These were the sons of David born to him in Hebron: The firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel; the second, Daniel the son of Abigail of Carmel … 1 Chronicles 3:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 31, 2019): 1 Chronicles 3

The story of William Ætheling is really a cautionary tale for those who are considered to be the “up and coming.” William Ætheling was the oldest son of Henry I of England and Matilda of Scotland, and heir apparent to the throne of England. The prince was in Barfleur, France and was due to sail across the English Channel to the shores of England on November 25, 1120. The ship that was to carry him across the Channel was known in English “The White Ship.” Its actual name was “la Blanche-Nef;” and the ship was both new and fast.

As a direct result of the speed of the White Ship, William Ætheling decided that he and his friends could remain on shore during the evening drinking and still make it to England to take care of commitments that they had made there. His logic was that the calm seas and the speed of the White Ship would mean that the delay would have no real effect on their arrival time in England. And so, William and his friends remained drinking and did not leave Barfleur until the middle of the night. Evidently, among those who were drinking with the Prince was the helmsman responsible for guiding the White Ship on the ride back. Instead, the helmsman ran the White Ship into a rock in the bay. Unable to get the ship off of the rock or to stop the White Ship from sinking, the drunken passengers were able to get a dinghy in the water, but when they jumped into the rescue boat, they capsized it and the intoxicated inhabitants all drowned. The 12^th-century English historian Henry of Huntington wrote about the prince and the White Ship tragedy saying "instead of wearing embroidered robes… [he] floated naked in the waves, and instead of ascending a lofty throne…found his grave at the bottom of the sea." To become king, all Prince William had to do was to outlive his father. But he could not do that. William Ætheling died on November 25, 1120, at the age of 17.

David had many sons and daughter; several of them drew much attention in the story of his life. But one that didn’t was his second son, Daniel. He is never mentioned as a possibility for the ascending the throne of Israel upon David’s death, even after his older brother Amnon was assassinated by a younger brother to avenge Amnon’s rape of his sister Tamar. Daniel simply is not mentioned anywhere, except in the lists of David’s children.

But we do have rumors about the boy. One suggestion is that the parentage of Daniel was questioned around the time of his birth. Abigail, Daniel’s mother, was the widow Nabel the Calebite. Nabel was a rude man who had had a run-in with David and was subsequently killed by God. In the aftermath, David took Nabel’s widow as his wife. Daniel was apparently born somewhere around nine months after the death of Nabel and Abigail’s marriage to David. As a result, Daniel’s father could have been either David or Nabel.

Also according to rumor, God took things into his hands and made Daniel into the exact image of his father, David. In some places, Daniel is known by another name, Chileab. Chileab means the “perfection of the father.” If Daniel really was the image of David, it is a little surprising that he was not mentioned as a possible successor to his father, or at least featured in other stories of the kingdom. That is unless Daniel died young. The Prince’s untimely death is the most likely reason that we know so little of this boy who was born in the image of his father. He just did not live long enough to become king.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 4

… and the clans of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, Shimeathites and Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the Rekabites. – 1 Chronicles 2:55

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 30, 2019): 1 Chronicles 2

When Moses ran from Egypt into the wilderness, he left behind all that he knew. He moved away from his biological family, the children of Israel, as well as his adopted family, the royal family of Egypt. At this moment, Moses was lost and alone. He was also probably more vulnerable than we sometimes realize. All alone in a world that had proved to be very hostile, he had no one to confide in and no one to help shape him.

Eventually, that task fell on the shoulders of Jethro, Moses’s Father-in-law, and a priest of Midian. Jethro gave Moses religious instruction that was likely decidedly different from that which he had received in Egypt. There is no indication that Moses had received any teaching about the God of Israel. His instruction about the gods would have been centered on the many gods of Egypt and then, later in his life, in the education that Moses received from Jethro. There is a theory that the God that Jethro introduced Moses to was a monotheistic God named Yahweh, the God of Midians. When Moses meets the God of Israel at the burning bush, his only frame of reference is that this must be the God about whom Jethro had taught him. This must be Yahweh. The Israelites, at this time, would have likely called him El-Shaddai, or “God Almighty.” According to this theory, it was at this time that Yahweh and El-Shaddai became one God, the God of Israel.

But it was also at this time that a foreign people started a process that would lead them to become a part of Israel. Jethro was likely a Kenite (Judges 1:16). The Kenites were a foreign nomadic clan that wandered the wilderness of the area that we know of as the Levant in ancient times. But through Jethro, this nomadic tribe possibly made its first significant contact with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even though the Kenites had been living in the Levant long before Abraham come to the land.

Gradually, the Kenites grew to be friends of Israel. And eventually, they were adopted into the Tribe of Judah. There they continued to make a difference, adding their distinctive nature to the people of God, and the belief in this God who was known as both Yahweh and El-Shaddai.     

