Sunday, June 10, 2018

Judah's Scepter and the Sacred Stone



Neil Godfrey has an entry on his blog (Vridar) about a relatively new book of fiction out about that great Church of God legend about Jeremiah taking Jacob's pillar stone to the British Isles.  The entire basis of the Church of God movement is based upon this unsubstantiated legend.

Who would have believed it! Someone (namely D. A. Brittain) has actually written a novel about Jeremiah taking the stone of destiny, Jacob’s “pillow stone”, from Jerusalem along with a surviving daughter (Teia Tephi) of the wicked king Zedekiah to Ireland to marry up with another descendant of Judah in order to preserve the Davidic dynasty from extinction after the Babylonians captured the biblical kingdom of Judah in 587 BC. The novel is Judah’s Scepter and the Sacred Stone.
How could I resist! Belief in all of that stuff was once the focus of my life as a member of the Worldwide Church of God for so many years. One of our most exciting books was The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy (later changed to The United States and Britain in Prophecy as the decades took their toll on the unity and white racial dominance of the Commonwealth nations). Britain includes a bibliography that warms old memories with titles I also ferreted out from a dingy old room that housed the local British Israel society at the time. A Novel for Ex-Worldwide Church of God members and others once (or still) in love with British Israelism

“Many biblical scholars believe we will soon see what is called the ‘end of days,’” Jerome said. “Some say the promised Messiah will come on what is known as a ‘Jubilee year,’ in the fall of 2033, after the blood moons appears during Rosh Hashanah.”
“Well, it is not certain,” Timothy interjected. “What I mean is, no one is certain of the time of the next Jubilee year. Some rabbis believe the Jubilee year is somewhere between the years 2029 and 2036.” 
“Well, we do know that the next series of blood moons will appear in the years 2032 and 2033,” Jerome said. “All will see the red moon in the sky on the Feast of Passover, and then again during Rosh Hashanah, on the Feast of Tabernacles, in the year 2033.” 
“It sounds like you are talking about a tetrad,” David said. “I’ve studied astronomy, so I’m familiar with the two-year string of four total lunar eclipses. A series of four together is rare. After the sixteenth century, none even occurred until the twentieth century. However, the frequency of these events has accelerated, especially since 1949.” 
“Yes, very good— once Israel again became a nation in 1948,” Timothy said. “Israel has seen war come to their land during every tetrad that has occurred since then.
Brittain, D. A.. Judah’s Scepter and the Sacred Stone (Kindle Locations 4529-4540). First Edition Design Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Oh my god. In “my day” the year was 1975. Will they never learn. 

23 comments:

Byker Bob said...

There were a bunch of people who were just certain it would be keyed to the blood moons we had a couple summers ago.

Interesting post for this, the 17th of Sivan, 5778. Folks, don’t base your lives on any of the dates with which these charlatans play their guessing games!

BB

Anonymous said...

The theory that the British royal family is descended from the house of King David through a daughter of King Zedekiah is false. There is no definitive evidence proving this. In fact, there are several reasons why I no longer believe this lie.

1) All the genealogies of the Bible, including the Davidic monarchy and that of Jesus Christ Himself (e.g. Gn 5:3-32; 11:10-32; 1 Chr 1-9; Mt 1:2-16; Lk 3:23-28) are all recorded as patrilineal. This proof alone undermines this theory.

2) There is much confusion over the identification of Tea, Tea-Tephi, Scota and/or “the daughter of Pharaoh” in the historical annals of Ireland with a supposed royal daughter of King David (Jer 41:10; 43:6). And this has even been confirmed by the BIWF and United Church of God in recent years.

3) Jesus Christ is the only one who has the divine right to sit on the throne of David i.e. the throne of YHWH. He sits on it even now in heaven and will return to re-unite the twelve tribes of Israel under His rule and restore them to the Promised Land. He will extend and magnify the throne of David beyond the United Kingdom of Israel to rule over the whole world, which will surpass any and all former kingdoms and empires like the past British Empire.

No matter how enchanting this theory might seem or how much we want it to be true it is false and those who are beguiled by it are I'm afraid sadly deceived.

Anonymous said...

