British Israelism

Common
Trinity
Soul
Heaven
Hell
Satan/Demons
"Saved"
Baptism
Resurrection
Antichrist

Science
Miracles
Evolution
Creation
Carbon Dating

Inspiration
Partial
Contradictions
& Inaccuracies

Jeremiah 33:17

"For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel . . . "

Problem:

This passage furnishes the critical link in the British Israelite argument. Armstrong puts it this way:

"Not only was that throne established forever, it was to exist continuously forever - through all generations . . . If the throne of David ceased with Zedekiah, then it does not exist today. And if it does not exist, how shall Christ sit upon a non-existent throne?" ¹

It is on the basis of this reasoning that appeal is made to the ancient annals of Ireland to attempt to prove that Queen Elizabeth now sits on David's throne. Armstrong after citing Irish tradition, states: "In view of the linking together of Biblical history, prophecy, and Irish history, can anyone deny that this Hebrew princess (Tephi) was the daughter of King Zedekiah of Judah, and therefore heir to the throne of David? - That the aged patriarch was in fact Jeremiah, and his companion Jeremiah's scribe, or secretary, Baruch? . . . The Royal Family of the British Commonwealth possesses a chart showing its ancestry, every generation, back to Heremon and Tephi, to Zedekiah, on back to David . . . " ²

Solution:

1. If the throne of David has been "overturned" and now exists in London, are the priests and the Levites offering burnt offerings kindling meat offerings and doing "sacrifice continually?" (Jer. 33:18). British-Israelites only quote the first part of the covenant, but the covenant continues: "Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." (Jeremiah 33:18). Notice the similar references in vs. 21, 22.

2. The promise, "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" is future, commencing with the reign of Christ and not with the reign of David.³ Consider the context:
   
   1. "Behold, the days come . . . " (vs. 14). What days? "In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land." (vs. 15). The Branch is singular (i.e., "he") and does not, therefore, refer to a successive line of kings and queens. No monarch in the history of Great Britain can be said to have executed judgment and righteousness in the land. This description can only refer to Jesus Christ.
      
   2. "In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness." (vs. 16). Neither Judah, Jerusalem nor Great Britain can be said to presently be "saved" or "dwell safely." Certainly today, Great Britain does not merit the description, "The LORD our righteousness." It has been judged by non-religious men as a decadent, agnostic, atheistic and pseudo-religious society.
      
3. Scripture never refers to the throne of David being removed from Palestine to any other country. Scripture never refers to a return of David's throne from any country to Jerusalem at the time of Christ's return. Such assumptions must be read into Scripture by the British-Israel theory.
   
4. Jesus will not return to a non-existent throne. David's throne will be re-established in Jerusalem. (Luke 1:32,33). As the prophet wrote: "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" (Acts 15:16).
   
5. Hosea states clearly that "the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice . . . " (Hosea 3:4). Only in the "latter days" shall the children of Israel "return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days." (Hosea 3:5). The language of these two verses is incompatible with Armstrong's claim that there never has been a break in the Davidic line. Furthermore, it cannot be said of the Commonwealth nations nor of the U.S.A. that in these latter days they "seek the LORD their God."

1. Herbert W. Armstrong, The United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy, (Pasadena: Ambassador College, 1954), p. 6. Return

2. Ibid., pp. 19, 20. Return

3. Armstrong also cites 2 Sam. 7 in support of his doctrine that there has been an unbroken continuity in the Davidic throne. But the same mistake is made in the interpretation of this reference as in his interpretation of Jer. 33:17. God says: " . . . thou [David] shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee . . . and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son . . . " (2 Sam. 7:12-14). These words refer to Jesus Christ and not to Solomon as Armstrong alleges. This is the inspired interpretation given in Hebrews 1:5. The continuance of the throne until the promised seed (Christ) would come is conditional upon Israel obeying God's statutes. This is stated in David's charge to Solomon: " . . . If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel." (1 Kings 2:4). Israel did not walk faithfully and so God removed the diadem and crown. (Ezek. 21:26). Return