference policy with the Latter Day Saints that were now inhabiting what was the Utah Territory. He seemed to genuinely want to live up to the campaign slogan, he hated the political elite and despised patronage and political games. His opponents never really considered him worthy candidate of the office. And during his short reign as President, he seemed to sincerely want to live up to his campaign slogan. He was not the President of the United States or the President of the Whig Party (or any other Party). He was also not the President of the South. He was the President of the People – all of the People. As President he heard their voices, but he did not restrict his policies to simply what the people might have wanted. He would endeavor to make decisions that would benefit the people as a whole. Of course, we will never know how well Taylor might have been able to do at that task. He died just over seventeen months after taking office. Conspiracy theorists still question whether his death might not have been at the hands of his enemies who assassinated by the President by using some kind of poison. But for seventeen months he got to be the “President of the People”

And Zachary’s theme has become the platform for other aspiring political candidates. The cry that “I represent the People” or even “I am the Voice of the People” is a common one in modern elections. Now, with opinion polls and other devices, we can begin to measure the response of the people to various comments made by the candidates. The polls become an incredibly important tool in every election. The voice of the people remains important to anyone who might aspire to the “President of the People.”

Saul is anointed by Samuel. But as Samuel anoints him, he reminds him that his position might have been different from any other king on earth. His kingship was not a result of his military prowess, although he proved to be an able military leader. His kingship was not dependant on his political success. He was king because God had placed him in that position. And he would rule over the people as a servant of God. He would now be the visible presence of God in Israel. And while every other nation belonged to the king who ruled over it, that was not the case with Israel. Saul might be king, but Israel was still the possession of God. And while the people were important, it was God who was the most important – and it was God’s voice that Saul need to hear. Israel was, and always would be, the inheritance of God. And the king needed to make that understanding his priority. He needed to lead Israel the way that God would lead them. Nothing else was appropriate for the nation that was the inheritance of God.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 11

When Samuel caught sight of Saul, the LORD said to him, “This is the man I spoke to you about; he will govern my people.” – 1 Samuel 9:17

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 18, 2016): 1 Samuel 9

The last year of Barak Obama has begun. I can hear the cheers – and the tears - even from where I sit somewhat north of the Continental United States. For the next few years we will go through the post-mortem procedure examining the Obama presidency, but the truth is that the legacy of Bara Obama won’t probably be known for a couple of decades. It seems to go that way. We just aren’t in a position to make all of the informed judgments right now. We don’t have all the information. But over time we will get the information and then we will make a decision of where his presidency ranks among his class of what will soon be 44 Presidents (Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms making him the 22^nd and 24^th Presidents of the United States.)

But for now the answers we have will be to a set of very personal questions. Was Barak Obama the President that we expected him to be (for the better or worse)? Every President has his own unique set of obstacles, but how did Obama work to overcome his? And what might be the biggest question, did the people do their job and support the President in his endeavors – because running a successful country is really the job of all the citizens. What we did not know seven years ago, we know now. Did Barak Obama disappoint us? Is it possible that our hopes were too high?

I struggle with this passage of the Books of Samuel. I struggle with the whole idea of Saul as the  king of Israel, especially if we insist that God knows everything about the future. Because in the eyes of history, Saul was a disaster. David was a great king, but the truth is that following the reign of Saul may have made David seem even better. And yet it is clear in the narrative that Saul was “God’s man.” It was God who uncovered Samuel’s ear and indicated that it was this man that should govern over Israel.

But there are a couple of ways to look at reign of Saul. The first is that he was essentially a place holder. The idea is that God knew that Saul would ultimately fail, but he also knew that Saul could take care of the problem that was at hand – namely, the Philistines. According to this theory, Saul becomes a leader similar to Samson. Samson failed miserably as a leader and a servant of God through most of his life, and yet he was successful at removing the Philistine thorn from the side of Israel – at least for a time.

