Friday, July 12<\/b><\/p>\n
First Samuel 28: Moving from the Philistines to the Israelites, this chapter tells of the two opposing kings. It opens with an impending crisis and goes on to narrate how each man prepares for the coming battle. <\/p>\n
The author continues, first, to elaborate the complicated relationship between David and the Philistine king. The latter, having grown suspicious (it seems) of David\u2019s activities and his motives, makes him and his small band the royal bodyguard. While appointment to this service is certainly a mark of confidence on the king\u2019s part, it also has the effect of keeping David close to court, the better to keep track of his activities.<\/p>\n
Now the king sees an opportunity—in the impending battle—to test the loyalty of David. He determines that the latter\u2019s small force should play a prominent role in the fight. David, learning this, responds with a cautious ambivalence. \u201cWell,\u201d he says, \u201cyou will certainly learn what I am capable of.\u201d<\/p>\n
This brief conversation is followed by a second notice of the death of Samuel, inserted here to introduce the main event of the chapter—Saul\u2019s meeting with the witch at Endor.<\/p>\n
Saul, apprehensive about the coming conflict, covets some preternatural guidance with respect to its outcome. Such consultations were hardly unknown in antiquity. We recall, for instance, that Croesus of Lydia, who contemplated war with the Persians, consulted the oracles at both Thebes and Delphi. <\/p>\n
Alas for Saul, however, Israel\u2019s most recent valid \u201coracle,\u201d Samuel, was dead, and Saul\u2019s grievous mistreatment of the priests makes priestly consultation an improbable choice.<\/p>\n
Moreover, Saul himself has purged the land of sorcerers, soothsayers, and other necromantic media. There is, in short, a shortage of witches! The author appreciates the irony of Saul\u2019s situation: For some time an evil spirit has held sway over the imagination and mind of the king, clouding his thought and prompting him to act irrationally. Now, however, in order to seek further light, the king will go to another dark source. <\/p>\n
The writings of the Old Testament, composed over several centuries, are not of one mind with respect to an afterlife for the dead. In general, the dead are treated as though they were no longer living; they were simply inaccessible to contact from this earth. In some sources, nonetheless, they seem to be shadowy figures, resembling the spirits of the dead in the Odyssey<\/i>. The Torah<\/i> proscribes all attempts to reach them, commanding capital punishment for those who make the effort. Thus, Saul is about to violate the very injunction (from Leviticus) he had enforced. <\/p>\n
Saul\u2019s assumption of a disguise advances an ongoing theme of the book: Saul\u2019s gradual loss of his regal clothes. Already we have seen him naked, dancing among the dervishes, and recently David has cut off part of his garment. Now, he puts aside the royal raiment and dons the guise of a commoner. <\/p>\n
Because the witch herself suspects a trap, Saul assures her with an oath. When the ghost of Samuel appears in his prophetic robe, nonetheless, the witch knows Saul has deceived her. She screams, and Saul repeats his oath not to punish her. <\/p>\n
Samuel wears the very coat torn by Saul at an earlier meeting. For Saul, this is not a good sign. Nor are Saul\u2019s first words very encouraging: \u201cWhy have you awakened me?\u201d Samuel then repeats the dire prediction he gave to Saul years before: He will lose the kingdom. God has already determined it. Tomorrow, says Samuel, you and your sons will join me in the realm of the dead.<\/p>\n
There ensues the poignant story of the witch feeding Saul his last meal.<\/p>\n
Saturday, July 13<\/b><\/p>\n
First Samuel 29: Leaving the night scene of the previous chapter, the narrative moves backwards to an incident of the previous day, the time when we last read of David and the Philistines.<\/p>\n
Twice in this sequence, in fact, the narrator finds an advantage in moving backwards in time, as he shifts the story from one camp to the other. In the present place, the insertion of the story of the witch serves to provide a narrative space between David\u2019s two meetings with the Philistine king (28:1-2 and 29:6-9). In the next instance, the battle with the Amalekites, which occurs after<\/i> the Battle of Gilboah (\u201cwhen David and his men came to Ziklag, on the third day\u201d\u201430:1), is told first, so that the Battle of Mount Gilboah holds the properly climactic position in the narrative.<\/p>\n
