Part IV: The House of David

In his booklet The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert Armstrong wrote: "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 nonexistent throne? (See Luke 1:31-32.) And, since it was to continue through all generations, how about those many generations between Zedekiah and the birth of Jesus?" For Armstrong, the answer to his questions were found in his reinterpretation of some ancient Irish folklore and legends. In other words, outside of the Bible. In that same booklet referenced at the beginning of this paragraph, he wrote: "The son of this later king Herremon and Hebrew princess continued on the throne of Ireland and this same dynasty continued unbroken through all the kings of Ireland; was overturned and transplanted again in Scotland; again overturned and moved to London, England, where this same dynasty continues today in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II."

Now, as a lifelong Anglophile and romantic (with a documented descent from British royalty), this is one part of the teaching of British-Israelism that I wish had a Scriptural foundation. Sadly, for me (and the proponents of Anglo-Israelism), however, this is probably the weakest component of the teaching from a Scriptural perspective! Once again, we will ignore the mountain of historical and scientific evidence which contradicts this notion and focus entirely on its supposed foundation in the Bible. Indeed, like the promises made to Abraham, we will demonstrate that the promises made to David find their fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ! And, not only will we hit all of Armstrong's "prooftexts," we will take a very deep dive into almost all of the biblical texts which relate to this topic. Finally, as in the previous posts in this series, we will build on the material in those posts and lay the groundwork for what is to follow - using only Scripture and a good concordance.

First, it important that we understand that God's promise to (covenant with) David was an outgrowth of his promise to (covenant with) Abraham. You will remember from Part I of this series that God promised Abraham that kings would descend from him (Genesis 17:6). Hence, we can see that the Scriptures relating to God's promise to David should also be seen as an explanation of how God intended to fulfill one of his promises to Abraham! With this background and understanding, we are ready to examine God's covenant with David.

We will resume our narrative where we left it at the conclusion of Part III of this series - David had finally assumed the throne over all of the Israelites, Israel and Judah (II Samuel 5:1-5). As the story continued, we read that the very first act of the newly minted monarch was to conquer the city of Jerusalem and make it his capital (II Samuel 5:6-9). As the narrative continues, we will see that David's decision to capture Jerusalem and make it his headquarters was crucial to everything which followed that event. For, as soon as David was settled in his new capital, he made the decision to bring the Ark of the Covenant there and build a temple for the God of Israel (II Samuel 6 and 7:1-3). Prior to this, of course, the Ark had been housed in the Tabernacle and had moved around with the Israelites on their various journeyings - until finding a semi-permanent home at Shiloh under the last two judges (I Samuel 1-3). Hence, David's decision to permanently locate "God's house" in Jerusalem had important ramifications for both the religious and political life of the nation of Israel, and it would also have significant implications for Jesus Christ and his Kingdom in the future.

However, while we read that God was pleased that David wanted to do this, he instructed Nathan to inform the king that he would NOT be the one to build God's Temple (II Samuel 7:4-7). Even so, we are also informed that God told Nathan to convey to the king certain promises or guarantees. We read: "Now go and say to my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has declared: I took you from tending sheep in the pasture and selected you to be the leader of my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have destroyed all your enemies before your eyes. Now I will make your name as famous as anyone who has ever lived on the earth! And I will provide a homeland for my people Israel, planting them in a secure place where they will never be disturbed. Evil nations won’t oppress them as they’ve done in the past, starting from the time I appointed judges to rule my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies." (II Samuel 7:8-11, NLT - see also I Chronicles 17:11-14). So, after reminding David about his humble origins and everything that he had already done for him, God promised to make David famous all over the world, provide a secure homeland for the Israelites, and prevent attacks by his enemies.

As pertains to Anglo-Israelism, however, an understanding of what came next is critical. Continuing in that same chapter, we read: "Furthermore, the Lord declares that he will make a house for you—a dynasty of kings! For when you die and are buried with your ancestors, I will raise up one of your descendants, your own offspring, and I will make his kingdom strong. He is the one who will build a house—a temple—for my name. And I will secure his royal throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he sins, I will correct and discipline him with the rod, like any father would do. But my favor will not be taken from him as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from your sight. Your house and your kingdom will continue before me for all time, and your throne will be secure forever." (II Samuel 7:11-16) So, we see that God promised David: 1) a dynasty of kings, 2) to raise up ONE of his descendants to rule over a strong kingdom, 3) that this descendant would build a temple for God, 4) that this descendant's kingdom and throne would be secured forever, 5) that God would be his father, and he would be God's son, and 6) that God would be merciful to him in the event of sin and would not withdraw his favor as a consequence.

Now, the question is: To whom did this apply? Was this speaking about Solomon, Jesus Christ, or both? For Armstrong and his followers, the answer to this question seemed obvious - it must be talking about Solomon. However, as we will soon see, this interpretation of the promise involves a very superficial understanding of the passage and its context, and it ignores a great many related passages of Scripture.

Indeed, a comprehensive review of all of the pertinent passages of Scripture will reveal that Solomon could NOT be the descendant of David referred to in this promise! First, although Solomon did produce a line of kings (or dynasty) which ruled over the Kingdom of Judah, we will see that the Bible clearly records that both that line of kings and the kingdom which they ruled over came to a cataclysmic end. Second, although Solomon did construct a Temple for God at Jerusalem, we will see that that Temple was repeatedly polluted and neglected, and that it was, finally, completely destroyed by the Babylonians. Next, we will see that, like the Israelites before him, Solomon's participation in the promises made to his father was made conditional - and that God DID eventually withdraw his favor from Solomon and his descendants. Finally, we will see that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled ALL of these promises in a way that NO other human descendant of David could ever fulfill them! Hence, in the language of Armstrong and his followers, the best that we can say about Solomon is that he served as "a type" of Jesus Christ!

So, as we just indicated, we will begin with the story of the line of kings (dynasty) that Solomon produced. In the book of I Kings, we learn that Solomon accumulated seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines during the course of his reign over Israel, and that they persuaded him to worship their gods (11:1-8). Moreover, as part of the same narrative, we learn that God was very displeased with Solomon, and that God decided to withdraw his favor from the wicked king (verses 9-10). Continuing with the account, we read: "So now the Lord said to him, 'Since you have not kept my covenant and have disobeyed my decrees, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your servants. But for the sake of your father, David, I will not do this while you are still alive. I will take the kingdom away from your son. And even so, I will not take away the entire kingdom; I will let him be king of one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, my chosen city.' Then the Lord raised up Hadad the Edomite, a member of Edom’s royal family, to be Solomon’s adversary." (Verses 11-14) Later still, we read that "God also raised up Rezon son of Eliada as Solomon’s adversary" (verse 23), and "Jeroboam son of Nebat, one of Solomon’s own officials." (Verse 26) Hence, we see that God definitely withdrew his favor from Solomon before he died, and we would do well to ask ourselves: How does this fact square with God's promise to David? To be very clear, it does NOT!

Even so, as the narrative continues, we see that Solomon's son, Rehoboam, did succeed him as king when he died (verses 42-43). However, just as God had promised Solomon, the Northern Tribes revolted against Rehoboam and chose Jeroboam to be their new king (I Kings 12:1-20). As a consequence, we read: "When Rehoboam arrived at Jerusalem, he mobilized the men of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin—180,000 select troops—to fight against the men of Israel and to restore the kingdom to himself. But God said to Shemaiah, the man of God, 'Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the people of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people, ‘This is what the Lord says: Do not fight against your relatives, the Israelites. Go back home, for what has happened is my doing!' So they obeyed the message of the Lord and went home, as the Lord had commanded." (I Kings 12:21-24) Hence, from that point forward, Solomon's descendants would reign in Jerusalem over the Kingdom of Judah, and the Northern Tribes would be ruled over by various dynasties as the "Kingdom of Israel."

Of course, the remainder of the book of I Kings, all of II Kings, and all of II Chronicles tell the stories of these dynasties and their kingdoms in some detail. Nevertheless, for the sake of time and space, we will only make a few observations about this history that are pertinent to the thesis of this post. For instance, it is important to note that these two kingdoms were sometimes at war with each other, sometimes were allied to each other, and continued to share a reverence for Jerusalem and their shared past. This history demonstrates that two nations, Israel and Judah, existed side by side - that they were, in fact, separate nations. Even so, this history also demonstrates that these peoples continued to regard themselves as sharing a common origin and familial connections. In other words, in a real sense, they were all still the children of Israel.

Within that larger narrative, we are also obligated to tell at least a part of the story surrounding Solomon's Temple. After that edifice was completed, we know that the Temple was often abused and neglected by some of the Kings of Judah. In fact, it didn't take very long for all of this to start. In the fourteenth chapter of I Kings, we read: "In the fifth year of King Rehoboam’s reign, King Shishak of Egypt came up and attacked Jerusalem. He ransacked the treasuries of the Lord’s Temple and the royal palace; he stole everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made." (Verses 25-26) Likewise, we read that King Asa used the Temple's furnishings to secure a military alliance with a foreign nation (I Kings 15:18). In the twelfth chapter of II Kings, we read that King Joash had to order a major renovation of the Temple because it had fallen into such a state of disrepair. We are informed that King Hezekiah emptied the temple of its silver and gold furnishings and even stripped off the gold from its doors and pillars to give as tribute to the King of Assyria (II Kings 18:13-16). During the reign of King Manasseh, we read that "he built pagan altars in the Temple of the Lord...for all the powers of the heavens in both courtyards of the Lord’s Temple." (II Kings 21:4-5), Indeed, we are told that this particular king was so wicked that he "sacrificed his own son in the fire" and "practiced sorcery and divination." (Verse 6) Moreover, we are further informed that his grandson, King Josiah, had to order the High Priest "to remove from the Lord’s Temple all the articles that were used to worship Baal, Asherah, and all the powers of the heavens. The king had all these things burned outside Jerusalem on the terraces of the Kidron Valley, and he carried the ashes away to Bethel." (II Kings 23:4) And, as we shall shortly see, the Temple itself was eventually completely destroyed by the Babylonians! 

Now, although we have just summarized a great deal of history and made a few broad observations about it, we should also note an incident which has implications for the thesis of this post. I'm speaking of the reign of Queen Athaliah over the Kingdom of Judah. The first thing that we should note about Athaliah is that she was from the same House/Dynasty as King Omri and King Ahab of Israel, and that she was the mother of King Ahaziah of Judah (II Kings 8:26 and II Chronicles 21:6, 22:2). Unfortunately, following the death of her son, we are told that Athaliah seized the throne of Judah and reigned over that kingdom for six years (II Kings 11:1-3). Thus, although one of Ahaziah's sisters had hidden one of the king's infant sons while Athaliah was busy murdering all of the Davidic heirs to the throne, and he was later restored to the throne as King Joash, we cannot escape the fact that someone other than a descendant of David occupied the throne of Judah for six years! Hence, we must once again ask the question: How does this fact square with God's promise to David? Once again, to be very clear, Athaliah's reign would have been a blatant violation of God's promise to David - if we attempt to interpret it as applying to Solomon's line!

