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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

"He asked me, 'Who are you?'

"'An Amalekite,' I answered.

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

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

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

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 2 Samuel 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 29

So David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to Achish son of Maok king of Gath. – 1 Samuel 27:2

Today's Scripture Reading (June 13, 2025): 1 Samuel 27

I had always been taught that you never hit a girl. This law was Imprinted on my conscience and my concept of right and wrong. Too many things could be seriously hurt if you hit the wrong spot. It is something I understood in elementary school, and it remains a belief I hold today. A friend recently was struck by her husband, and it was this strong belief that came rushing back to the forefront of my mind. You just don't do it, regardless of the situation or anything else. There is never an acceptable excuse for hitting a girl.

I also recognize that I am large; I always have been, and I have always worried about the damage I could cause in a fight. As a result, I have always tried to avoid fights, regardless of whether it was a boy or a girl who wanted to fight me.

Enter my nemesis. I have no idea what her name was, so let's call her Susan. For a short time, Susan lived a few houses down the street from where I lived. Susan was tall, taller than most boys our age, although we were of about equal height. And she was strong. For a short time, we attended the same school. Oh, and one more thing: Susan didn't like me. I never knew what my elementary school self did to cause her ire, but she seemed to hate me from the moment we met.

Susan was also very physical. Her dislike for me didn't stop with her calling me names; it also extended to her actions. She intended to beat me up physically. And so, my defense was to try not to be where she was. That worked until one afternoon when we met in the schoolyard. Susan didn't waste any time. She was on me as soon as she saw me. What do you do when you are taught not to hit a girl but when the girl has no hesitation about hitting a boy? I turtled, trying to protect myself, while she punched and kicked me. Luckily, some friends saw what was happening and quickly intervened in the one-sided fight, holding the girl until she had cooled down a little and stomped off home. I survived the fight, and I was able to tell the story.

I have often thought that David found himself in a more deadly version of the conflict that existed between me and Susan. David was not going to harm Saul, but Saul was not afraid of hurting David. In fact, Saul intended to kill his former General. Regardless of how hard and fast David and his men ran, eventually, they would run out of luck and have to meet the king in battle. When that happened, David would have likely be forced to make a choice he didn't want to make; either he would kill Saul and live or allow Saul to attain his goal by killing him.

So, David chooses a third option (there is always another option). He was going to leave Israel. For a while, he would live among the Philistines. David would begin this period in his life by making a treaty with Achish, son of Maok, king of Gath.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 28

Saul recognized David's voice and said, "Is that your voice, David my son?" David replied, "Yes it is, my lord the king." – 1 Samuel 26:17

Today's Scripture Reading (June 12, 2025): 1 Samuel 26

Many years ago, I received an emergency call on a Sunday night. Back then, there were two distinct services every Sunday: two copies of the same service in the morning and a completely unique service in the evening. I received the call just as the Sunday evening experience drew to a close. Some key people in the congregation needed my help at their daughter's home as soon as I could get there. I remember it clearly, partially because it was my birthday, and I knew my wife had hoped for some family time after the evening service.

I told my wife I had been called out and, being a good Pastor's wife, she accepted the reality that the evening was not going to be what we had hoped, and I went to my car with a promise to let her know what was going on as soon as I could.

What happened next was an extremely unusual experience. I arrived at the daughter's home with most of the family present. And inside, the daughter was experiencing, at best, a mental breakdown or, at worst, was possessed by an evil spirit. I admit, theologically, I acknowledge the reality of possession; however, it is not something with which I have a lot of experience.

The daughter seemed to be bouncing between moments of semi-lucidity and utter madness. Sometimes, she was quiet, but at other times she was violent. Sometimes, she made sense; in other moments, it was like speaking a different language. I was trying to make my assessment and found myself bouncing around several possibilities. However, one thing I was sure of was that we needed to make a trip to the local emergency department. I convinced the family of this course of action and loaded mom and daughter in the back of my car while I climbed into the driver's seat.

On the way to the hospital, I conversed with the daughter. An eery voice came from the back seat. "I know who you are." The words were spoken almost with a growl. The daughter and I had never been close, but we did know each other.

I responded as I drove. "I know you do. The question is, 'Do I know you?'"

Silence greeted my question. And then another question: "Where are you taking me?" Mom tried to answer her daughter, but I knew the question was intended for me. This time, it was my turn to choose to be silent. Then, a moment of lucidity seemed to return, and a quiet conversation began between mother and daughter.