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 3

The sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. - 1 Chronicles 1:4

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 29, 2019): 1 Chronicles 1

What do the following have in common; Alexander the Great, Mohandas Gandhi, Cyrus the Great, Sir John A. MacDonald, and George Washington? The answer is that each is considered to be the Father of their Nations. Alexander the Great is the Father of the Greeks. Mohandas Gandhi is the Father of Modern India, although that designation is unofficial. Cyrus the Great is the Father of Iran or Persia. Sir John A. MacDonald, although admittedly his image has deteriorated over the past decade, is considered to be the Father of Canada. And George Washington leads the list of Founding Fathers in the United States. Each one has made a significant contribution to either the founding of the nation or, especially in the case of Mohandas Gandhi, the current elevation and freedom of the country. None of the men, interestingly they are all men which is probably an artifact of the fact that they are from our past, were perfect. The Canadian question is whether the imperfections of people like Sir John A. MacDonald’s should disqualify them as a Founding Fathers. My answer is that the shortcomings of the past are often hard to judge in the present. Their ideals and morals may be different from ours, but they also didn’t have the influences which have shaped our modern world. The morals of one generation are often developed and built upon by the next. To judge historical figures according to the morality of the present is decidedly unfair. And without each of these men, and the sacrifices that they have made, our nations would not have the foundation on which the nations are built.

The opening words of 1 Chronicles are a list of names. We understand that each is the father of the one who goes before. So Adam is the father of Seth, and Seth is the father of Enosh. These are not the only children or even the only sons. They are also not the oldest sons. For instance, we know that Seth is the third son of Adam. The argument can be made that Abel was murdered and Cain was disqualified from this list, but still, this is not strictly a list of eldest sons of the father. They are the sons who are the most important because the biblical story flows through each of these men.

The list continues until we get to the Sons of Noah. In the original Hebrew, the words “The sons of Noah” is absent in the writing. There the list simply continues. “Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth” (1 Chronicles 1:3-4). The list abruptly changes from father to son, to a listing of three brothers. And the significance of the change is that these three men become the Fathers of the Nations in a post-flood world. These men would give birth to nations and shape the way the world looked after the flood.

It is interesting that there are three. It might be that Shem, Ham, and Japheth are replacements for three other men of influence that should have stood in their place. Just as Noah became the new Adam of the post-flood world, so Shem, Ham, and Japheth became the new Cain, Abel, and Seth in a world that had been drastically changed shaped by the disaster of the flood.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 2

When Ish-Bosheth son of Saul heard that Abner had died in Hebron, he lost courage, and all Israel became alarmed. – 2 Samuel 4:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 28, 2019): 2 Samuel 4

Winston Churchill said, “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” It is the truth of our lives. Most of us have realized, at some point in our lives, that our successes pass us by with great speed. We recognize, among our friends, the ones who seem to continually relive the achievements of their early life. Often it is a sad moment when we realize that our accomplishments live only in our memories. And it is the beginning of death when we stop looking forward to the successes that still wait for us in the future.

But just as success is not final, neither is failure either final nor fatal. For instance, Genesis 3 describes the Fall of man. When we think of the story, usually only one thing comes to mind. Eve took the forbidden fruit off of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and she ate it. Often in our minds, we think that she then went and found her husband, Adam, and gave him some to eat as well. But that is not what the Bible says. “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her (Italics mine), and he ate it” (Genesis 3:6). Adam was there all along. He likely heard the voice of the Serpent. He gave tacit approval to the eating of the fruit. This was their failure. But their failure was not fatal. Adam compounded the first error, with a second; Adam hid and tried to conceal his failure from God. Then he compounded it once more by blaming Eve for failure, rather than accepting responsibility for all that had gone wrong. With each decision, the failure of Adam and Eve got just a little worse. Finally, God forced them out of the Garden. Their failure is still not fatal, but now they have to decide whether or not they have the courage to continue. Life outside of the Garden of Eden will be much different than it was inside the Garden.

It is evident that Ish-bosheth is a figurehead in Israel. The real power behind the throne was Abner. When Abner dies, Ish-bosheth recognizes that he is in trouble. Ish-bosheth has a choice. He can take hold of his rule and his kingdom and work on the next steps for both himself and the nation. Maybe one of the best steps he could have taken would have been for Ish-bosheth to reach out to David and attempt to unify the nation. The problem is that the King seems to have a little appetite to be King. As long as Abner was willing to run the country, Ish-Bosheth was comfortable with being the figurehead. With Abner gone, turning the nation over to David was a good solution. The failure of Ish-bosheth’s reign did not have to be fatal.