The Philistine king, who had planned to use David\u2019s force in the coming battle, finds no support among the other commanders. Recalling his earlier service to Israel, they simply do not trust this self-alleged Israelite rebel; they suspect he will turn on them in the coming battle. The king, embarrassed by this circumstance, asks David and his men to withdraw from the field and go back to Philistia.<\/p>\n
A scene of complaint and remonstration ensues, David and the Philistine king each protesting his lack of responsibility in the circumstances.<\/p>\n
It seems strange that the Philistine king, swearing his friendship to David, should invoke Israel\u2019s God; \u201cSurely, as the Lord lives . . .\u201d Although David once again professes his loyalty to the king, he must surely feel relieved that Divine Providence—using the Philistine commanders as historical instruments—is setting him free from a difficult situation. More than one reader has observed that the words chosen by David refer to his loyalty to \u201cmy lord the king.\u201d Just what king does David have in mind? Is this choice of words deliberately multivalent? And just who are the \u201cenemies\u201d to whom David refers? The answer to the first question determines the answer to the second. David does not clarify. <\/p>\n
We observe the contrast of night and day: Just after Saul\u2019s midnight meal at the residence of the witch, \u201cDavid and his men rose early to depart in the morning, to return to the land of the Philistines.\u201d This is the morning of the battle; the other incidents in the chapter took place the previous day.<\/p>\n
The development in this chapter serves two narrative purposes: First, it liberates David from a difficult situation in the coming battle. Second, it places him in a position to advance the cause against his enemies. The Amalekites, taking advantage of the absence of the Philistine army, are determined to do a bit of mischief, as we shall see in the next chapter.<\/p>\n
Sunday, July 14<\/b><\/p>\n
First Samuel 30: David and his men, not yet informed about the outcome of the Battle of Mount Gilboah, return to their earlier base on the southeastern edge of Philistine territory. They arrive on the third day. <\/p>\n
This story also serves the apologetic purpose of putting a great distance between David and the death of Saul. David could never be blamed for it, because he was far away. <\/p>\n
David\u2019s company discovers that the Amalekites, in their absence, have attacked and destroyed Ziklag, where they had left their families and property. <\/p>\n
Since Ziklag was taken in the absence of David\u2019s band, there was no real battle. Consequently, there were no deaths in the attack; all the prisoners are still alive. The prisoners have become—like Joseph of old—prisoners of Amalekite slave-traders.<\/p>\n
As for David, he genuinely fears that his men, discovering that their families have been abducted, are going to take some revenge of him; it was his idea, after all, to be away from Ziklag these past several days. The author\u2019s inclusion of this detail of David\u2019s fear indicates how precarious his situation has been over the past fourteen months. His handful of followers has given up a lot on his behalf. They are desperate men, and they have their limits. David fears those limits may have been trespassed by this recent catastrophe at Ziklag. The author comments on David\u2019s spiritual attitude in this crisis: \u201cDavid strengthened himself in the Lord his God.\u201d<\/p>\n
In David\u2019s consultation with the priestly oracular ministry, there is a clear contrast between him and Saul. Whereas the latter has just been reduced to seeking counsel from a dark source, David has the advantage of a priest, Abiathar, in his camp, and from this priest he seeks guidance in the present calamity. Abiathar reassures him. <\/p>\n
On their way to rescue their families, David and his men find an abandoned Egyptian, who provides information helpful to their cause. Using this information, they quickly discover the raiders, spread out and insouciant to danger. Since four hundred of them will escape David\u2019s surprise attack, their number is apparently large. Gorging themselves with food, however, and having too much to drink, they are no match for David\u2019s enraged band descending on their camp without warning.<\/p>\n
The booty taken by David includes not only the spoils absconded from Ziklag but also the material the raiders have taken from other adventures in the region. All of this material belongs to the Israelites as the rewards of war.<\/p>\n