"The entire basis of the Church of God movement is based upon this unsubstantiated legend."

I really think you need to change this to "The entire basis of the Armstrong movement....". The COG7th day and other Church's of God would object to the original statement.

K.M.

Connie Schmidt said...

I agree with K.M. , the COG 7th Day has NEVER been involved with US/BC ideas.

Anonymous said...

It would still be false to say it is "the entire basis of the Armstrong movement".

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:22 What do you mean by reason no2. What does BIWF stand for ? Can ypu provide a link to UCG supporting your reason ?

nck said...

Yes, it was not "the entire basis", it was the "cornerstone". BI is the lense through which the entire edifice is constructed. When Tkach deemphasized BI, the entire structure was doomed. All the other changes follow from the removal of BI. I don't think even HWA understood that as the old fashioned christian that he was, not trained in theological structural thinking or other management skills. Otherwise he would never have elected someone from Russian stock to lead the church instead of an "Israelite". The entire premiss was to be led by an Israelite into New Jerusalem by an Israelite. But HWA believed in Christ as leader of the church not knowing it was he himself who was the leader of cult. Ignorance leading the dumb sheep. It's like Walt Disney have the Hulk accompany Peter Pan instead of Tinker Bell. The entire premiss will falter by a minor change in characters doing the bidding.

nck

Anonymous said...

11.22 PM
The problem with rejecting that the royal family are the descendants of King David is the overall body of evidence. Why are a group of ribbon cutters revered world wide, going back many generation? It defies cause and effect. The English did not have a written language till about 400 AD, so lack of historic evidence of king Zedekiahs daughter is unsurprising. The problem with the claim that Gods promise to David was conditional on obedience, hence no more descendants sit on Davids thrown, is that God promise to David is repeated too many times. In bible-ease, this means the promise is firm, and only the practical application is conditional. Gods promise to David did not cease to exist.

Is BI correct? A simply prayer request to God will answer this.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps BI was not the intellectual cornerstone of Armstrongism since members are supposed to be followers of Christ (ignored or downplayed by the church), but it was what energised the church. In that sense, it was the defining trait of Herbs church.

Anonymous said...

I'm American, I speak American, And I am NOT jewish. Case closed!

Anonymous said...

Whats American ? I thought americans speak english ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:08 AM said: "What do you mean by reason no2. What does BIWF stand for ? Can ypu provide a link to UCG supporting your reason ?"

I suggest you check out "Tea Tephi or Scota?" in the UCG publication The Throne of David. Honest admissions are made as regards the uncertainty over the identity of Tea, Tea-Tephi, Tamar Tea Tephi, Scota or the “daughter of Pharaoh” in the Irish chronicles with a royal daughter of King Zedekiah.

Likewise I recall about two decades ago now reading some articles published by the British-Israel World Federation (BIWF) acknowledging the same, that is, there is a lack of solid evidence in secular history proving the identity of Tea, etc. with a royal daughter of King Zedekiah. I no longer have these articles in my possession I’m afraid, but I note that Christian Assemblies International confirms this admission in their article "Tea-Tephi never existed" They note although the BIWF admit the Tea-Tephi story is false they still remain devoted to the idea of a royal daughter of King Zedekiah traveling to Ireland.

Further, I suggest you read James Malm’s study paper 105 "The dynasty of David" which presents further evidence proving the notion that the British royal family is descended from the house of King David is scripturally false.

Anonymous 1:39 PM said: “The problem with rejecting that the royal family are the descendants of King David is the overall body of evidence. Why are a group of ribbon cutters revered world wide, going back many generation? It defies cause and effect. The English did not have a written language till about 400 AD, so lack of historic evidence of king Zedekiahs daughter is unsurprising. The problem with the claim that Gods promise to David was conditional on obedience, hence no more descendants sit on Davids thrown, is that God promise to David is repeated too many times. In bible-ease, this means the promise is firm, and only the practical application is conditional. Gods promise to David did not cease to exist. Is BI correct? A simply prayer request to God will answer this.”