But instead of finding a solution, Ish-bosheth lost the courage to continue. And that was fatal. He knew it, and evidently so did the nation. When Ish-bosheth lost courage, the country became alarmed. They no longer had a leader that could, with courage, lead them into the future. Now they were all waiting for the next disaster to fall.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 1

During the war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner had been strengthening his own position in the house of Saul. – 2 Samuel 3:6

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 27, 2019): 2 Samuel 3

Claudius reigned over the Roman Empire from January 24, 41 until his death, Claudius was murdered by poison, on October 13, 54 C.E. at the age of 63. That he reigned, we know; but who he was is a much bigger question. The image of Claudius has been played with by all of those who followed him. He was a scholar and the author of many books, although those books are now lost. He was a Statesman, a politician with all that that implies. According to the Flavians, he was a good king and is often contrasted with the evil that his step-son Nero would commit in the years after his death. The Flavian Emperor’s (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) all wanted to connect their reigns to the good that they saw in Claudius, even to the point of reissuing coins with his image on them. After the Flavian Emperor’s, the reputation of Claudius fell sharply. Suetonius seems to describe Claudius as being a ridiculous figure, attributing any good that came out of his reign to the entourage that he kept around him. Tacitus describes him as a puppet king who gave legitimacy to the desires of those who propped him up. In the end, we might decide that Claudius held his duty to scholarship above his political responsibilities. And for this reason, he was a weak king who allowed others to reign in his place.

We don’t know much about Ish-bosheth other than that he was the youngest of the four sons of Saul. As the youngest son, Ish-bosheth would have did not expect that one day he would be king. His three older brothers died with his father at the Battle of Gilboa. Why Ish-Bosheth was not with them is a bit of a mystery. At the time of the battle, Ish-bosheth was 40 years old.

But Ish-bosheth was not at the battle of Gilboa. Ish-bosheth was not prepared to be king. Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, grabbed hold of the youngest son of Saul and made him king. But the reality is that Ish-bosheth likely had other interests. So Ish-bosheth was not the power in Israel. Abner was the power.

As the war between David and the House of Saul continued, it allowed the commander of the army, Abner, to grow even more powerful. Ish-bosheth may have been King, but he was King in name only. Abner was the power behind the throne, and the title of Ish-bosheth gave legitimacy to the desires of the real King over Israel, Abner.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 4

Ish-Bosheth son of Saul was forty years old when he became king over Israel, and he reigned two years. The tribe of Judah, however, remained loyal to David. – 2 Samuel 2:10

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 26, 2019): 2 Samuel 2

In English history, James Francis Edward Stuart is better known as the “Old Pretender.” In fact, his birth on June 10, 1688, became part of the cause of the “Glorious Revolution” in England. His father, James II and VII, reigned as king over England, Scotland, and Ireland. But James II and VII was a Catholic and a King who would make little allowance for the beliefs of the Church of England. The grand hope of the people was that this was only a stage that he and the nation would have to find their way through. The heir presumptive to the throne was Mary, followed by her sister Anne, the daughters of the King, and both of whom were Protestant. At least, that was true until June 10, 1688, when James Francis Edward Stuart was born. James was now the heir apparent, and James would be raised as a Catholic.

So on June 30, 1688, William of Orange was invited by seven Protestant nobles to come to England with an army and save Protestantism. William of Orange was the husband of Princess Mary. By September it became clear that William would invade England, with the support of the Protestants within the nation. For James II and VII, the situation grew even worse. It was not just a foreign army that was invading. It was a foreign army with whom both Mary and Anne were fighting alongside. On December 11, 1688, James II and VII decided to run instead of fight, even though the King of England possessed the numerical superiority. While making his escape, he threw the “Great Seal of the Realm” into the River Thames. It was a mistake for which his descendants would pay.

James II and VII did not escape England. Instead, he was captured and held while the nation decided their next steps. They did not want a Catholic King, but England also had no appetite to depose King James. So, instead, they decided that James II and VII, with the act of throwing the “Great Seal of the Realm” into the River Thames, had abdicated his throne. As a result of this abdication, they handed the keys to the realm to his daughter Mary and her husband, William. And James Francis Edward Stuart went from being the heir apparent to the throne to being the pretender to the throne. The “Old Pretender” and his son Charles, also known as the “Young Pretender,” or even better as “Bonnie Prince Charlie,” waged a futile struggle to reclaim the throne of England that they believed should have been theirs, but never was.

Ish-Bosheth, the Son of Saul, was the rightful heir to the throne. In many ways, he is Israel’s forgotten King. Yet, he ruled over most of Israel, all except Judah, for two years. The problem was that Israel really had two kings. In the way that most kings of the day would have ascended the throne, Ish-Bosheth was the oldest surviving son of the previous King. As the reign was passed from father to son, the title of King should have passed from Saul to Ish-Bosheth, just as in 17^th century England the title of King should have passed from James II and VII to James Francis Edward Stuart, the oldest son of the King of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

However, in Israel, David had been anointed by Samuel as King, just as William of Orange had been invited by England’s Protestants to be their King. There are other similarities. William of Orange was married to Mary, the eldest daughter of James II and VII, second in line for the throne of England. David was married to Michal, the youngest of Saul’s daughters and likely third in line for the throne.

