Friday 4 December 2015

As for all the inhabitants of the mountain regions from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, that is, all the Sidonians, I myself will drive them out before the Israelites. Be sure to allocate this land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have instructed you … Joshua 13:6


Today’s Scripture Reading (December 4, 2015): Joshua 13

The play “King Charles III” is currently being performed in London and it imagines how the ascension of Prince Charles to the throne might take place. The play envisions a beleaguered King Charles III fighting against Parliament for the freedom of the press, a king fighting against his own children, and against the memory of his first wife, Dianna, who appears in the play as a ghost. In the end, King Charles feels betrayed by his son and abdicates the throne in favor of William, whose coronation closes the play.

Unfortunately, the plot almost makes sense. Many observers has questioned whether Charles has the vision necessary to become King and unite the Commonwealth. And it might start with the name. I do not advise the Prince, but if I did my first piece of advice might be to stay away from the moniker “King Charles III.” Charles has not been a great name for a king. Charles I was executed, Charles II was known more for his philandering than his rule, and Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was known as the young pretender, thought of himself as King Charles III (and, no he did not reign – under that name or any other. He simply believed that he should have.) Charles should never align himself with that past, especially with people already questioning his ability to rule. If Charles ascends the throne, he should take a page from his grandfather’s book who decided to reign as King George VI, rather than King Albert I. His reasoning for adopting one of his middle names as his regnal name was that he wanted to show a connection and anchor himself with a strong past as he moved forward into his vision of the future. Charles Philip Arthur George may want to do exactly the same thing, distancing himself from the name King Charles as it was used in the past as well as from his own marginal history as a prince. (Although the romantic in me would love for him to reign as King Arthur.) With the name change Charles might just be able to imagine a new future for both him and the Commonwealth  

So much of what happens in the future depends on what we can imagine. Sometimes we forget that. God places a vision inside of the heart of Israel. He promises that if they were willing to follow him, he would move before them and chase out the inhabitants that still occupied the land. According to God, all of Canaan was supposed to be possessed by Israel. But the people could not envision that world. Instead they became corrupted by the land that they were supposed to be influencing. They became dominated by a world that they were supposed to be dominating. They were intended to be leaders, but really all that Israel ever was over these lands were the great pretenders. They believed that they should be kings over the realm, but they had neither the vision nor the trust in God to make that a reality. For a short period, under the reigns of David and Solomon, Israel exerted influence over this entire area, but it was never really theirs. They had abdicated the throne in favor of those that God had instructed should be removed and they never even bothered to claim the promise which God had made to them.

Maybe the worst of it all was that Israel forgot the meaning of their name. Israel basically means “Triumphant with God.” And that was the real promise. God was willing to allow Israel to live up to their name.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 14

No comments:

Post a Comment