I can only refer you to Malm’s study paper 105 above. Although I don’t agree with a lot of what Malm writes or believes I am in near complete agreement with his arguments in this study paper. In it he notes and, I believe, answers your implicit view that the British royal family has to be of the house of King David due to its international prestige. Check out the section “Solomon loses Israel” wherein Malm notes that no one, neither Jeroboam, nor any of descendants, nor any of the other kings that ruled over the ten tribes of Israel were of David or Judah. So why apply this BI fictional requirement today, that is, a portion of present-day Israel must needs be ruled by a Davidic or Judahite descendant? It’s scripturally false.

nck said...

@2:46
"Perhaps BI was not the intellectual cornerstone of Armstrongism since members are supposed to be followers of Christ (ignored or downplayed by the church), but it was what energised the church. In that sense, it was the defining trait of Herbs church."

Interesting observation!

Yes it energized the church since "30% of the bible was reinterpreted as prophecy for our time".

I agree that members were supposed to be followers of Christ. That is the reason why HWA so often said "you are not getting it brethren". I think he instinctively knew that people were following him as "of davidic stock". His marketing and advertising skills worked contrary to what he ideally had in mind for other people. Since he had no boss other than Christ according to the flip chart, he could not see how following him would impede their relationship with Christ. Although officially not a catholic intermediary between christ and the lay member he did block the light somehow, wheras fella's like pack and flurry are like guides into a cave system without maps or lights or knowledge of caves.

nck

Anonymous said...

The British-Israel-World Federation is a white supremacist organization that's in step with the Ku Klux Klan.

Anonymous said...

Re: British Israelism (or Anglo-Israelism)-
The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and philological research.

nck said...

Please. The BIWF is a middle class club consisting of those nostalgic about empire days when the world was learning how to do bookkeeping and run a decent administrative system through railroads.

One visiting the changing of the guard, rain started pouring and I fled under a roof. Guess what, it was biwf adjacent to the palace and it did not feel like a redneck kk compound but rather a tea club.

Today they moved from that real estate I guess new sponsors are hard to find in contrast christian usa that is defending itself in the wake of imminent collapse of their dominant culture, which is a different trauma than the loss of external empire.

Nck

Questeruk said...

Anonymous June 10, 2018 at 11:22 PM said...
“The theory that the British royal family is descended from the house of King David through a daughter of King Zedekiah is false……

1) All the genealogies of the Bible, including the Davidic monarchy and that of Jesus Christ Himself (e.g. Gn 5:3-32; 11:10-32; 1 Chr 1-9; Mt 1:2-16; Lk 3:23-28) are all recorded as patrilineal. This proof alone undermines this theory.”


Err No, you fall at the first fence on this one.

If we are going by the Bible, then it states that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but Mary was his mother. The genealogy in Mathew is that of Joseph, whereas the different genealogy in Luke is that of Mary. It is through this genealogy that Jesus was descended from David. He was descended through the female line (Mary).

You could say that was an exact parallel to the royal family being descended from David via a daughter of King Zedekiah.

The principle of descent in part through the female line is there, even if the evidence to prove this descent is not conclusive.

Anonymous said...

Questeruk June 13, 2018 1:37 PM said: “…the Bible…states that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but Mary was his mother. The genealogy in Mathew is that of Joseph, whereas the different genealogy in Luke is that of Mary. It is through this genealogy that Jesus was descended from David. He was descended through the female line (Mary). You could say that was an exact parallel to the royal family being descended from David via a daughter of King Zedekiah….”

I agree with your understanding about the genealogy of Jesus Christ as given in Matthew and Luke, i.e., the former is Christ’s legal ancestry through Joseph and the latter is Christ’s physical ancestry through Mary. I respectfully disagree with your inference, however. As already elaborated upon, I view the evidence cited by BI advocates that the British royal family is descended from the house of King David via a daughter of King Zedekiah entirely circumstantial and inconclusive. Thus, it is to be dismissed at present, in my honest opinion, as pure fantasy.

To expand a little further:

1) The Davidic monarchy was a patrilineal monarchy and the Davidic line was patrilineal never matrilineal. The “throne of David” always passed from father to son (i.e. a male to another related male) never through a mother or to a daughter (i.e. male to female or female to male or female to female). No female descendant of David was ever crowned as monarch on the “throne of David.” Thus, no woman could ever inherit or sit on the “throne of David.”