David had been anointed as King and the rightful heir, but he is in no hurry to claim the throne. As far as David is concerned, the pretender, Ish-Bosheth, is welcome to it, until God decides the time is right for David to step into the public spotlight as King of Israel.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 3

“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 1:10

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 25, 2019): 2 Samuel 1

For better or worse, we all tend to create our own morality, our understanding of right and wrong. We often pretend that there is a basis for the understanding but, usually, there is no basis, just an innate understanding of right and wrong. For Christians, we want that basis is to be the Bible, but it can also be based on family or religious traditions. Not everything that we consider moral is found in the Bible.

A few weeks ago we celebrated Ash Wednesday. It is a celebration that I decided to recover about fifteen years ago, and it has enriched my understanding of Lent and our journey toward the cross and Good Friday that we make every year. This year we advertised the celebration on Facebook. One person replied, “Where do you find that in the Bible?” Unfortunately, the answer to the question is not a Bible and verse, but a reading into the biblical texts and an understanding of church tradition. The Bible does not say that we should celebrate Ash Wednesday and Lent. The Bible also is silent on Advent and Christmas. And there is also no mention of Good Friday. Easter, on the other hand, is supposed to be celebrated every Sunday (this is why Christians traditionally have worshipped on Sunday), not just once every spring. But we have the birth narrative, and so Advent and Christmas grew out of that story. We have the story of the crucifixion, and so we have developed the celebration of Good, or more literally “God’s,” Friday. Jesus said that when he returned to heaven, his followers would fast. We understand the great sorrow of Jesus disciples as they turned and began to walk toward Jerusalem and death. This is the story that is partially told in John 11 and 12. And so we have taken this understanding and began to celebrate Ash Wednesday and Lent, a time of fasting, sacrifice, and mourning, as we walk with Jesus toward the cross of Good Friday. It seems good and moral for us to celebrate these things. But these celebrations are not overtly commanded within the biblical text.

The story of David and the young Amalekite is the story of a clash in morality. We might have wondered at the refusal of the young armor-bearer of Saul to kill his King even though Saul was wounded and would not recover. In our understanding, killing Saul, or even our suffering pet, is an act of mercy. He would be putting Saul “out of his misery.” And that was precisely the way that the young Amalekite had summed up the situation. If the King could not survive the wounds that had been inflicted on him, then it would be merciful for someone to come and kill him. (In actuality, the real sin of the young Amalekite is that the whole story is a work of fiction. By the time the young man came upon the King of Israel, the King was already dead by his own hand.) The young Amalekite’s story reveals his morality. First, he says that he killed the king who was already dying. And second, he brings the crown of the dead king to David, who the Amalekite believes is either the next king or knows who the future king might be.

David’s morality is shared with the armor-bearer. Life is precious, and no one has the right to kill the King except God. Even if the King is dying and in great pain, to extinguish his life is an affront to what is good and moral. The Amalekite had no right to kill Saul, and therefore must be punished.

It is this argument that still rages in our euthanasia debates. Do we have the right to take a life? I am not sure that I know the answer. I think David would argue no. But the ultimate solution might not be found in the pages of our Bibles. Instead, this is something that we have to work out together, through the power of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 2

Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me.” But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. – 1 Samuel 31:4

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 24, 2019): 1 Samuel 31

We struggle with the idea of the end of life. For most of us, life is a gift that needs to be lived to the fullest until the last possible minute. Physician-assisted dying is often a controversial issue. Complicating the concept is the physical necessity of death. Death being preferred because of a terminal physical disease is often viewed at least a little more positively than death due to chronic depression or mental illness. The idea seems to be that the assisted death due to terminal physical disease and as a result of pain might be acceptable – with heavy emphasis placed on the “might” - but assisted dying due to mental illness is not acceptable, either because of the stigma we place on mental illness or the idea that mental illness can be properly treated, and that if it is properly treated, the person can lead a productive life to the full. Often what we miss is that there is very little difference between physical pain and mental pain. Both are very real. And, sometimes, both are very terminal.

The end of Saul’s life cannot really be called suicide. Saul was mortally wounded. No doctor of his time would be able to put the King back together again, even if Saul could make his way to a doctor. The truth is that his body, either or alive or dead, is about to fall into the hands of his enemies. And there is nothing that Saul can do to change that fact, and that no doctor is going to be offered to the injured king.