The Bible argues that an evil spirit had taken up residence inside Saul. And that might be true, or it might have been a psychological break due to the increasing pressure under which Saul lived and ruled. I don't want to eliminate either possibility. But whatever Saul's circumstances were, the reality was that Saul, like my friend, could either be violent or lucid. At this moment, it was lucidity that won the moment. He asks if the voice he heard was David, calling him "my son." David answers similarly, calling Saul "his lord the king." And in this moment, as David had in similar moments, the humility with which David reacts is remarkable. David knew that in almost every situation with Saul, he had been in the right, yet he never pumps himself up and declares his superiority. Maybe he knew that wasn't going to get him anywhere. He is content to serve Saul if the King would let him. I am convinced that, in his lucid moments, Saul was aware of that reality. But something, either a demon or a psychological problem, kept raising its head and forcing Saul in a direction that even Saul knew was wrong. 

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 27

One of the servants told Abigail, Nabal's wife, "David sent messengers from the wilderness to give our master his greetings, but he hurled insults at them. – 1 Samuel 25:14

Today's Scripture Reading (June 11, 2025): 1 Samuel 25

I was recently at a business establishment when I encountered a man helping an older woman, likely his mom, who was struggling to get around. The business I was leaving had a double-door system, and one gentleman decided to hold the outer door for this man and the older lady. She was moving relatively slowly, even with the help of her son, so arriving at the outer door was not a swift process. I was at the inner door, and I could have slipped through the outer door long before the woman arrived, but I decided I would wait and hold the inner door. Just a note: there was a button that would have held both doors automatically, although I am not sure they would have held the doors long enough for this woman to enter; sometimes, a human touch is needed. The son thanked the person on the outer door and then addressed me on the inner door. He commented, "Well, we are still Canadian; we still care for each other." I smiled and commented, "We aren't the fifty-first state yet," with as big a smile as I could muster (with apologies to all of my American readers. Please understand, this is not about you.) The gentleman holding the outer door smiled and said to me, "Hey, I'm already here; I might as well hold it for you, too." It was an interesting exchange. And it was good to know that we really do care for each other. That is not to imply that people from other places don't take care of each other. This idea about the compassion we have for each other is a critical part of what it means to live in a civilized nation, whether that nation is located in North America, Europe, or other places on our globe.

A social media post a few weeks ago declared that there was an island over which Canada and Denmark were in dispute. This arctic island has been the site of a fifty-year "Whisky War." The war's name is derived from the weapons used by the two nations as they fought over the uninhabited island. The conflict involved one side coming to the island, removing the flag of the opposing nation, and leaving the combatant's flag. It also involved a trade of liquor. Denmark would leave a bottle of Danish Schnapps for the Canadians, and the Canadians would leave a bottle of Canadian Whisky. Unfortunately, I can't believe I am writing that word about a war, and despite the point made by the social media post, the "Whisky War" on Han Island actually ended in 2022 when Canada and Denmark agreed to divide the one and a half square kilometer Island down the middle. The social media post proclaimed this is how civilized countries wage war.  

David's men approached a ranch owner named Nabal, hoping for some support. The hope is based on the service David had provided Nabal by ensuring nothing bothered his sheep and the shepherds in Nabal employ who were charged with caring for the sheep. The shepherds had enjoyed such favor that they had tried to stay close to David and his men. David hadn't minded lending Nabal's shepherds a hand, but he hoped his boss would be willing to return the favor.

However, not only was Nabal unwilling to help David, he decided to respond with insults. The word we have translated as insult means "to treat with contemptuous language." One shepherd didn't believe that David's men deserved the contemptuous response or that the soldiers were likely to respond positively to Nabal's insulting words. So he goes to Abigail, Nabal's wife, with the story of what happened before David responded. His hope might have been that she could talk sense to Nabal before David responded. Unfortunately, Nabal was not a man whose opinion could be easily swayed.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 26

As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you. – 1 Samuel 24:13

Today's Scripture Reading (June 10, 2025): 1 Samuel 24

Hesiod, one of the earliest Greek philosophers and active sometime between 750 and 650 B.C.E., asserted, "The man who does evil to another does evil to himself, and the evil counsel is most evil for him who counsels it" (Hesiod). It is a warning to all who would contemplate hurting others. According to Hesiod, not only will evil be visited on the victim, but it will also be placed on the perpetrator, and the one who is most evil is the one who suggests that an evil path should be followed. That person is truly evil.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) agreed, saying, "Wickedness and injustice are intentional." We aren't accidentally wicked, nor do we inadvertently cause injustice. We mean to do it because something is wrong inside us. It is who we are.

