Joshua to Jesus - Day 3

Good evening, everyone. I'm William Haines, and tonight we will explore the Bible stories from the time between Joshua and Jesus. We are grateful for the opportunity to access such profound content, and I hope we can learn new things through our discussions. It's important to understand how these stories relate to our own lives and what responsibilities we have as individuals and as a community within the Unification movement. We must also consider the dangers we face in our own course today.

As we begin, I want to remind you that the history we are discussing is essentially the history of the Israelites. This is Jewish scripture, Christian scripture, and our scripture. How we read it matters; we can choose to read it as outsiders or as part of our heritage. Many people are uncomfortable when others point out the flaws in their history, and the same applies when we examine the stories of the Israelites entering Canaan. We must reflect on our own histories and consider what we can learn from them.

When we read these stories, we should not judge them from an outsider's perspective. Instead, we should see them as our ancestors and ask ourselves what we can learn from their experiences. The Jewish tradition teaches that the purpose of recounting history is to learn from it. As the Unification movement, we see ourselves as the heirs of these people involved in God's providence. This means we must take responsibility for our actions and reflect on what we need to repent for, just as we do with our own national histories.

The Book of Judges was not written by the judges themselves but by those who came after, during the period of the kings. They were justifying the monarchy, explaining why it was necessary after a time of chaos and anarchy. The stories within this book, such as the tragic tale of the concubine from Gibeah, illustrate the need for a strong political authority to maintain order and justice. The outrage expressed by the other tribes shows that such acts were not typical of their society, highlighting the importance of justice and the need for a governing body.

The biblical narrative presents a strong anti-government theme, opposing totalitarianism and empire. Initially, the Israelites envisioned a society without kings or formal political structures, where God would be their king. However, they ultimately realized that anarchy was unlivable. The writer of Judges emphasizes that the only alternative to anarchy is the establishment of a political and military power capable of maintaining order and protecting the people from external threats.

The necessity for government arises from two main reasons: to protect the country from invasion and to maintain internal order. The Israelites faced constant threats from neighboring tribes, necessitating a strong political and military presence. Additionally, there must be an independent source of political authority to enforce justice and uphold the law, rather than simply seeking revenge. This understanding of governance is central to the biblical account and offers lessons for contemporary political philosophy.

In examining kingship, we see that it can originate from within a social group or from external military conquest. Historical data supports the latter hypothesis, where a crisis leads to the emergence of a leader. This leader may be recognized by the public or appointed by the elders of the tribe. The recognition of leadership often arises from the successful navigation of a crisis, prompting the community to consider the need for a consistent leader, particularly in times of conflict.

They appoint and elect someone from within the parliament. Another way, perhaps through democracy, is similar to what happens in America, where different people stand for election, and everyone evaluates these different candidates before voting. As I mentioned, why is someone elected or chosen? It could be because they are a successful warrior. We looked at Gideon on Tuesday; he defeated the Midianites, and when the people came to him asking him to become their king, he declined the offer. Sometimes, it may be due to charisma, which is a form of authority based on public acclaim. People recognise this person's charisma, wisdom, and ability to bring justice. This idea of kings having a sense of majesty is tied to their charisma, which is often formalised.

In some cases, leadership may emerge through force. For instance, within a gang, a leader often emerges because they are the strongest or the most intelligent. Gangs can evolve into organised criminal networks that take over neighbourhoods, and sometimes these gangs form political parties that seize power, as happened in Russia in 1917 with the Bolsheviks. They lost the election and lacked public acclaim, but they were armed and well-organised, allowing them to seize power. The Chinese Communist Party followed a similar path. Other methods of gaining power include staging a coup or facing an invasion. However, the challenge remains: how to legitimise power when it is acquired through force or external means.

When power is gained through force, those in power often know their authority is illegitimate. The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Communist Party sought to have their authority recognised as legitimate, despite the historical reality that their power stemmed from force. One way to legitimise power is to claim a divine origin. For example, the pharaohs in Egypt claimed to be the sons of Ra, the sun god, which justified their absolute authority and demanded obedience from the people. Similarly, the Japanese emperor claimed descent from Amaterasu, the sun goddess, positioning himself as a divine being deserving of immense respect and worship. This notion of divinity was also present among Roman emperors, who claimed divine status to legitimise their power.