Those who have accompanied David all the way, however, are reluctant to share the booty with the exhausted men who stayed behind. David, who perceives that the recent success represents, not simply human effort, but the generosity of God—what the Lord has given us—insists on a corresponding generosity among his men. <\/p>\n
In such a adjudication, the reader perceives that David is more than a brave and skillful warrior; he is also the sort of humane leader Israel will now need, for Saul (as we presently see) has just perished on a battlefield further north.<\/p>\n
Monday, July 15<\/b><\/p>\n
First Samuel 31: The narrator now turns north and east, to Mount Gilboah, where the Philistines are engaged in a great victory over the forces of Saul.<\/p>\n
The Battle of Mount Gilboah actually takes place somewhat northwest of the mount itself, in the Valley of Jezreel, where the Philistine chariots enjoy the advantage of a flat terrain. The Israelites, overcome by these forces, flee to Mount Gilboah, where fighting in a chariot is more difficult. The chariots, therefore, do not pursue them. Instead, the Philistines advance their archers to harass the fleeing Israelites. In the course of this archery attack, Jonathan and his brothers are slain.<\/p>\n
As for Saul, the traditional Hebrew (Massoretic) text says that he \u201cwas overcome with fear.\u201d Some textual historians, nonetheless, amend that text to read, \u201cbadly wounded.\u201d The present writer is less than persuaded by this emendation, because a badly wounded man would not likely be strong enough to throw himself on his sword. In any case, Saul commits suicide, a thing fairly rare in Holy Scripture (cf. 2 Samuel 17:23; 1 Kings 16:18; Matthew 25:7). <\/p>\n
The defeat of Saul\u2019s army leads to a general panic in the neighboring vicinity, and the eastward flight of whole populations leaves many cities and villages uninhabited. The Philistines quickly seize and occupy those places. Thus, Philistine occupation effectively cuts a great swath through Israelite territory—west to east—so that the northern tribes are cut off from Judah and Benjamin in the south. This practical estrangement of the northern and the southern tribes will not be resolved until much later in the story, when the greatly weakened house of Saul will lost popular credibility and the political support of Abner.<\/p>\n
As a sign of Israel\u2019s total humiliation, Saul\u2019s decapitated body is impaled on the wall of Bethshan, roughly eleven miles southwest of Mount Gilboa. This town, near the Jordan, is twelve miles west of Jabesh Gilead on the east side of the river. The citizens of Jabesh, learning of the fate of Saul, and remembering how he relieved the military siege of their city twenty years earlier (1 Samuel 11), bravely effect a night raid across the Jordan to retrieve the corpses of Saul and his sons. The bodies are burned, perhaps because they have already begun to decay. <\/p>\n
As the citizens of Jabesh had endured that siege for seven days, so now they fast for seven days to mourn the loss of their erstwhile deliverer.<\/p>\n
Although there is no narrative break between this story and the first chapter of Second Samuel, the editors and copyists of the Greek (Septuagint) translation\u2014forced by the physical volume of the work to split it into two scrolls\u2014discerned a certain propriety in dividing it at the end of the Battle of Mount Gilboah. The death of Saul, Israel\u2019s first king, has removed the major obstacle to David\u2019s ascension to the throne. The Bible\u2019s next page truly is a new leaf.<\/p>\n
Tuesday, July 16<\/b><\/p>\n
Second Samuel 1: This chapter has two stories: The first (verses 1-16) describes David\u2019s meeting with the Amalekite who comes to him from the battlefield at Mount Gilboa. The second (verses 17-27) chronicles David\u2019s lament on learning of the death of Saul and Jonathan.<\/p>\n
In the chapter\u2019s first scene the messenger bearing the news of Saul\u2019s death is an improbable Amalekite straggler, who presents David Saul\u2019s crown and arm-band, boasting the he had given the dying Saul the coup de grace<\/i> on Mount Gilboa. The messenger evidently expected David to welcome the news and receive him with gratitude.<\/p>\n
The reader at this point, already familiar with the circumstances of Saul\u2019s death, knows the Amalekite is lying. David, too, has his suspicions; if this Amalekite had time and opportunity to abscond with Saul\u2019s crown and bracelet, why did he not remove the king\u2019s body from the battlefield and save it from desecration? <\/p>\n