But even in 750 B.C.E., this was not exactly a new thought. Almost three centuries before Hesiod, David quotes from a proverb arguing that it is from evildoers that evil deeds are produced. Or maybe a better way of saying it is that we can be defined by what we produce, not what we intend to produce.

Jesus agreed with all three of these philosophers. In the last part of his "Sermon on the Mount," Jesus includes this warning.

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them (Matthew 7:15-20).

David argues that while others might accuse him of doing evil, even the king has to admit that David has done nothing to harm him. It wasn't that he didn't have the opportunity, because he did. But he knew that Saul was the anointed of God, and he would not raise a weapon or cause any harm to God's anointed. Nor would he counsel anyone to cause injury to Saul. As much as Saul men might have wanted to kill the current King as Saul chased them through the hills and deserts of Israel, David would not allow that to be done. If he did allow evil, that would mean that David was part of the problem. And that David had made the choice not to be.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 25

You have delivered me from all my troubles, and my eyes have looked in triumph on my foes. – Psalm 54:7

Today's Scripture Reading (June 9, 2025): Psalm 54

I am not sure if this is a weird response, but in the Star Trek Universe, I get Captain Jon Luc Picard's (a fictional character played by Patrick Stewart) idea of a vacation. The Enterprise Captain seems to have to be forced into them, but when he finally takes a vacation, he often finds someplace pleasant just to sit and read. His friends frequently seem to urge him to do some other things, something more exciting, but all Picard needs is a book, although he also always seems to be drawn into an adventure of some sort. I mean, it wouldn't be much of a television episode if all we got to do was sit and watch Picard read a book. However, I understand the desire.

Every summer I take some time and go away. I am admittedly an introvert, so a favorite activity is to find a beach somewhere and sit with a good book, or a few good books. I am not looking for activities or friends with whom I can share a meal (not that I would turn down the opportunity). I want to go somewhere where no one knows me, and I can sit and spend some time with a good book. I am lucky that I married someone who understands my idea of a vacation and is willing to come and sit beside me with a book of her own.

David goes to Ziph, a town in the Judean mountains, South-east of Hebron, just needing to get away. He may not have been looking for a beach and a book, but he was looking for a place to relax, if only for a little while. In the mountains, he hoped that he would be an unknown and that he and his men could let down their guard and relax.

Unfortunately, his break would not be a long one, as some of the inhabitants of Ziph recognized David, and they went to Saul to tell him that David was hiding in the wilderness close to the town. So, once again, David and his men must get back on the run.

The inscription to the Psalm reads, "When the Ziphites had gone to Saul and said, 'Is not David hiding among us?'" What I am unsure of is when the Psalm was written. Was it after Saul's pursuit had been cut off because his attention was needed to defend the nation from the Philistines, or was it amid the danger of Saul's pursuit? Did David wait until after his narrow escape to praise, or is this expression of deliverance a down payment, a memory of all the times that God had come to his aid in the past? I don't know the answer, but I admit that part of me thinks that the escape hadn't happened, not yet. This last verse is a statement of faith, a reminder of all of the other times God had come to his rescue, and because of those times, David knew that God would come to his defense once again.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 24

A messenger came to Saul, saying, "Come quickly! The Philistines are raiding the land." – 1 Samuel 23:27

Today's Scripture Reading (June 8, 2025): 1 Samuel 23

Almost all of us live with finite resources. What that means is that we don't have the resources to complete everything we might want to accomplish. I think that is something that we have lost sight of as a nation. We seem to believe that if it is good, we will find the money needed to do that good thing. But that is not always true. Sometimes we just don't have the resources we need to do everything that is good. And cuts are going to have to be made somewhere.

I recently read an article asking whether it was possible to live on what the government is willing to give us during our retirement years. The answer was yes, but with severe limitations and downsizing. What the article refused to do was to tell the reader some of the things that might have to be cut. I understand the reticence. Anything that might be suggested to be cut might be considered essential, yet the truth is that to survive on that amount of money might require doing without some of what we might think are essentials. Fair? Probably not. But we live in a finite world. Everyone might not have to choose between feeding themselves or feeding their dog, but that is a choice you might have to make on a substantially lower income. In fact, and this will not make me any friends, I believe that pets are quickly becoming a hobby reserved for the rich. Between food, the damage caused by our furry friends, and the medical issues they bring with them, you must have significant resources to care for them properly, or be willing to cut back on many other essentials from your life.