However, this belief in divine right can lead to tyranny, as seen in the case of Charles I of England, who believed he was above the law due to his divine appointment. The English people did not accept this, leading to his execution. This concept can also lead to a nation believing it has a divine origin, fostering a sense of racial superiority. In contrast, the Bible teaches that all humanity descends from Adam, which means no single group has a divine origin over others. This perspective promotes equality among all people, as every human being is considered a child of God.

Another way to legitimise power is through divine sanction. Coronations often involve religious ceremonies, such as in Britain, where the Archbishop of Canterbury crowns the monarch in Westminster Abbey. This ceremony is rich in religious symbolism, emphasising the heavy responsibility of kingship. The king or queen is anointed with oil, establishing limits on their power. During the coronation, they make oaths to serve God and the people, promising to uphold the law. This divine sanction serves to limit the monarch's power, contrasting with the notion of unlimited authority.

When considering how to choose a king, it is typically assumed that kingship is hereditary, passing from generation to generation. In America, the presidency can be seen as a form of elected kingship. When a king dies, one way to determine the next ruler is through civil war between competing families or tribes, as seen in England during the War of the Roses. To avoid such conflict, a royal family can be established, with rules of succession that ensure a smooth transition of power. If everyone accepts these rules, it prevents civil war and conflict over succession.

The most important aspect is that people must feel the person chosen is the legitimate king, whether through established rules or the authority of those who decide. Alternatively, elections can be held to determine the next king, whether upon the king's death or at regular intervals. Democracy allows for the peaceful transfer of power, which is crucial. If a king becomes tyrannical, the only way to remove them historically has been through civil war. Democracy provides a mechanism to replace a poor leader without resorting to violence, allowing for a legitimate transfer of power.

Returning to the role of the king, it is essential to understand that this is not merely a religious concept but also a political philosophy. Moses, during the Israelites' 40 years in the wilderness, contemplated sustainable political, social, and economic structures. He recognised that one day the people might desire a king, and he advised that if they chose to have a king like other nations, they should ensure it is someone whom God chooses. This is crucial, as the king should come from among their kinsmen to maintain a society that worships God and adheres to Mosaic law.

From one you know amongst your own kinsmen, choose yourself a king whom God, your God, chooses. You might think, well, how does that work today? This was three and a half thousand years ago, but it is really relevant today. Whenever there is a democratic election, this passage should be read out to the entire electorate. People should be reminded to elect a president whom God chooses. In other words, when you go out to vote, you really have to think seriously about who God would choose as the best person to represent the entire country, to protect it and uphold justice. It is important to search your conscience and vote accordingly, rather than simply considering which president will be good for you personally.

Secondly, Moses emphasised the idea of limited kingship. He advised that the king should not build up a war machine. This is sound advice, as many presidents and dictators in the 20th century should have heeded it. The military budget is often enormous because some rulers want to not only protect their country but also invade their neighbours. Additionally, Moses warned that the king should not build up a harem, collecting wives who might divert him from the straight and narrow. This highlights the importance of living a morally upright life, something we can observe in the personal lives of many leaders today.

Moses also advised that the king should not pile up a lot of silver and gold. In modern terms, this means he should not open a Swiss bank account and channel aid money into it, building vast amounts of private wealth. This advice is straightforward and serves as a reminder to restrain the appetite of the king for money and power. The same human nature and problems persist today; human nature never changes. It is crucial to learn from past mistakes and anticipate potential issues, which is equally relevant within our own spiritual communities.

Moses outlined what the king should do upon ascending to the throne. The first task is to make a copy of the Divine Principle, specifically the Torah, under the supervision of the priests. This means that the king must not only copy the teachings but also understand their significance for his role and responsibilities. After copying it, the scroll must remain at his side at all times, and he should study it daily. This daily study is essential for learning to revere God, which essentially means following one's conscience. The fear of God, in this context, refers to the awareness of violating one's conscience and the desire to avoid wrongdoing.

By studying scripture daily, the king's conscience is shaped by the word of God. The knowledge that forms the conscience should be rooted in scripture, which in turn nourishes the king's inner life and original mind. The most important task of a king or leader is to make decisions, and these decisions can significantly impact the lives and livelihoods of many people. A good decision can lead to prosperity, while a bad one can plunge a nation into disaster. Therefore, a king must be well-educated and understand how the world works to make informed decisions.