The other way to look at Saul’s reign is to understand that Saul could have been a great king. Had he followed closely to God and made better decisions, we might be hailing the line of Saul and not David – or at least the line of Saul may have extended a few generations before someone like David rose up from the tribe of Judah.

Which is true? Much like the legacy of Barak Obama, I am not sure that we really know. There is something attractive about both ways of thinking. Maybe it is a mixture of the two. What I like about the second option is that it places free will back in our hands. Our choices matter – every one of them. God has instilled within us the possibility of becoming great in moral leaders, but whether or not that becomes a reality is really up to us – and the choices that we make.

Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 10

Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” – 1 Samuel 8:20

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 17, 2016): 1 Samuel 8

In a Global community it seems to be increasingly difficult to remove ourselves from international conflicts. I think that there are really three reasons for this. The first is that we have built friendships within the national community. It is hard to imagine Britain under attack without, at the very least, the commonwealth coming to her aid – even if the commonwealth ends in the next few decades. There is still a connecting thread that exists between the nations. Israel for most of Europe and North America is a protectorate – maybe because of our Christian history, or because of the guilt that we feel for not doing enough during World War II, but again there is a connection. And while there are many good things about being connected, it can also lead us into conflict. The second reason for international involvement is economic in nature. It is the nagging question behind the American involvement in the first Iraq war – did the American government intervene in Kuwait because of friendship, or because of the economic realities of Kuwaiti oil falling into the hands of the Iraqi government. While many people believe that they know the answer, the reality is that we may never be able to answer that question to the satisfaction of everyone. The third reason is because international conflict comes home too easily. The Islamic States attack on France, or Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on the U.S. have proven that “a world away” isn’t exactly a long distance anymore.

But what is consistent, and what causes the problems, is that we all have different opinions about who should be our friends, or have different ideas about what is economically necessary, or even about what to do to retaliate for attacks on home soil. Those decisions are all left up to the King or whoever it is that fulfills that place in our society. And we fight at the King’s wishes.

And maybe that is what seems so incongruous about this statement of the people of Israel. We want a King, like the other nations – one who will fight our battles. It seems that even in antiquity, or maybe especially in antiquity, it is the reverse that was true. The King did not fight our battles, we fought his.

What makes this comment even more surprising is that it comes on the heels of a great win against the Philistines in which God fulfilled the people’s idea of a King who fought their battles. While Samuel was sacrificing the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to engage Israel in battle. But that day the Lord thundered with loud thunder against the Philistines and threw them into such a panic that they were routed before the Israelites (1 Samuel 7:10). If what the people wanted was a King who would fight their battles, then they already had him. But the concern was more for a king who looked like other kings. And to get him, they were willing to discard the God who was King and who was ready to fight their battles. They would submit to a King who would have them fight his battles – and in this they would finally fit in with the rest of the world.    

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 9

So the men of Kiriath Jearim came and took up the ark of the LORD. They brought it to Abinadab’s house on the hill and consecrated Eleazar his son to guard the ark of the LORD. – 1 Samuel 7:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 16, 2016): 1 Samuel 7

There is a saying in sports that good players always want the ball – they always want the game in their hands when it comes down to crunch time. But sometimes you just don’t want the ball. The worst college football defeat ever took place between Cumberland and Georgia Tech on October 7, 1916. Cumberland had recently cancelled its football team. Georgia Tech on the other hand was one of the favorites to win the National Title. Even though Cumberland had cancelled its football program, Georgia Tech insisted that Cumberland either play or pay a $3,000 fine (a significant amount of money in 1916) to make up for lost gate receipts that the loss of the game off of the schedule would have caused. Cumberland decided to play. Many of the players didn’t really even understand the game. The game would never have taken place today. In today’s standards it would have been like the Clemson Tigers taking on your local High School Gym class. The final score – Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0.