Instead, according to the man\u2019s own account, he presumed to lay a violent hand on the Lord\u2019s anointed, a thing—the reader knows (1 Samuel 24:1-7; 26:4-11)—David has twice refrained from doing. Indeed, a man who would murder Saul would likely feel free to kill any king, including David himself. As far as David is concerned, then, such a one has forfeited his own life.<\/p>\n
The reader should appreciate the deeper significance of this scene, which represents the first trial of Israel\u2019s new king. <\/p>\n
This story continues, in fact, a sustained thematic contrast between David and Saul, inasmuch as it stands in opposition to a parallel story in 1 Samuel 16. In that earlier account Saul was commanded to slay the Amalekites, specifically their king, Agag. It was partly for his failure to obey that order that the Lord rejected Saul and sought out a new king for His People. Now this new king is subjected to a similar trial, also involving an Amalekite.<\/p>\n
The problem with this Amalekite is his serious misunderstanding of David\u2019s character. Expecting the new king\u2019s response to be positive\u2014even enthusiastic\u2014he lies through his teeth, in graphic detail, to brag how he put the tragic Saul to death. <\/p>\n
In this respect the reader recognizes a further contrast, this time between David and the Amalekite himself. The latter\u2019s is a darkened mind. He is the carnal man, the self-serving moral imbecile, who unwittingly involves himself in matters beyond his grasp. <\/p>\n
David has met this kind of individual before. Perhaps he was reminded of Doeg the Edomite, the treacherous friend of Saul; the scoundrel who slew the priests of Nob. <\/p>\n
This Amalekite, comprehending nothing of David or David\u2019s God, fancies that all men are guided by the same mendacity and self-service that govern his own life. Hence, he expects David to jump at the chance to exploit the death of Saul, just as he exploited the death of Saul.<\/p>\n
He represents, therefore, the proverbial \u201cfool,\u201d chronically unable to comprehend the path of righteousness and wisdom. He and David live in very different moral worlds. In laying a violent hand on Saul, this Amalekite committed the very offense David found morally repugnant. <\/p>\n
In the eyes of the biblical author, therefore, the new king does the world a favor; he rises to the moral challenge of removing this man\u2019s shadow from the face of the earth—redeeming, thereby, Saul\u2019s earlier failure to punish the fool. <\/p>\n
The contrast of David and the Amalekite can be read—following the Wisdom tradition—to form an illustration of Psalm 1. In this account, accordingly, David is the blessed man who strays not in the counsel of the ungodly nor sits in the seat of the scornful. <\/p>\n
The Amalekite, in contrast, is not so. No, he is not so. He is as the chaff dispersed by the wind, and, at the end of this story, the way of the ungodly will perish.<\/p>\n
David, refusing to advance his own ambition by killing Saul, patiently waits for the Lord to give him the kingdom He had promised. Convinced that \u201cthe Lord knows the way of the righteous,\u201d he believes, with the Psalmist, that the tree planted by the living water \u201cwill bring forth its fruit in due season<\/i>.\u201d David does nothing to hasten the hour. His leaf, then, does not wither, and he prospers in whatever he does. His delight, day and night, is the Law of the Lord.<\/p>\n
The second scene in chapter 1 contains a separable text the author inserts into his narrative; it contains David\u2019s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, an elegy entitled \u201cThe Song of the Bow,\u201d so named, it seems from its mention Jonathan\u2019s bow. This poem the author of Samuel drew from an earlier literary source, The Book of Jasher<\/i>, which was perhaps an anthology of martial poetry. (It is quoted also in Joshua 10:12-13.)<\/p>\n
Wednesday, July 17<\/b><\/p>\n
Mark 10:1-12: Spelling out the Word of the Cross, Mark now comes to the matter of marriage. In fact, as experience testifies, unhappy marriages are often the \u201ccross\u201d that some must bear, and this is the context in which Mark places the sayings of Jesus on the subject of marriage. What about marriage? If a marriage is not \u201cworking,\u201d what are the obligations of those who are thus married?<\/p>\n