Furthermore, the king must observe the law and set a good example by following the rules and regulations himself. No one is above the law, including the king. This is a crucial aspect of leadership, and the king must know what constitutes a good example. Additionally, he must not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites. This is a shocking directive, as leaders often fall into the trap of arrogance and pride, believing they are superior to those they govern. The Bible insists that a king must remain humble and not change commands at whim to suit himself.

If the king reads and learns, he will have a long reign, and his sons will benefit as well. Education for a king or queen should differ significantly from that of ordinary citizens, as they bear a greater responsibility. A notable example of a leader who embodies these principles is the Queen of England. At 90 years old, she described herself as the 'servant queen,' serving God first and then ordinary people. Her long reign of nearly 70 years has been marked by a lack of scandal, demonstrating her commitment to the principles outlined by Moses.

Another important aspect of kingship is the boundaries of the promised land. God promised Abraham and his descendants a vast territory, but when the Israelites were to settle in Canaan, the boundaries were more constrained. This change reflects the reality that not everything turned out as it should have between Abraham and Moses. The main point is that God established boundaries for the land, indicating that the Israelites should not conquer or expand beyond these limits. Unlike other nations that sought to create empires, the Israelites were instructed to respect these boundaries, which is a significant political philosophy that differentiates their kingship from that of other ancient cultures.

These principles of kingship, established three and a half thousand years ago, contrast sharply with the political philosophies of other ancient civilisations, where authority was absolute and often led to tyranny. The biblical understanding of kingship is that the king is meant to serve the people, not the other way around. When the Israelites demanded a king, they were essentially rejecting God's authority as their king. This rejection highlights the importance of listening to the people's concerns while also recognising the divine authority that governs their lives.

Wishes of the people are significant; if they no longer wanted God as their king, He would not insist on remaining their ruler. This principle goes back to the Mosaic Law, where governance is based on consent. God governs only by consent; if people do not want Him to govern, He will step back. This is evident in our society today, where many do not want God in parliament, schools, and other areas, leading to His gradual exclusion. Samuel, feeling personally rejected, is reminded by God that it is not him they are rejecting, but God Himself. This experience allows Samuel to understand God's heart and the pain of rejection, deepening his spirituality and empathy.

God instructs Samuel to listen to the people's desires. If they want a king, they can have one, but they must make an informed decision. God warns Samuel to inform the people about the potential consequences of having a king. The king will likely want an army, which means conscripting their sons as soldiers. He will desire a palace, turning their daughters into servants, and will need to raise taxes, taking a tenth of their harvest and flocks. While this taxation may seem reasonable compared to modern standards, it is still a significant burden. Ultimately, God warns that they will become the king's slaves if they choose this path.

Despite the warnings, the people insist on having a king. God tells Samuel to anoint Saul, who arrives at Samuel's doorstep searching for his lost donkeys. Samuel informs Saul that he has been chosen to be the king of Israel. Saul, shocked and feeling inferior due to his humble background as a Benjaminite, questions his qualifications. However, Samuel anoints him with olive oil, signifying that he is now the Messiah, or 'anointed one.' Samuel reassures Saul that God is with him, regardless of his past or background.

Samuel instructs Saul to go to Gilgal for a formal coronation. As Saul departs, God transforms his heart, leading him to prophesy. When Saul returns home, he tells his uncle about meeting Samuel but omits the details about his kingship. Later, Samuel conducts a selection process to identify the king among the tribes of Israel, and the lot falls on Saul. However, when they look for Saul, he is hiding among the supplies, indicating his reluctance to accept the role. Eventually, he is brought forward and announced as king, fulfilling the people's request.

Samuel reminds the people that God has granted them their desire for a king. He emphasises the importance of fearing God and obeying Him, regardless of whether they have a king. If both the people and their king follow God, they will be protected from their enemies. However, if they rebel against God, they will face the same fate as their ancestors. Samuel urges them to worship God sincerely and warns that both they and their king will be judged if they live poorly. This illustrates the biblical principle of dual legitimacy, where authority comes from both God and the people.

In the context of governance, the ideal political system involves a separation of powers among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Each branch must follow God's guidance while serving the people. This structure prevents any individual from holding absolute power, which would lead to tyranny. The establishment of constitutional democracy reflects this principle, ensuring that leaders are regarded as legitimate by the people. Saul, while physically impressive and morally upright, struggles with humility and insecurity, which affects his ability to lead effectively.

