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