And so Saul decides to end his life on his terms. Our contemporary conflict over end of life issues is played out in the story of the death of Saul. Saul asks his armor bearer to run him through with a sword. The action of the armor-bearer would end the King’s life, but his sword thrust would not be the cause of death. The cause of death would be the arrows that had pierced his body from the bows of his enemies. Even though the armor-bearer would not be the root cause of the King’s death, the armor-bearer is not able to raise his sword and assist the king to die. Even knowing that Saul is in pain and that there is no possibility that Saul would be able to recover from his wounds, the life of the king is sacred and the armor-bearer refuses to hasten his death.

Because of the armor-bearer’s refusal, Saul decides to end his own life. Did that mean that Saul committed suicide? That argument continues to rages. But the reality is that Saul was already dead; all Saul did was pick the moment of his death, choosing this moment to die, over the inevitability of death in an hour, or maybe in a day, because of the wounds that had already been inflicted. And so Saul chose this moment to die.

But his armor-bearer committed suicide. He could not face the future, feeling inside of himself that he had failed his King.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 1


Note: The VantagePoint Community Church (Edmonton) message "Encountering a Broken World" from the series "Emptied and Filled" is now online. You can find it here 

They found an Egyptian in a field and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat—part of a cake of pressed figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. – 1 Samuel 30:11-12

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 23, 2019): 1 Samuel 30

You have probably done it. I know that I have. You are on a busy highway when you come across a stranded motorist, but you are already late for an appointment, and there are so many other people on the road. Surely, someone will stop. I mean, if it weren’t for the meeting for which you are already late, you would stop. You just can’t stop now. Not today. Today someone else has to stop and help.

We actually have a name for this situation; this idea that someone else will do what we feel that maybe we should do. It is called the “diffusion of responsibility.” And the diffusion of responsibility happens every time a group of people is given a chance to perform a task. In those circumstances, consistently we believe that someone else has more time than we do, or are better at the task at hand, or has more material wealth and, therefore, can accomplish the purpose better than we can. In our list of priorities, helping those in need is often farther down the list. We would help, and we want to help, but right now just isn’t convenient.

David is in a hurry. While he and his men were away, the Amalekites had come and stolen everything.  They had taken more than just the possessions of David, but they had kidnapped the wives and the children of David and his men. Now, David is giving chase. He intends to take back what is his. But time is critical. The Amelikites have a head start, and David does not want to give them the opportunity to dispose of what they have stolen.

It is amid this chase they come upon an Egyptian who has passed out in the field. The man is alive, but just barely. The Egyptian is a lowly foreigner. He is not well dressed and has no possessions. Later, we will find out that he had been a slave of the Amalekites and that his masters had discarded him when he got sick. But at this moment all David knows is that he is a traveler who is in trouble. If there were anyone who could argue that the Egyptian, at this moment, had to be the problem of someone else, that person would have been David. Two of David’s wives were among the wives and children that the Amalekites had taken, and every minute that they remained the captives of David’s enemy was a minute too long.

In spite of this, David stops for the Egyptian. He works to revive him. David gives to the Egyptian water and food that was meant for his men as they continued their mission to regain what had been stolen. Even though David’s task was critical, he refused to allow that to stop him from fulfilling his responsibility to care for another human being, even if that human was a foreigner. He would pause and try to help if he could and trust that if he fulfilled this commitment to humanity, that God would help him with the mission that was at hand.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 31

So David and his men got up early in the morning to go back to the land of the Philistines, and the Philistines went up to Jezreel. – 1 Samuel 29:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 22, 2019): 1 Samuel 29

Author Vineet Raj Kapoor asks “​Who gets to Live? You or Your Rules?” It is an interesting question. Another might be if it is possible to separate ourselves from the rules by which we live. If I am stripped of convictions, who am I? Who are you if I remove all of the things that you believe. Often, this is the essential challenge of life. The question that we are continually asked in our culture is “do we believe in the right things?” Often, I have to admit, that I am not sure of the answer. It is part of my daily struggle.

For me, what makes this situation worse is that we are besieged by people of violence that insist that there is only one way to believe and be saved. For this group, every Christian must behave and think similarly, or else we are not Christians. There are some issues where this is true. The Lordship of Jesus and the love of God are among the things that we must believe. But we have been convinced by people who want us to donate money to their cause that there is a list of other things which are also essential, and I am not convinced that that is true. Among these non-essentials are beliefs like a strict six-day creation or even some of our hot topic issues. One pastor argued that six verses in the King James Version which refer to the phrase “pisseth against the wall” (for those who doubt me, the six verses are 1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21, and 2 Kings 9:8 – KJV only) meant that Christian men should only pee standing up. If these are the rules by which we live, then these are rules that deserve to die. So, who gets to live? You or your rules?