It is a lesson that Saul is forced to learn. We need to understand that Saul believed that David was a significant threat to his throne and the nation as a whole. But the Philistines were also a threat. So, as Saul receives this message that the Philistines were raiding Israel, Saul is given a choice. Saul is faced with two essential tasks: to capture and deal with David and to protect the land from the Philistines, who had been an almost continual thorn in the nation's side. The problem is that Saul has finite resources. Regardless of how much he might want to, he can't accomplish both goals. It isn't that one task is unimportant, because that is not true. However,  Saul does not have the resources needed to do both things.

Saul has to choose between two essentials. It won't be easy, but it will be necessary. And it will likely be a painful choice for Saul, just as similar decisions are painful for us.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Psalm 54

I cry to you, LORD; I say, "You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living. – Psalm 142:5

Today's Scripture Reading (June 7, 2025): Psalm 142

Macho. In the English language, the use of the word seems to have arisen from the Spanish "macho" in 1928, almost a hundred years ago. The Spanish word simply indicates a male animal. For most of the word's English history, it has been used in a derogatory manner, describing something overtly or overly male. But there have been moments when the word was used positively. The Village People had a hit with a song entitled "Macho Man" in 1977. I am still unsure how "tongue in cheek" the song might have been intended to be, but the chorus just repeats two lines, "Macho, macho man, I gotta be a macho man." The band apparently formed from an advertisement in a newspaper that read, "Macho types wanted: must dance and have a moustache." Randy Jones, the original Village People Cowboy, remembers the genesis of the band and the song.

"The Monday after Thanksgiving (1977), we signed contracts and the Tuesday after, we were in studio recording "Macho Man", with Victor Willis' handwritten lyrics that were written in the morning with egg stains and coffee rings on it. Everything was happening that quickly" (Randy Jones).

Professional wrestling had its own "Macho Man." Randy Savage (1952-2011) used the nickname during his career, again profiling the word "Macho" in a positive way. I think what I remember most about Savage is his distinctive and aggressive voice and posture in media interviews, maybe stressing the "machoness" of his personality.

I am not a “Macho Man.” And neither was David. As he writes this Psalm, there is an honesty that many ancient Kings might have pushed back against, or at least revive during better times. David admits that as he hides from Saul in that cave, he has no macho left in him. He has run out of himself and can only rely on the goodness of his God.

However, while David does not claim to be a "Macho Man" in this Psalm, he does some macho things while he hides in that cave. Samuel tells that story.

He (Saul) 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. The men said, "This is the day the Lord spoke of when he said to you, 'I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish.'" Then David crept up unnoticed and cut off a corner of Saul's robe (1 Samuel 24:3-4).

And then David felt guilty for doing such a thing to the sitting King. David's reality is that when he acted with courage like he did in that cave, or even when he stood as a child in front of a Giant, it wasn't the courage of a "Macho Man" that resided in him, but the courage that belonged entirely to David's God.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 23

He sends from heaven and saves me, rebuking those who hotly pursue me—God sends forth his love and his faithfulness. – Psalm 57:3

Today's Scripture Reading (June 6, 2025): Psalm 57

One of the struggles we often have with the Bible is that it describes things in terms that we understand, and at the same time, we don't understand. We might have a description of something, but at the same time, we see something other than what the describer wants us to see. When I counsel people, often one of the most significant difficulties is taking the words and stripping them of their acquired meaning. It is part of the problem of the human condition. We speak, but too often the words we use mean something else to me than they might to you. It makes communication inexact, and we frequently need to explore what we mean.

A good example might be our beliefs around the concept of God as Father. I have a great relationship with my Dad, but that isn't always true. As a result of our experiences, our expectation of God can differ because of our emotional experiences with our own Fathers. The Bible describes God as Father, and we react negatively because we have a bad model of a Father. Guys, sometimes we haven't stepped up.

I listened to Louie Giglio preach about God as Father a decade ago. He preached for about half an hour, and then he brought his worship leader up because I guess the worship leader had some connection with the idea of God as Father. Giglio introduces his worship leader as Matt (in this case, it was Matt Redman). Matt starts to tell Chris Tomlin jokes; Chris Tomlin is so small that his passport picture is life-size. Chris Tomlin is so short that he can swing his legs when he sits on the curb.