The treatment of marriage and divorce comes in response to the question that the Pharisees put to Jesus. The context of the teaching, that is to say, was one of controversy. It is well known that the various rabbinical schools were distinguished from one another by what restrictions they place on divorce, some stricter, some not so strict. Jesus was being invited to enter that controversy.<\/p>\n
Instead, He went straight to the creation account in Genesis, using it to forbid all<\/i> divorce (cf. also 5:32). In Mark\u2019s version, Jesus mentions no exceptions. What is most striking about Jesus\u2019 prohibition is that our Lord thereby abrogates the application of Deuteronomy 24:1, which did provide for divorce. Jesus would have none of it. Divorce for the purpose of remarriage with someone else is adultery.<\/p>\n
It is unfortunate that many readers find in this text only another species of legalism with respect to marriage. In fact, this biblical passage has as much to say on the subject of Christology as of marriage. However, when this page is \u201cconsulted,\u201d some question about marriage is usually the reason for the consultation, so the important Christological weight of the text is simply overlooked. Inspected more carefully, however, the Christological significance of the passage would hardly be weightier. Jesus, boldly abrogating a concession given in the Mosaic Law, laid claim to immense authority. <\/p>\n
In the context of the Word of the Cross, Jesus is asking of Christians no more than He asks of Himself. Jesus remains faithful to His unfaithful wife, which is the Christian Church herself. In spite of her numerous infidelities, Jesus has never divorced her.<\/p>\n
Acts 23:11-22: : During the night after his hearing before the Sanhedrin, Paul was visited by the Lord in a dream, in which he was encouraged by the explicit assurance that he would be going to Rome. Consequently, in spite of outward appearances, Paul knew that his life was not in danger for the moment (23:11). <\/p>\n
Such encouragement was exactly what he needed, for a new trouble arose on the next day. More than forty men, conspiring to murder him, vowed not to eat or drink until the deed was done (23:12-13). It is instructive to note that the plotters involved the Sadducees, the priestly party, in their conspiracy (23:14-15), but not the Pharisees. It was this latter group, we recall, that expressed sympathy for Paul\u2019s message. <\/p>\n
A plot involving so many people is hard to keep secret, and Paul, not confined by maximum security, was able to learn of it and, using the services of a nephew, to take steps against it (23:16-17). We are probably correct in suspecting that Luke\u2019s source for this account was the boy himself. About nine o\u2019clock that very night, Paul was moved out of the city under armed guard, Indeed, the large retinue included nearly half of the forces garrisoned at the Fortress Antonia. We are not told whether or not the frustrated plotters actually persevered in their vow of starvation!<\/p>\n
Thursday, July 18<\/b><\/p>\n
2 Samuel 3: Following the Battle of Mount Gilboa, the Israelites are divided between north and south, a division rendering it easy for the Philistines effectively to control most of the northern area west of the Jordan. This hapless situation, threatening to become permanent, poses for Abner a true moral dilemma. <\/p>\n
He is an instinctively loyal man, principled, and innocent of personal ambition. The sundry loyalties of even such a man, nonetheless, may sometimes stand in conflict, and Abner is compelled in due course to choose between his expected adherence to the house of Saul and his more abiding concern for Israel\u2019s very survival. <\/p>\n
Long accustomed to viewing David through the eyes of Saul, Abner experiences much of the same conflict of loyalties that earlier plagued the conscience of Jonathan, and his painful resolution to that conflict, like Jonathan\u2019s, leads directly to the tragedy that ends his life. <\/p>\n
When he did decide to join with David, Abner\u2019s moral authority in Israel was such that he was able to bring with him, not only the army, but also the various tribal elders of Israel (3:17\u201319). Abner\u2019s decision, though it probably took shape over some period of time, was brought to abrupt closure when Ishbosheth accused him of disloyalty to the house of Saul (2 Samuel 3:7\u201311). <\/p>\n
Abner himself claimed that his decision was based on theological truth, not mere political expediency (2 Samuel 3:18). David, after all, had been anointed by Samuel and was recognized by the high priest Abiathar. Ishbosheth, in contrast, had nothing to recommend him beyond his descent from Saul, whose house the Lord had clearly repudiated. <\/p>\n