David is in trouble. The choice that he is going to have to make is whether he and his men get to live based on whether he will sacrifice his rules and beliefs and wage war against Israel. Some have argued on the strength of verse 8 that David wanted to be part of the battle plan against Israel. But I am not convinced. It would seem to be against the essential character of David to want to wage war against Israel. If David refuses to attack Israel, then he and his men would likely be executed on the spot. If David attacks Israel, he will forfeit any moral claim to the throne that had been promised to him. The question did not lay easy on him. At this moment, there did not seem to be a right answer.

But the Holy Spirit provided a third alternative. Through no fault of David, but because of the mistrust of the other Philistine leaders, David is excused. The result is that he does not have to choose between sacrificing himself or his rules; the moral beliefs on which he had based his life. He could pretend to want to go into battle, a pretense that is excellently presented in verse 8, and still hold onto his values. Where David could not find a way out of his dilemma, God found a way.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 30

In those days the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. Achish said to David, “You must understand that you and your men will accompany me in the army.” – 1 Samuel 28:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 21, 2019): 1 Samuel 28

It is a familiar plot device. The good guy, the hero of the story, goes undercover with the villains of the tale. The infiltration is necessary. But while undercover, there comes a moment of truth. Loyalty is tested. A gun, or some device of destruction, is placed in the hands of the hero, and he is told that he has to kill someone or die himself. Sometimes, the someone to be killed is a friend or an associate. But it doesn’t matter. As soon as the hero commits the crime and takes a life, he or she had traversed across the great divide between good and evil; the hero has become the villain.

Given the decision at hand, the writers often provide an avenue of escape for the hero to take. Maybe the cavalry rides over the hill saving the hero from having to decide whether or not to kill. Or perhaps the hero decides that he can tell that there are no bullets in the gun because of the weight of the weapon, an unlikely reality considering the weight of bullet in relation to the gun and the reality that it only takes one bullet to do the job, and fires the gun at the intended victim anyway. In real life, cavalries seldom come over the hill, and our judgment of the weight of the gun is not accurate enough to save us from ruin.

David is in trouble. The first two verses of 1 Samuel 28 are slightly misplaced in our English Bibles; they really should be the last two verses of 1 Samuel 27. Achish has come to believe that David has no other loyalty than to him. David is living with the Philistines because of Saul’s campaign against his former general. But the reality of the situation is that David, regardless of the relentless attack of Saul and the many attempts of the king to kill him, is still loyal to Saul and Israel. David has told Achish that he is attacking settlements in Israel. But what David has said is just not true. For David, to attack the people of Israel is simply not an option.

Now, as the Philistines set out to battle Israel, David is going to have to prove his loyalty. In the sight of the Achish, he is going to have to live out the lie that he has been telling the Philistine King, or his false story about being an enemy of Israel is going to crash down around him. Unless something miraculous happens, by the end of this day David could be the sworn enemy of both Philistia and Israel, and the rumor will have gone out to all of the surrounding areas that David is a man who cannot be trusted.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 29

Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.” – 1 Samuel 27:12

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 20, 2019): 1 Samuel 27

Albert Einstein argued that “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” We all possess a lot of knowledge. It forms the trivia and background noise of our lives. We are all living Rolodexes, filled with numbers and information that is utterly useless unless we can also understand why the information is important.

Achish possessed knowledge. He knew that David was on the run from his own King. Achish looked at what he knew and decided that the enemy of his enemy must be his friend. But all that Achish possessed was knowledge. He was without understanding.

Part of what Achish did not understand was the level of loyalty that David lived with regarding his home and his king. When we are under attack, there are two ways that we can react. One is to return the attack on the opposition. This is our fundamental understanding of most wars. Wars are fought between two sides, and both sides have decided that the way to win the war is to go on the offensive and cause as much damage to the other as possible. Even guerilla warfare carries this understanding. The guerilla soldier emerges from the background darkness, causes damage, and then once again attempts to disappear. To win, the aim is to outpunch the other side. But that is only one way to fight a war. The second way is not to fight. Instead, go into a defensive mode. It is the way that a turtle fights, it hides within its shell, hopefully out of reach of the one who wants to cause it harm. A gopher fights by disappearing into its burrow and waits until the attacker has grown bored and has returned home.

Achish did not understand David’s loyalty or that the land of the Philistine’s had merely become the shell or the burrow in which David was hiding. David’s problem is that philosophically he could not carry the fight to Saul and his soldiers, who David considered to be his brothers. David could not attack Saul. And so, instead, he hid with Achish and waited for something to happen with Saul so that he could go home.

