Ancient history is full of stories of champions facing off in battle. Most of us are familiar with the story of David and Goliath. The terms of the conflict shouted out by the Giant, Goliath were, "Choose one man to come down here and fight me! If he kills me, then we will be your slaves. But if I kill him, you will be our slaves!" (1 Samuel 17:8-9)
No wonder Saul and his soldiers cowered in fear. Not only was the nine foot giant almost sure to grind any combatant into the dust, but the dying act of Goliath's hapless opponent would be to enslave his own people by his defeat.
The words of Goliath were not merely those of a huge guy with a correspondingly big mouth. The contract Goliath proposed and the worldview of many--almost certainly the Philistines--was that contests like this had consequences far beyond the two combatants. It was as if the gods saw to it that the right contestant would win, or they threw their celestial power behind the mortal who did win. The Jews should have known better, but many likely didn't.
 There were no swords or slings involved, but I watched two men in combat last night. Let me return to the Biblical scene for a moment. Why should the Israelites have acceded to Goliath's rules--apparently the Philistines had no intention of doing so. In the words of countless five year olds, "You're not the boss of me." Now, I return to last night, and this morning. All over the TV, and the internet folk are trying to prove, "My guy won." Does it really matter? Do we really know that the guy who most effectively crammed facts, the one who has the best "in your face" style, the one who swings the sword of "truth" (please note the "") most effectively, or the guy who's "gotcha" stone found the forehead of his opponent, would really be the best president?
Like the Jews assembled on their side of the Valley of Elah, we should know better, but do we?
It's STTA.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment