Vacant Thrones (Part 1 of 2) 


The Vision of an Empty Throne  

 On Thursday, October 13, 2022, I got a call from a respected brother and minister of the God.  He had had one of his often encounters.  “Oga came again-o,” he said.  I assumed that I knew the boss that he meant – some political ruler; but I was wrong.  It was the Boss, the Lord.  In the vision of the night, he was in the dark throneroom of Nigeria, then a light appeared.  Like a spotlight gradually brightening up a theatre stage, he saw the light as it slowly took up the office.  First, it showed the empty throne, then the flag of Nigeria behind it in the empty office.  Thereafter, a voice announced, “The office and the seat of the presidency are vacant.”  At once, he began to plead, “You are the King of kings.  You are the Lord of lords.  You are the President of the nation.  We surrender the nation to You …” then, as gradually as the scene had appeared, it began to fade off.  It struck him as a call to more prayers for Nigeria. 

 When he told me that experience, it recalled a very similar dream that a seven years old girl at our Monday prayers for the nation had told years ago.  It is reported in the message below.  That was reinforced by my own experience in August 2017.  I was in one of my moments of deep meditation when I heard the words, “vacant thrones.”  I wondered what that might mean.  I came out of that experience with insights that were promptly written down and sent out.  It blessed the world then, profoundly.  That is the message below: “Vacant Thrones.” 

 If one should go by the surface interpretation of those encounters; if the throne is vacant and the office empty, who has been there?  Who has been running the show?  Who is about to fill it with whom or what?  What do we do within the window of opportunity?  Five years after the initial encounter, welcome again to the message: “Vacant Thrones.” 

October 2022. 

Vacant Thrones  

  1. Photo Tricks

Deep in my meditations a while ago, I heard the words “vacant thrones.” It roused me up.  As I pondered on the words, the pictures of certain Bible kings began to play on the screen of my spirit.  Like a bee-stung child, I jumped out at once from where I lay, to write down what was coming.  Every throne is not necessarily occupied by who sits on it.

If a child should run into the father’s office, for example, and jump into the Manager’s executive seat, does that make that child the Executive Manager?  No.  So, despite the elaborate accolades from people who honour an office or the throne, every throne is not necessarily occupied by the one we see on it.  Being ‘in office’ does not always mean being in charge; and not being ‘in office’ does not necessarily mean not being in power.  What we see might not always be real. Visions could be illusions and images a mirage.  It is sometimes said that photos don’t lie.  Not so true.  When pictures lie, they sometimes call it “photo trick.”   I shall later tell a little praying girl’s significant throneroom encounter with an angel; a little girl who sometimes followed her mother to our weekly prayer meetings for the land.  But first, hear the following cases.

  1. Case One: A Figurehead ‘Absolute Ruler’

Pharaoh the king of Egypt once had a personal crisis that had the signs of something bigger, something national.  It was a repeated puzzling dream, to which he had no answer.  His advisers quickly found him a gifted prison-boy to decode the mysterious dreams.  That done, Pharaoh gave a rather strange ‘Thank you’ speech to the dreams-decoding young man.  Notice his very careful clause about the throne, which casual hearers would have missed:

40 “You shall be over my house, and ALL my people shall be RULED according to your word; ONLY in regard to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you OVER ALL the land of Egypt (Genesis 41:40-41, New King James Version).

My little worry with that thankful speech is this: “ALL the land should mean the entire territory or geographical land mass of Egypt; and “all my people” certainly meant the many ethnic nationalities or population groupings in that land, irrespective of their individual geographical locations within the “land.”  Also, if “my house” meant the palace, “over my house” should mean over the entire ‘Buckingham Palace’ or ‘White House’ of Egypt.  If someone was given such apparently total powers over “all the land” and over “all” the people and over the Presidential House; if every other person was to be “ruled” (note that word – “ruled”) according to that person’s orders – which means the person had become a Ruler – or The Ruler; if that person’s “word” had become law and could determine death or life for any or “all” the “people,” would we not rightly say that such a person had become the king, the absolute ruler?  Logically, Yes; but technically, No, according to Pharaoh.  With all those ostensible powers, Pharaoh ensured that Joseph was not The Ruler?  He made sure he inserted one curious clause in the ‘swearing in’ provisions: “only in regard to THE THRONE will I be GREATER THAN YOU.”  The social media might have hailed Joseph as the new ruler in the land, and Pharaoh let them hold the grave illusion.  It served his purpose well, then.

Joseph was going to be ‘in office’ with powers over “all the land” and “all my people” and even over the palace, but he still would not have the final say.  Joseph’s position was therefore not as powerful as it had seemed, or as the ‘press’ might have reported it.  The government of Pharaoh might have been hailed as being very ‘inclusive’ and very meritocratic, but Pharaoh was being clever.

For Joseph, was this a miracle or a mirage?  I leave that to you, but I ask: is the Joseph-module a possible scenario in contemporary politics?  I hear your answer.  Nigeria has had plenty of Josephs in that celebrated mould, who were useful whenever there was the threatening famine of a critical bridge to be crossed, until another Pharaoh arose with no regard to history or to Joseph and his people (Exodus 1:8).  You might say that this case does not exactly match the preliminary proposition I had raised, about vacant thrones.  In that case, let’s see the next slide.