Many stories have grown up around the game, but one of my favorites involves the running back of the Cumberland team – purported to be also the coach George Allen. According to the story, the quarterback took the ball from center and then promptly fumbled it. The ball bounced away in the direction of Allen and the quarterback screamed “Pick it up.” Allen apparently looked at the oncoming rush of the Georgia Tech defensive line and shouted back, “You pick it up, you dropped it.” Sometimes you just don’t want the ball.

The story of the return of the Ark of the Covenant hits a snag in Beth Shemesh. And so the men of Beth Shemesh send a messenger and instruct the men of Kiriath Jearim to come and get the Ark. What is somewhat surprising is that the men of Kiraith-Jearim obeyed the summons. Because sometimes you just don’t want the ball.

But they came and took the ark. One of the theories as to why they came centers around the relationship between Kiriath-Jearim and Gibeon. The two cities were related and the men of Gibeon had been made bond servants of Israel during the time of Joshua. So it is possible that the men of Kiriath-Jearim were also bond servants of Israel – and maybe the summons was exactly that, a command that the men of Kiriath-Jearim had no option but to obey.

And so they came, and they took the Ark to the house of Abinadab, a local Levite. The thought process was probably that as a Levite, Abinadab would understand what to do with the Ark, so that the disaster of Beth Shemesh would not be revisited within the cluster of towns that existed around Kiriath-Jearim and Gibeon. And in the end they were right, and Abinidab and his family experienced the blessings of God.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 8

But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them. – 1 Samuel 6:19

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 15, 2016): 1 Samuel 6

There is an ancient adage that “pride goes before a fall.” In contemporary understanding the proverb seems to indicate that if you are too conceited or think of yourself as being self-important, then be aware that something is on its way that will make you look very foolish. The proverbs is actually Biblical in its origin – it is most likely taken from Proverbs 16:18 which says “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” (NIV) But the phrase is so common in its usage that sometimes we forget the meaning. When we are proud or self-important, when we think that we have everything under control; that is the moment that we are not aware of the things that can upset our plans and destroy what we have built.

A number of years ago, I almost drowned in a boating accident. Well, the boat I happened to be in was two man canoe. A good friend and I were out on a very busy lake (our first mistake) in a canoe. We were enjoying our time together, and we had a routine set up – every time a speed boat would pass us, we would drive the canoe straight into the oncoming wake from the boat. Our system was working well, until we missed a boat. I can still remember the waves broadsiding our canoe and my friend sitting at the front of the boat with an expression that said “Oops looks like we are going to get wet.” I tried to grab one more breath of air before I hit the lake (my second mistake), but by the time I hit took the breath I was already under water. The result of the accident was that I had bruised lungs that were no longer able to process oxygen, all because we had become comfortable with the system and had missed something very important.

A cart had carried the Ark of the Covenant from the Philistines to Beth Shemesh. It is thought that the cart was most likely closed, so as it drew close to farmers harvesting their crops, the first reaction had been to open the crate and find out what it was that the cart contained. It is hard to imagine the excitement of the farmers as they opened up the crate only to find the Ark of the Covenant and the gold sin offerings that had been sent by the Philistines. And up until this point in the story there was no sin. The problem came that the cover of the crate was not returned. Instead, the Ark became an item to be looked at, after all, these people would never see it again. They may have even worshipped at it. Maybe they dreamed of the attraction that the Ark could become for the town of Beth Shemesh. But the reality was that the people of Beth Shemesh treated the Ark more as a tourist attraction than the seat of God. They felt that they were important, because God had brought the Ark to them, rather than realizing that they were nothing more than a stopping point for the Ark as it made its way back to the tabernacle (a trip that the Ark would not complete until during the reign of King David.)