Still, Holy Scripture does not disguise the fact that Abner\u2019s resolve, for all its high-minded adherence to principle, was not untainted by some element of the fleshly and the mundane. In the end it was a sense of disgust with Saul\u2019s son that drove Abner to David\u2019s side. <\/p>\n
Nor does the biblical narrator himself say, in so many words, that Abner was an honorable man; he simply tells the story and lets the reader decide. (Indeed, he may not have known whether there was truth in Ishbosheth\u2019s accusation.) Only God, after all, can fully measure any man or his moral decisions. <\/p>\n
This was certainly not an easy decision. Not only was Abner\u2019s spirit tested by breaking with the house of Saul; he was also aware of the risk he ran by going over to David\u2019s force, where he knew there were men who hated him. Chief among these was Joab, whose younger brother, Azahel, he had reluctantly killed in the previous chapter. Fear of such enemies might have prevented Abner of choosing to go with David. The difficulty of this decision is strong testimony to Abner\u2019s moral integrity.<\/p>\n
Friday, July 19<\/b><\/p>\n
2 Samuel 4: These two military leaders in the north, observing David\u2019s positive response to Abner\u2019s arrival, apparently sense that it\u2019s all over for the house of Saul. Aware\u2014with everybody else, it would seem\u2014that David\u2019s future rule over all Israel is inevitable, they determine to make their move against Ishbosheth and, thus, to secure the good favor of David. Ishbosheth is murdered in his sleep.<\/p>\n
They are thoroughly surprised at David\u2019s response. David is disgusted with all the blood recently poured out by actions of Israelite-on-Israelite. First came the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, and two other of Saul\u2019s sons. Then, Asahel picked a fight with Abner and was killed, in spite of Abner\u2019s sincere wish against it. In the chapter immediately preceding this one, Joab treacherously took the life of Abner. Now, here come these two nobodies from the north, proud of themselves for murdering Ishbosheth in his sleep. It is too much for David. The author of the Psalms finds it all revolting.<\/p>\n
On two occasions, as we have seen, David refrained from taking the life of Saul, and, on the second of these occasions, Saul himself was asleep (1 Samuel 24 & 6). In the mind of honorable David, the murder of a sleeping man is dishonorable beyond contemplation. In the present chapter, then, we are not surprised at his reaction to the murder of Ishbosheth (verses 9-12). Such an atrocity is repugnant to the classical chivalric spirit of the warrior David. <\/p>\n
David\u2019s reaction here is of a piece with his response to the murder of Abner in the previous chapter. David, throughout the difficult days during which he was a fugitive in the Judean desert, had placed his trust in the justice of God and had refrained from taking matters into his own hands. The present act of treachery, the murder of Ishbosheth, was exactly what could be expected, David believed, if men placed political and military expediency above moral principle.<\/p>\n
Prior to telling this story of the death of Ishbosheth, however, the author pauses to insert a single verse on Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. This quiet insertion, without comment, prepares for the lengthier treatment of this important character in chapter 9. With the death of Ishbosheth, this poor cripple becomes the last heir of Saul\u2019s house. This insertion, then, introduces a point of great historical irony.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Friday, July 12 First Samuel 28: Moving from the Philistines to the Israelites, this chapter tells of the two opposing kings. It opens with an impending crisis and goes on to narrate how each man prepares for the coming battle. The author continues, first, to elaborate the complicated relationship between David and the Philistine king. … Continue reading July 12 – July 19, 2024<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2508"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2508"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2508\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2509,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2508\/revisions\/2509"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}