Member-only story
I recently viewed auteur Ed Zwick’s fine 2003 film offering, “The Last Samurai,” again. The character played by actor Tom Cruise, American Nathan Algren, was based at least somewhat on the historic Frenchman, Jules Brunet (1838–1911).
This is not intended to be a review of that film nor a spoiler alert but, as the film approached its terminus the thought came to me: Why aren’t more conflicts resolved in the manner in which David fought Goliath?
To refresh your memory, whether you believe this actually happened, or belongs in the canon of folklore, the message is similar.
As recorded in I Samuel 17 of Holy Writ, the Philistine and Israelite armies were encamped on two ridges, a valley separating the two adversaries.
For 40 days, Goliath, probably the largest Philistine (a freak of nature at least 9 feet tall, and apparently of proportionate build), stood on his ridge and challenged the Israelites to a duel, a fight to the death.
Mano a mano.
The best of the Israelites against the Philistine’s best: himself.
If the Philistines prevailed, they would be the victors.
If, perchance, the Israelites, won, they would prevail and the Philistines would serve them.