And in this, they treated the Ark of the Covenant with less respect than even the Philistines – at least they had placed the Ark in the temple of their god. It is important to note that the number of dead here carries with it a bit of a controversy. The original number in many manuscripts is 50,070. The problems is that Beth Shemesh at the time was a small village and it wouldn’t have contained that many people, even if the count included the people in the village and in the surrounding area. So the translators of the NIV have stuck with the number 70 as a correction. But the reality is that we really don’t know the number of the dead that resulted because of the mistreatment of the Ark.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 7

When the people of Ashdod saw what was happening, they said, “The ark of the god of Israel must not stay here with us, because his hand is heavy on us and on Dagon our god.” – 1 Samuel 5:7

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 14, 2016): 1 Samuel 5

An incident happened at a Donald Trump rally this past weekend that continues to sadden me – a Muslim woman was escorted out of the rally. According to report, the woman came wearing a shirt that read “Salam. I come in peace” and an eight cornered star which read “Muslim.” As Trump made remarks about the possible influx of militants invading the Syrian refugee populations that are beginning to stream into Western countries, she stood. She said nothing. Her reason for coming was that she believed that most of the people at the rally had never really met a Muslim, and so she decided that maybe it was time that they did. But her presence was enough to upset the crowd. Some even believed that she carried a bomb – she did not.

The social media reaction might have been even worse. People accused her of things that they had no idea about. For some, the woman was nothing more than a rabble rouser. Some called her a false Muslim. Miscounting the points on the stars, others accused her of wearing the Star of David – a Jewish symbol made famous during World War II because Jews in Germany were forced to wear the star as an identification of their national identity – and of the fact that they really could not belong to an Aryan Germany.

The problem was that that was exactly the idea that this woman was selling. The idea that maybe the United States had taken a step down the road in the same direction as Nazi Germany. Contained within it was the idea that maybe Donald Trump was the 21^st century version of Adolf Hitler. That maybe something needed to be done about this now, before something even worse happens. But it was just an idea. Nothing more. In fact, even these ideas were not communicated verbally, but rather just with the way that this woman had decided to dress.

For the Republicans, what might be even more disturbing is that all of this comes in a moment when a furor is being built around the constitutional right to bear arms. The message is disconcerting – or maybe disorienting. We will battle for the right own a gun, but not for the right of a citizen to state an idea with nothing more than a sign that she wears on her body. In short, we seem to be arguing over the protection of Second Amendment rights while walking all over the First Amendment. We just can’t have it both ways. We apparently have been successfully sold a very dangerous idea; one that supposes that maybe we need to bear arms in order to supress both the freedom of religion and free speech – or the spread of other ideas.

The Philistines had been sold an idea. The idea was a simple one, their god Dagon was more powerful than any other god. And even in the light of the proof that they were wrong – that even Dagon would fall prostrate before the God of Israel, they could not give up on their idea. And as a result, rather than recognizing Jehovah as their God, they wanted Jehovah to be removed from their presence in order to continue to believe in the power of Dagon. Because that seems to be what we do when we are confronted with truth. We hide it, or expel it, in order to continue to believe the lie.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 6

She named the boy Ichabod, saying, “The Glory has departed from Israel”—because of the capture of the ark of God and the deaths of her father-in-law and her husband. – 1 Samuel 4:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 13, 2016): 1 Samuel 4

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman once wrote that he was “tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.” Sherman distinguished himself as a General in the Union Army during the American Civil War serving under Ulysses S. Grant. He has been honored for his tactics during the war, and criticized for the scorched earth campaign that he waged against the South as the horrors and tedium of war progressed. But he seemed to understand the truth of war. There is no glory. And what glory we might see from the outside disappears once you get closer to the fight. It is moonshine that can never be grasped and disappears quickly in the presence of a greater light. Those who desire war have never experienced it, or have been deceived into believing that some alternate reality exists that makes war seem important.

The wife of Phinehas gives birth just as the news that her husband and her father-in-law, Eli, have died. Her husband died in the rout of the army of Israel by the Philistines, and Eli at the age of 98, dies when he receives the news of the defeat of Israel, the death of his sons, and the loss of the Ark of the Covenant. Suddenly she is alone with a child. And the name that she gives to this new life that she has been blessed with is Ichabod. The Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts of the Bible, lists the child’s name as ouai barchaboth – which is literally translated “No son of Glory.” Sherman would not have been surprised. There can be no glory in war.