But then Matt started to talk about his image of Dad. As an older child, Matt's birth Dad died suddenly. Later, Matt would learn that his Dad had committed suicide. As a result of Dad's death, Matt struggled with all of the baggage and feelings of abandonment that his death brought.

Next in line was another Dad, who did some things differently. This Dad was a teacher and involved not only with his kids at home but also in school, and not in a good way. In fact, he spent some time in jail because of his involvement. As I'm listening to Matt speak, I am thinking, how does all this affect your view of God, the Father? I also find myself singing a song that Matt wrote.

I have heard so many songs, listened to a thousand tongues

But there is one that sounds above them all

The Father's Song, the Father's love. You sung it over me and for

Eternity it's written on my heart.

And inside me, I am asking this question: How do you get from your Father to this Father God? I know the answer; it takes a Selah moment. A moment when we pause and realize that the description of God is not about reflecting the image of our Father, or even magnifying our image of Father, but perfecting our image of Father.

David says that he knows that God has sent salvation from heaven. He may not use the word, but he knows that God is the Father who reacts with love and faithfulness just as a Father should.

I get to this portion of the Psalm, and I know that I need a break to understand God's love and faithfulness because that is not the reality of where I live. I suspect it is not your reality either. I don't think David felt God's love and faithfulness as he stood in the cave with Saul going to the bathroom above him, not knowing he was there. David writes these words knowing this isn't about existing in the imperfect reflection of love and faithfulness that permeates this world; it is about me existing in the perfection of love and faithfulness. The world's message is this: You will not find it here if you expect to live in God's love and faithfulness, not in this world. We reply that we have experienced a selah, a pause to reset our expectations. We have broken with the world's expectations, and we know our relationship with Jesus will impact our reality positively and in opposition to the image of reality we receive in this world.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Psalm 142

Ahimelek inquired of the LORD for him; he also gave him provisions and the sword of Goliath the Philistine. – 1 Samuel 22:10

Today's Scripture Reading (June 5, 2025): 1 Samuel 22

The sword of Goliath was no doubt a significant artifact in ancient Israel. It symbolized the unexpected outcome between the Philistine Giant and a shepherd child from Israel. The whole story, on so many levels, was a shock. Maybe it wasn't a shock that a child with faith in God would think he could take on a giant. I remember such fantasies I had as a child, usually overestimating my ability. What was shocking was that anyone, including Saul, would let the young David go up against the giant. Somewhere, there must have been an adult who would have said, "This isn't right and the child should be restrained for his own good." But the child wasn't restrained; he fought the giant and won. And then, the child gathered up the sword and armor of the giant and took it home. All of what he had gathered was useless to him. If Saul's armor had been too big for the child, as the story tells us, then Goliath's armor and sword would have been much too big. None of it was of any use.  

Fast forward and somehow this artifact finds its way from David's traditional home to the Tabernacle in Nob. I am still unsure how or why the sword made that journey, but it did, and as David goes to Nob to get provisions and any weapons that might be available, he discovers that the sword was there. And so, David declares that there is no sword like it, and takes it with him. But there is still a problem. If this was Goliath's sword, and there is no reason to doubt that assessment, after all, David would know if it was the sword or not; it wouldn't have shrunk. Yes, David had grown, but not enough to make this sword of the appropriate size. It might have made a great ceremonial weapon, but it would have been relatively worthless in battle. It would have been simply too hard to wield.

So, why did David take the sword? I have a theory. David didn't want it to be used in battle. He wanted to remind his soldiers that children could sometimes defeat giants; sometimes, the underdog wins. If I can make this assertion, the underdog wins more than just sometimes in God's realm. The victory of the weak over the strong almost becomes the expected result.

Unfortunately, Saul's chief shepherd, Doeg the Edomite, was in Nob at the same time as David. Doeg was able to return to Saul with an accusation against David and the priests of Nob. Not only is he setting himself up for a promotion within Saul's officials, but he was able to deflect any blame that might have fallen on him and his staff and direct it toward the priests at Nob.

The extent of what Doeg was willing to do to get the approval of Saul is told a little later in the story.

The king then ordered Doeg, "You turn and strike down the priests." So Doeg the Edomite turned and struck them down. That day he killed eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod. He also put to the sword Nob, the town of the priests, with its men and women, its children and infants, and its cattle, donkeys and sheep (1 Samuel 22:18-19).

Sometimes the weak and the good win, but occasionally evil prevails. And on this day, there was no end to the evil done at Saul's command over the weak living and working at Nob.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Psalm 57