The reality was that David had never stopped being the enemy of Achish and the Philistines. David had also never stopped being a son of Israel. David understood that his current situation was only temporary. And that one day, no matter what Achish believed he knew, David understood that he would go home.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 28

Then Saul said, “I have sinned. Come back, David my son. Because you considered my life precious today, I will not try to harm you again. Surely I have acted like a fool and have been terribly wrong.” – 1 Samuel 26:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 19, 2019): 1 Samuel 26

Sometimes, we are wrong. It happens to all of us. The perfection of performance is not possible on this physical plane. We all act in error, we jump ahead of the information, we allow emotion to shape us, and all of this means that we can be wrong in our actions. And, despite what others might try to tell us, nothing is disqualifying about making a mistake. What excludes us is how we respond to the error.

Saul is outwardly repentant. He admits his sin and asks that David would return to him. At first glance, all that Saul says seems to be entirely appropriate. Saul’s problem is that he does not seem to believe what it is that he says. There are likely several other emotions that are floating through his mind and influencing his future action.

Tactically, Saul had responded to the news that David was in the area with overwhelming force. Saul brought his elite troops into the area and outnumbered his foe by five to one, in the hopes of delivering an overwhelming defeat to David. The problem with an overwhelming force is that it is almost impossible to hide. David knew exactly where Saul’s elite soldiers were, and David responded with underwhelming force; just two soldiers, including David. David and Abishai accomplished what the three thousand elite troops failed to do; they got close to the King and, if they had wanted to, could have killed him. It was a tactical win for David.

David surpassed the king in mercy. Saul wants to kill David. David proved, for the second time, that he was not a threat to the king. David had no desire to kill the king. His actions showed that David refused to kill Saul. It was not just the words of David that proved that he was not a threat; it was David’s actions as well. And the significance of David’s refusal to kill the King is that it struck down Saul’s assertion that David was a threat to Saul and Israel. There was no reason for the King’s to be obsessed with killing David.

David was also loyal. Saul calls him “David, my son,” but David acted more like the adopted son of Saul than Saul acted like the adopted father of David. If Saul expected loyalty, David gave it to him. But like some other powerful men, Saul may have expected loyalty, but he had no idea how to give it.

All of this meant that Saul was embarrassed. He spoke the words that he was expected to speak, but they were more like saying “I’m sorry” because he got caught. Underneath, Saul’s anger increased, and Saul wanted to kill David more than Saul ever had before. He said that he had acted the fool, but the real act was in the words that the king was speaking to his poet general. Soon Saul would once again commit himself to the task of attempting to kill David.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 27

“Please forgive your servant’s presumption. The LORD your God will certainly make a lasting dynasty for my lord, because you fight the LORD’s battles, and no wrongdoing will be found in you as long as you live. – 1 Samuel 25:28

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 18, 2019): 1 Samuel 25

Kim Jong-Un likes to call Donald Trump “Your Excellency, Mr. President.” The phrase is scattered throughout the letters that the North Korean Dictator writes to the American President. Donald Trump’s opposition likes to think that the phrase “Your Excellency” strokes Trump’s ego; after all, isn’t Donald Trump, “the man who would be King.” And it probably does stroke his ego. Others have suggested that the phrase “Your Excellency” in North Korea is merely a polite greeting given from a younger man to an older one. And maybe that is true, but that doesn’t mean that the phrase doesn’t stroke the ego of older Korean men everywhere.

What seems to be lost in the discussion is that there is nothing wrong with being polite. We seem to struggle with the thought. Maybe the problem is something that is fundamental with our culture, which seems to prize youth over wisdom and outward beauty over inward substance. Somewhere, we have forgotten that we can treat each other with respect, even if the respect of another culture seems over the top to us.

Abigail recognizes that a man of great power has entered the lives of her and her husband. And she also acknowledges that her husband is an insulting a man. And when a rude man encounters power, nothing good usually results. So Abigail takes it upon herself to go out and heal the wound that her husband has inflicted on David. She brings him food and offers him her apologies. She uses flowery and over the top speech. Abigail is polite.

There is evidence in her words that she knows at least some of the story of David. And maybe that should not be too surprising. David was not an unknown in Israel. It was the General’s popularity with the people that had turned Saul against him. And now all of Israel likely held their breath as the King and the Poet faced off against each other. And so Abigail greets David using phrasing that she knew David would like to hear. She stroked the ego of the persecuted General.

There is a temptation to describe Abigail’s words as a prophecy. After all, we know the rest of the story. God was about to make the House of David a lasting dynasty. David would fight the battles for God. (Although to say that there would be no wrongdoing found in David the rest of his life is not right. David was not perfect. What made David special was that he was a man who kept short lists. When David failed, and he did fail, he seldom tried to excuse his failings. Instead, he quickly asked God for forgiveness and was ready to move on and do better the next time.) But if this was a prophecy, it was an accidental one. All Abigail was trying to do was be polite to David, to make up for the rudeness of her husband, and hopefully rescue her home from the danger to which her husband had left it exposed. Nothing more was on her mind. Abigail was just calling David “Your Excellency.” And in her mind, and Kim Jung-Un’s mind, it really didn’t matter if it was true. It was a polite way to speak to power.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 26

He came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were far back in the cave. – 1 Samuel 24:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 17, 2019): 1 Samuel 24

Once upon a time, there were two men who went to two different churches. Eventually, the two men got into an argument over which of their churches were the best. One church was more structured than the other. One worshipped traditionally while the other used more contemporary worship elements. The argument went on for a while over many aspects of the church, before the less structured of the two charged the other that “The Holy Spirit has no authority to move in your church unless it is scheduled into the worship order.” The reply was swift. “The Holy Spirit can move in our church any time he wishes, as long as he doesn’t do anything weird.” Unfortunately, it seems that whenever the Holy Spirit moves, it tends to get weird.