  1. Case Two: Thrones in Custody

Sometimes someone is on a throne merely as a custodian, as a ‘place older,’ until another person should come for whom the ‘custodian’ had been ‘holding brief.’  One day, God confronted Prophet Samuel with the verdict of Heaven about the king incumbent of his nation, saying, “I have rejected him from reigning over Israel” (1 Samuel 16:1).  Note the finality in the simple present tense: “I have…,” not “I will….”  In spite of that very clear notice of sack, Saul remained ‘in office’ for many more years, continuing to enjoy the respected title of “the LORD’S anointed” (1 Samuel 24:10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23), and doing such ‘right’ and ‘righteous’ things as chasing witches in the name of the God that had already declared his throne vacant, of which he probably remained willingly unaware (1 Samuel 28:9).

If the announcement from Heaven was to be believed, then Saul promptly ceased to be king, or became merely a keeper of the throne on which he still sat, the title of “King” then being only a decoration.  In other words, whereas Saul still had the office and the title, he had lost the mantle; whereas mortals still hailed him as the king, Heaven no more recognized him as one.  Only the prophet knew this, while the hyped media and the masses fooled on.

Did Saul’s kingly functions cease with the stern announcement from Heaven?  No. He still wore the crown and the robes; he still fought national battles and instituted holy decrees against evil witches.  While he publicly chased witches, he secretly consulted them – very like some politicians of our day who are the greatest secret patrons of the vices they publicly condemn (1 Samuel 28:7-10).

How long did the custody-tenure of Saul last?  It apparently lasted over three decades, although perspectives differ, but no less than eleven years.

It is told in 1 Samuel 13:1-2 that in Saul’s second year on the throne, he chose 3,000 soldiers.  The same chapter which puts the ‘date’ of those and subsequent events at about his second or third year, “when he had reigned two years,” says also in verse 14 that he was in that same season rejected by God: “But NOW [which means at once, at that time, not in the far future] thy kingdom shall not continue…”  In case that did not make sufficient sense, the ‘electoral’ prophet was instructed, three chapters later, to ‘swear in’ the replacement that had been found.  In my country, that prophet would have been called or acronymed INEC.  The ceremony took place in a secret room; not, as usual, in the public and ‘official’ stadium at Gilgal, still it was potent.

I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have [note the tense, ‘I have’ – now] provided me a king [note: a king, not a ‘representative’ or an ‘acting’ regent] among his sons (1 Samuel 16:1).

The irony: David was a king not yet on the throne; Saul was a no-king still on the throne.  In other words, not all kings are yet on their throne, and not everyone on a throne is the king there. So, the seat does not always tell the occupant, neither does the vacancy define or deny the anointed who might not yet be on the seat.

In Acts 13:21, we read that Saul reigned 40 years over Israel.  Here is my simple maths: If Saul reigned 40 years altogether, and if God rejected him in his second (or third) year, it would mean that for 40 years minus 2, which is 38 years, Saul had merely been keeping custody of the throne, until David should come on the scene, grow to be thirty years, and thus be ‘constitutionally’ old enough to take up the office.  Note that Saul was already a God-rejected, demons-possessed man in need of potent musical therapy even before David showed up in the palace with his exorcist-harp, and on the battlefield with his anti-Goliath surface-to-air granite missile with its launching pad of sling  (1 Samuel 16:1-2, 15-16).

If my maths is correct, it would mean that, for all those decades, God did not see Saul on the throne, even though blind mortals saw him there, hailed him as king, and gave him all the protocols of the seat he was merely guarding by sitting on.  Whether we take 11 years or 38 years, I ask, Is it possible to have lost the noble mandate and still be wearing the carcass title?  Is it possible to be so long without God, yet be hailed by blind mortals with the prestigious titles of the very vacancy that God has already declared? Can Earth be sometimes grossly out of touch with ‘breaking news’ from Heaven?  Does the multitude always hear what God has whispered into a prophet’s ear?  Is the media always right about the mind of God?

Two other regal characters may further fittingly illustrate the present case of thrones kept in custody: Lady Athaliah the daughter of Jezebel, and Ishbosheth the son of Saul.

  1. i)Athaliah   

Athaliah the daughter of Jezebel and Ahab violently took the throne of Judah by killing scores of her heir-apparent grandchildren after the premature deaths of her husband and then her son his successor.  Trans-generational Jezebelic witchcraft, I think.  Six years later, a proper son took the throne after the usurper had been dispatched by the same violent means she had come in.  Today, her name is not mentioned when the kings of Israel are listed.  She was merely a custodian of the throne, albeit a very wicked and bloody one (2 Kings 11:1-21).

  1. ii)Ishbosheth

Ishbosheth the son of Saul was installed on the throne by selfish and ambitious powerful political opportunists after his father’s death, but today that name is not usually cited in any proper list of the kings of Israel between Saul and David (2 Samuel 3:10).  He was a succeeding or secondary custodian to a vacant throne of which his father was the first faded keeper.

From The Preacher’s diary,
August 7, 2017. 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x