2) David, and later his son, Solomon, sat on “the throne of the LORD” (1 Chr 29:23; 2 Chr 9:8) thus by extension the “throne of David” is, in fact, “the throne of the LORD.”

3) The Davidic monarchy in its latter years passed from Josiah to his son Jehoahaz (or Shallum); then to Josiah’s other son Jehoiakim (or Eliakim); then to Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin (or Jeconiah or Coniah) who was taken captive to Babylon; and finally to Josiah’s other son Zedekiah (or Mattaniah). Note Zedekiah’s sons were all executed leaving Jehoiachin the sole remaining heir to the Davidic throne.

4) Note that Matthew records the line of David who had the right to rule. Joseph was a descendant of Jehoiachin (i.e. Jeconiah or Coniah). Thus, if Jesus was of Joseph He would have been disqualified from ruling due to the divine curse pronounced on Jehoiachin and his male descendants (Jer 22:24-30). Hence, Luke’s record of Christ’s physical genealogy through Mary.

5) Believing Jesus is the resurrected Christ we can deduce from His genealogy in Matthew and Luke that He is both the Son of David and Son of God. Jesus is both the "root and the offspring of David” (Rv 22:16). As the "root" the throne was His before David was born since David, and his descendants, merely sat upon “the throne of the LORD”(see no. 2). As David's “offspring” the same throne is again His right by inheritance, continuing David's dynasty. Hence, He alone has the divine right to sit on both the “throne of the LORD” and the “throne of David” as the apostle Peter made clear on Pentecost: “Therefore [David] being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:30). He is the living heir apparent (sitting on the right hand of God the Father in heaven at present) and will return to reunite the twelve tribes of Israel under the restored “throne of David,” which He alone represents (Rv 3:7; cf. Isa. 22:22). Thus, when Christ returns to earth, the “throne” will be doubly His right and more!

Questeruk said...

I basically agree with most of the points you list, except for the fact that you are contradicting yourself on one basic point.

I agree with point 4, that Joseph, being descended from Jehoiachin was disqualified from ruling, due to the divine curse placed on Jehoiachin, which would disqualify Jesus as well, had Joseph been His father.You then go on to say 'Hence Luke’s record of Christ’s physical genealogy through Mary'. Exactly, I agree again, physically Christ was descended from David.

However, this goes against you statement in point 1. In your point 1 you state 'The “throne of David” always passed from father to son (i.e. a male to another related male) never through a mother or to a daughter (i.e. male to female or female to male or female to female).

With the case of Mary and Jesus Christ you have exactly that, the right to the throne being passed from female to male.

Byker Bob said...

Uh, no, Questeruk! You have the right to the throne being passed from Jesus’ daddy (Father God) to male son Jesus. That trumps physical genealogy.


BB

Questeruk said...

I wouldn’t dispute that at all Bob.

However the original point from Anonymous was that he was stating that there could be no right of inheritance to the throne via a female descendant. This was the point I was disputing.

Joseph has been ruled out on two counts, he wasn’t Christ’s father, and he was barred from inheriting because of his decent from Jehoiachin.

While it is true that normally all inheritances would pass through male descendants, the Bible points out an exception.

Did Mary have any brothers?

We know she had a sister, she is mentioned once in the gospels (John 19v25), at the time of the crucifixion.

Brothers are not mentioned. Now if Mary did not have had any living brothers, or any deceased brothers that had children, then the way the genealogy is written makes complete sense, and there is no problem with Christ being a valid descendant from David, through Mary.

According to the law of Israel, when daughters were the only heirs, they could inherit their father's possessions and rights if they married within their own tribe.

This was a precedent set by the daughters of Zelophehad, and subsequently applied to all Israel in these circumstances. (Check out Numbers 36 v6-8 if you are interested).

So if Mary had no brothers who could be her father's heirs, and she married someone who was of the same tribe, which she did, as Joseph was of the same tribe – then this right of inheritance could pass from Mary on to her son Jesus Christ.