One of the most significant problems that exist within the contemporary church is that we are essentially a group of people who are just going through the motions. We believe, but we have no expectation. We fulfill the ritual, we attend services, some of us are faithful in our prayers before meals and bed, but we don’t expect God to come and do something in our midst. We are still afraid of the weird. And so God fulfills our expectation and seems to stay away from our lives and our gatherings. Our lack of expectation saves us from God doing anything weird in our midst.

Saul is searching for David. He is searching, but he is not finding. Finally, word comes to him that David is in the Wilderness of the En Gedi, or more literally “Ein Gedi,” located just west of the Dead Sea. The word desert, used here, is a little misleading. Ein Gedi is a spring. “Ein” means spring and “Gedi” means goat-kid, leaving us with the “Spring of the Kid.” The spring provides an oasis in the desert, which extends through a valley where a river flows. In ancient times, it was a perfect place for keeping animals, such as sheep. The valley also possesses some large caves, some of which are very hard to get to unless you happen to be a mountain goat.

Saul stumbles upon one of these caves. The cave was big and was being used to house a large number of sheep. Saul has come to the Wilderness of the En Gedi searching for David. The caves, especially the large ones, are perfect hiding places for David and his men. But Saul seems to have no expectation of actually finding David. And so he doesn’t. Saul needs to relieve himself. A cave, full of sheep, appears to be the perfect place, and so Saul excuses himself and goes inside the cave. His men stay outside, giving Saul a moment of privacy to go about his business.

Every time I read this story I am amazed. Maybe we can blame it on the youth of the men who are guarding Saul and joining him in his search for David but, apparently, none of his soldiers seem to be expecting to find David either. And no one thinks to ask the King to wait outside while they check and make sure the cave is empty.

The cave is not empty. The one the King is searching for is hiding inside. The oversight seems to be an unforgivable mistake. But the King of Israel walks into the cave alone for a meeting with David and his men, and he has no idea that they are even there.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 25

Let evil recoil on those who slander me; in your faithfulness destroy them. – Psalm 54:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (March 16, 2019): Psalm 54

It is a childhood chant, heard on almost every schoolyard in existence. “I'm rubber, and you're glue; your words bounce off me and stick to you.” It is the hope of every child. You can’t hurt me. Your words do nothing but reflect who you are. But we also know that the words are also just an attempt to ward off the pain that is being inflicted by another; and a distant hope that things will get better in the future.

The ability to reflect the force of the attacker back onto the one who is pressing the attack might be one of the most coveted, and yet underused, superpowers in the Comic Book universe. In science fiction, the concept is fondly remembered from the “Star Trek: The Original Series” episode “The Corbomite Maneuver.” To be clear, “The Corbomite Maneuver” in Star Trek was nothing more than a Captain Kirk bluff when everything else seemed to be going wrong. You can almost hear the words “I’m rubber, and you’re glue” emanating from James T. Kirk as he attempts to save his ship. “The Corbomite Maneuver” is just a schoolyard bluff, but still, it would be an impressive ability to possess, or shield to invent.

Long before comic books and the Star Trek, the ability to implement “The Corbomite Maneuver” seems to be the exact superpower that David wishes that he possessed. His prayer is not that God would give him superior power to defeat his enemies, but instead that God would reflect the attack back onto the attacker. He hopes that the evil that his enemies try to do to him will stick, instead, to the ones attacking him.

David believes that this was not his battle And Saul was not really his enemy. He never considered it his job to defeat Saul. In David’s mind, Saul was the anointed of God, and he would not lift his hand against him. Saul was God’s problem. And in the end, Saul could only be removed by the hand of God. David seems to understand that the evil that Saul acted with was the problem. And David refused to act with the same kind of evil that had become characteristic of the king. If evil was going to be visited on Saul, it had to be the evil that Saul also initiated.

And in the midst of all of this, David’s faith is that God will keep him safe. He does not need to bluff; his life was safely in the hands of God. And David needed to know nothing more. Charles Spurgeon writes that “David lived a life of dangers and hair-breadth ‘scapes, yet was he always safe.”

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 24