Sometimes I have to admit that I don’t think we really understand that. Maybe that is partially why it is the young that seem to run towards war. Their hope is that in the fight they will find the glory that they believe that their lives deserve. But their disappointment is that there is no glory, no remembrance exists in the midst of the fight. Only pain and suffering and great fear as life passes from them – and they wonder if the reason for the fight was enough to demand such a supreme sacrifice from them.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 5

For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons blasphemed God, and he failed to restrain them. – 1 Samuel 3:13

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 12, 2016): 1 Samuel 3

Win the Lottery. It was the answer to a question I asked a middle aged couple not long ago. The question, how do you plan to finance your retirement? The reality was that unless the Lottery win came through, retirement for this couple was simply not an option. And I get it. Working for the rest of our lives seems like a possibility when we are younger, but as the years pass and our bodies begin to tire, at some point we realize that it may not be. And if our health does not hold, well, we are in serious trouble. The reality is that I know too many people my age who feel trapped. They have not prepared for retirement, and the Lottery wins are rare.

It is not like we didn’t know. It was just that other things were more important. And it scares me. It scares me about others – and about me. The problem with the idea of retirement is that we have to start preparing for it when we are young – and we have to resist the urge to use that money for other things as we begin to start families and buy houses. It is the only way that people will be able to retire and even just maintain their standard of living. For too many of us, we have ignored all of the warning signs, pushed them away so that they couldn’t attract our attention, and now we are in trouble – and retirement isn’t even a possibility. It would be different if we didn’t know, but deep down we have to admit that we knew.

I have a number of emotions play with me whenever I read this story of Samuel as a child. Jewish scholars believe that Samuel was probably about 12. In his day that was on the verge of being an adult. And yet still the message seems harsh for such a young man. Yet, there also might not have been a better carrier for the message. There are two things that we need to note in this verse.

First, we need to understand that this was not the first time that Eli had received this word from God. God makes it clear that this was something that God had told Eli before. Eli knew. He had been told exactly in what way he was failing God. At this point in time, Eli was the high priest who was ignoring the misbehaviour of two of his priests because they were his sons. But, in the past, this behavior probably started with a father who refused to discipline his young children. He had maybe pushed the revelation from God deep into his subconscious, he had probably hidden it away and ignored the message, but he knew.

The second thing was that if Samuel was going to become the man and priest that God was calling him to be, this was a lesson that Samuel needed to learn well. The day would come when the adult Samuel would meet with the first King of Israel, a man named Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. And Samuel would have a choice. He could coddle this king for his actions against God, or he could confront him. On that day he would need to remember this conversation with God and the one that would follow it with Eli. Because on that day, as it was on this day, it was God that ruled over Israel – and God’s laws were the ones that needed to be followed.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 4

The rulers of the Philistines went to her and said, “See if you can lure him into showing you the secret of his great strength and how we can overpower him so we may tie him up and subdue him. Each one of us will give you eleven hundred shekels of silver.” – Judges 16:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 11, 2016): Judges 16

The inconsistencies in a story, tell a story. Beware of them. On January 18, 2016, just a week away, the British Parliament will debate whether or not to allow Donald Trump on British soil. At the same time, Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump will make a fine President. There is something wrong with this story. Even though the British Parliament has received a petition signed by 500,000 people demanding that Trump be kept off of their island (and a second petition signed by 40,000 people who think that that the first petition is rubbish) it seems unlikely that the Parliament would actually ban Trump from Britain, but just the fact that there will be a debate is important. If anyone questions Trumps ability to lead the United States, maybe the fact that a significant ally is having this debate should be important. I can’t remember another presidential candidate who was barred from entering an ally country, and yet loved by the one country we might think to be the United States sworn enemy – or at least a friend who we are not on very good terms with at the moment. There are discrepancies in this story of which we must take note.