In those circumstances the normal procedure of all inheritances passing through male descendants was overruled, and Mary could then pass on a valid descendant’s line from the throne of King David.

Did Mary have any brothers? Who knows? But if she didn’t, the physical inheritance could legally be passed down through her.

This was the point I was making, but I didn’t go into the full details when I first made the point!

Questeruk said...

Of course the original point was less about Mary, and more about the daughters of King Zedekiah.

Again the same principle would apply. In their case we know that they had no surviving brothers, or descendants from their brothers, so the same principle would apply as I detailed above. Their right of inheritance from King Zedekiah would pass on down to their children, via the female line.

That is the Biblical principle, as set by the daughters of Zelophehad.

Did these daughters of Zedekiah actually travel to Ireland, and marry into an earlier branch of the House of Israel? Well that’s another question, which I am not going to venture an opinion.

However, if that did happen, there would not appear to be a problem in the right of inheritance being passed through the daughter, under these circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Now I understand your objection and thank you sincerely for bringing this to my attention. I still, however, respectfully disagree that it contradicts or undermines my aforementioned points as regards the order of succession in the Davidic line.

Regarding the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, like you, I have made the assumption that Matthew records Joseph’s lineage and Luke records Mary’s lineage. There are alternative interpretations, however, so I’m willing to concede the possibility that our assumptions about Christ’s genealogy as recorded in Matthew and Luke are, in fact, incorrect and the truth for the present remains hidden to our understanding (Pr 25:2). For instance, there is a view promoted by Eusebius that both Matthew and Luke record Joseph’s genealogy not Mary’s. According to this interpretation, Jacob and Heli were half-brothers: “Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother. Heli dying childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, having Joseph, according to nature belonging to himself, but by law to Heli. Thus, Joseph was the son of both.” Another point of contention is the “curse of Coniah.” According to an alternative view the Jeconiah in Matthew’s record was actually another name for Josiah’s firstborn, Johanan, and is not referring at all to his grandson, through his second born, Eliakim (or Jehoiakim). And thus Jesus lineage was not from the cursed line of Coniah, but from Josiah’s son Johanan, who, according to this interpretation, was also named Jeconiah. And among his descendants were a Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who were not the same as those from Coniah’s cursed line. Another interpretation is that the curse was limited to Coniah’s sons and not passed on in perpetuity to his descendants and so the curse would be irrelevant to subsequent generations and the genealogy of Christ.

In any event, Christ’s physical genealogy in Matthew and Luke is fairly mute, in my opinion, since Jesus Christ is the LORD who gave His seat of authority to David, took it back again after David’s descendants disobeyed and then being born of David and of God the Father, and risen from the dead remains the living “heir apparent” today and will fulfil the promises relating to the “throne of David” at His return. Or as BB 6/14/18 11:11 so clearly put it: “You have the right to the throne being passed from Jesus’ daddy (Father God) to male son Jesus. That trumps physical genealogy.”

To summarize my reasoning:

1) The “throne of David” was equivalent to the “throne of the LORD.”
2) The LORD gave His throne or seat of authority to David to rule over the tribes of Israel and Judah.
3) The LORD’s promise to David that the Messiah would originate from the line of David was unconditional.
4) The Messiah would sit on “the throne of David” or the “throne of the LORD” in perpetuity.
5) The LORD’s promise to David’s son, Solomon, and his descendants that the “throne of David” would continually exist as a visible seat of authority on earth was conditional on their obedience.
6) The LORD eventually took the “throne of David” or His seat of authority away from Solomon’s line and it permanently ended with Zedekiah.
7) The “throne of David,” in hiatus at present, will be restored at Christ’s Second Coming, “whose right it is” (Ezek 21:27) when the twelve tribes of Israel are reunited under “the throne of the LORD” and return to the Promised Land.

Concerning the daughters of King Zedekiah the question arises why would they ascend the line of succession to the “throne of David” if there were other males of the royal seed that could still assume the throne, such as Josiah’s firstborn, Johanan or Josiah’s grandson through Jehoiakim, Zedekiah? Yet, nothing more, that I’m aware of, is said of them and their fate in Scripture is unknown except for their brief mention in 1 Chronicles 3:15-16.