Saul's reluctance to embrace his role as king is evident when he initially hesitates to take action against the Ammonites. However, he eventually rises to the occasion, leading the Israelites to victory. The Amalekites, who had previously attacked the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt, become a significant challenge. God had declared war against Amalek, promising to blot out their memory. This reflects the ongoing struggle between good and evil, and the importance of remembering past lessons to avoid repeating mistakes.

Moses says, 'Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you when you were faint and weary and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you.' The Amalekites had no reason to attack the Israelites; they were simply passing through the land. Unlike the Egyptians, who had a legitimate concern about the Hebrews becoming strong and prosperous, the Amalekites acted out of cowardice. They targeted the weak, the women, the children, and the sick, much like a criminal gang that preys on the vulnerable. This cowardly behaviour reflects a culture that thrives on attacking those who are down, robbing and harming them without fear of God or conscience. It is essential to remember that not everyone in the world is kind; there are people who embody this evil.

When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. This command serves as a reminder that such evil must not be allowed to continue. In a failed state, where there is no law or government, terrible things happen, and it is crucial to prevent organized criminal networks from terrorizing people. Amalek's ambition was to rid the world of the Israelites and their moral influence, seeking to return society to idolatry, paganism, and barbarism. The Israelites represented a different standard of right and wrong, challenging the immoral practices that Amalek sought to uphold.

This cosmic war between good and evil cannot be settled with treaties. God commanded the Israelites to destroy Amalek entirely, down to the last cow. There are regimes with which negotiation is impossible; they must be dismantled. Today, when we speak of Amalek, we are not referring to a specific people but rather an ideology that embodies such evil. A modern example of this ideology can be seen in leaders who openly reject conscience and morality, viewing them as oppressive constructs. This attitude reflects a disdain for absolute standards of right and wrong, promoting a relativistic view of truth.

In today's world, we may not live in Hitler's time, but we see similar patterns emerging. The modern culture often indulges in hedonism, consumerism, and a rejection of moral standards. People may dismiss the idea of conscience as oppressive, seeking to cancel those who challenge their views on morality. This cancel culture mirrors the tactics of oppressive regimes, where dissent is silenced. Samuel's message to Saul illustrates the consequences of failing to uphold moral standards. God commanded Saul to destroy the Amalekites, but Saul spared Agag, the king, and the best of the livestock, demonstrating misplaced compassion and a failure to lead decisively.

Samuel's disappointment in Saul reflects the responsibilities of leadership. Leaders must act according to their knowledge and the weight of their decisions. Saul's fear of the people led him to disobey God's command, resulting in his rejection as king. God sees potential in leaders, but when they fail to act according to their conscience and responsibilities, they lose that potential. The danger of misplaced compassion can lead to disastrous outcomes, as seen in Saul's failure to execute God's judgment on Amalek. Leadership requires guiding people towards the right path, even when it is unpopular.

Eventually, God instructed Samuel to anoint a new king. Samuel's disappointment over Saul's failure was profound, but God had already chosen David. When Samuel arrived at Jesse's house, he was initially impressed by Eliab's appearance, but God reminded him that He looks at the heart, not outward appearances. Jesse presented his seven sons, but none were chosen. Finally, the youngest, David, was called in from tending the sheep. Upon seeing him, God instructed Samuel to anoint David, who was empowered by the Spirit of God for the rest of his life. This anointing was a significant moment, marking David as the future king and illustrating the importance of divine selection over human judgment.

As we conclude this part of the lecture, we see the transition from Saul to David. David, a young shepherd, was chosen by God to lead Israel, highlighting the theme that true leadership comes from divine appointment and moral integrity. The anointing of David signifies not just a change in leadership but also the empowerment that comes from God, which is essential for fulfilling one's purpose.

Of Israel, but there's already a king sitting on the throne of Israel. His name is Saul, and Saul has a family; he has a son called Jonathan. How is David going to become the next king of Israel? This is a really important lesson. You might be anointed and appointed to become the next king, but there are certain ways you have to go about it.

Becoming the next king of Israel is a really important lesson for our own spiritual community. It's not enough to be anointed and appointed; there are other things you have to do besides that, which are equally important.