There are a number of inconsistencies in the story of Sampson. Sometimes it seems like the only people who act the way that we think that they should act are the Philistines. Everyone else seems to be out of character. But then again, this question of the Philistines is also unexpected. We picture Samson as being a big man with huge muscles – maybe looking like someone who had been on anabolic steroids for a while. In my mind, he is an ancient Hulk Hogan, someone who if he lived today would have no problem finding employment with World Wrestling Entertainment. I mean, no one would think to ask Goliath what the secret to his strength might be. Goliath was simply a giant – we expect him to be strong. The marvel in the story of Goliath is that he was defeated by such a small boy. We all want to know what David’s secret was (of course, David’s secret wasn’t much of a secret – he was simply a servant of the most high God.) In the story of Gideon earlier in the book of Judges, no one marvels at the strength of the Midianites. We know where there strength was found – it was in the sheer number of their soldiers. What is amazing in the story is that they are defeated by such a small – and weak – army, led by the reluctant warrior, Gideon.

So as we read the Philistine question, maybe the inconsistency of the story is in how we picture Samson. Maybe Samson wasn’t the large, muscle bound oaf that we believe him to be. Maybe Sampson looked more like an accountant, albeit with long hair, than a warrior. It is the only way that the question makes any sense. And it is a discrepancy of which maybe we should take note.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 3

Then three thousand men from Judah went down to the cave in the rock of Etam and said to Samson, “Don’t you realize that the Philistines are rulers over us? What have you done to us?” – Judges 15:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 10, 2016): Judges 15

The United States might be the only Super Power left in the world (although there is evidence that Russia would like to once again regain its title as “the Other Super Power”), but that does not mean that they are all powerful. Like every Super Hero that I have read about in my childhood, there is a substance that can make the United States as weak as – well, Canada. For Superman it was Kryptonite. For J’onn J’onzz it was fire. All the supers had something that made them not so super, and for the United States that something is debt. China holds more American debt than anyone else, and that means that China holds economic control over the United States. If China were to begin dumping American Debt, then interest rates would begin to rise in the United States and all of it would be out of the control of the President or anyone else. At some point in the future, American Kryptonite might be oil. I know we act like it is now, but the truth is that the United States has access to all the oil it needs for the next few years – and maybe decades. But the problem of money and debt could raise its ugly head tomorrow and destroy the nation. In fact, some believe that the reason why China has purchased American Debt is so that it could hold this power. And at some point, they will come knocking with the debt in hand to ask for a big favor – and it is likely on that day that the United States will have trouble saying no.

It is the reason why we – meaning all of the affluent first world nations – need to get our acts together and do something about the debt of our nations. People who run their lives with the same economic strategy as the richest of the nations would find themselves in economic trouble. CEO’s who make the decision to run their companies that way are fired. I have no idea what is so attractive about massive debt for the nations. The events that have taken place in Greece over the past few years should be a cautionary tale for all of us – debt is bad and it will result in a serious loss of control over your own future – so deal with it before we have to pay that bill that none of us wants to pay. The Bible makes it clear in its understanding of economics - The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).

The words of the men of Judah is a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit. The Philistines never physically ruled over all of Judah. But the statement is a reminder that the story of Sampson and Philistines is really simply a mess from beginning to end. The story contains no heroes, only victims and villains. There are no protagonists for the story, only antagonists.

So the Philistines never really ruled over Judah. What made them strong in the eyes of the men of Judah is that they held the kryptonite. In the case of Judah, that kryptonite came in the form of Iron. Of that substance, the Philistines had a monopoly, and Israel was in great need. Her economy and the defense of the tribe was dependant on something that only the Philistines had.

And because of that, Judah was willing to do anything in order to make sure that they were kept in the supply of Iron – even if that meant tying their judge up and giving him to the Philistines. Not an act of courage, but a despicable act of a group of men that had become slaves – not because of physical power, but because of desire - and the presence of kryptonite.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 16