So, we come at last to the main and decisive point about Solomon's dynasty reigning over the Kingdom of Judah - it ended! In the book of II Kings, we read that Pharaoh Neco invaded the Kingdom of Judah and overthrew King Jehoahaz, imprisoned him, and placed Jehoiakim (another prince of the House of David) on the throne (23:31-36). Continuing with this narrative, we learn King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon invaded the kingdom and made King Jehoiakim pay tribute to him, and then harassed the kingdom after he rebelled for the remained or his reign (24:1-6). Now, although his son was allowed to succeed him as King of Judah, we read that King Nebuchadnezzar "took Jehoiachin prisoner. As the Lord had said beforehand, Nebuchadnezzar carried away all the treasures from the Lord’s Temple and the royal palace. He stripped away all the gold objects that King Solomon of Israel had placed in the Temple. King Nebuchadnezzar took all of Jerusalem captive, including all the commanders and the best of the soldiers, craftsmen, and artisans—10,000 in all. Only the poorest people were left in the land. Nebuchadnezzar led King Jehoiachin away as a captive to Babylon, along with the queen mother, his wives and officials, and all Jerusalem’s elite. He also exiled 7,000 of the best troops and 1,000 craftsmen and artisans, all of whom were strong and fit for war. Then the king of Babylon installed Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, as the next king, and he changed Mattaniah’s name to Zedekiah." (24:12-17)

In the following chapter, we read that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again in the ninth year of King Zedekiah's reign and ended both his reign and the Kingdom of Judah within two years! (25:1-6) Continuing with the account, we read: "They made Zedekiah watch as they slaughtered his sons. Then they gouged out Zedekiah’s eyes, bound him in bronze chains, and led him away to Babylon." (Verse 7) Next, we are informed that the Babylonians entered Jerusalem and burned down the temple, palace, and all of the official buildings in the city (verses 8-9). Next, they broke down the walls which surrounded the city and carried away many of its inhabitants into captivity in Babylon (verses 10-24). So, we see that both David's dynasty through Solomon and the Kingdom of Judah came to a sudden an inglorious end. And, not to put too fine a point on all of this, but this BIBLICAL history makes clear that God's promises to David were NOT fulfilled by Solomon or his descendants!

All of that said, the strongest argument against Solomon being identified as the son talked about in God's promise to David is contained in two separate Divine appearances to Solomon surrounding his construction of a Temple for God in Jerusalem. While the Temple was being built, we are informed that God appeared to Solomon and told him: "Concerning this Temple you are building, if you keep all my decrees and regulations and obey all my commands, I will fulfill through you the promise I made to your father, David. I will live among the Israelites and will never abandon my people Israel." (I Kings 6:12-13) The second appearance took place after construction was finished, and Solomon dedicated the edifice to God. After the king finished his prayer, we read that: "The Lord said to him, 'I have heard your prayer and your petition. I have set this Temple apart to be holy—this place you have built where my name will be honored forever. I will always watch over it, for it is dear to my heart. 'As for you, if you will follow me with integrity and godliness, as David your father did, obeying all my commands, decrees, and regulations, then I will establish the throne of your dynasty over Israel forever. For I made this promise to your father, David: ‘One of your descendants will always sit on the throne of Israel.’ 'But if you or your descendants abandon me and disobey the commands and decrees I have given you, and if you serve and worship other gods, then I will uproot Israel from this land that I have given them. I will reject this Temple that I have made holy to honor my name. I will make Israel an object of mockery and ridicule among the nations. And though this Temple is impressive now, all who pass by will be appalled and will gasp in horror. They will ask, ‘Why did the Lord do such terrible things to this land and to this Temple?’" (I Kings 9:3-8, see also II Chronicles 7:17-22) Notice, that in both instances God makes Solomon's enjoyment of the promises made to his father contingent upon his own good behavior!

We should also note before we leave the Scriptures dealing with the Kingdom of Judah that the throne ALWAYS passed from father to son. In other words, it NEVER passed through female offspring! Hence, the contention that a daughter of Zedekiah could legitimately carry on Solomon's line doesn't find ANY support in ANY of these passages!

Now, in Part VI, we will also demonstrate that Jesus Christ fulfilled these promises to David as NO other human who has ever lived has done. After all, Jesus of Nazareth did say that he came to this earth to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). In that section, we will also demonstrate that the unbreakable nature of God's covenant with David could only have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Even so, in this connection, we have a few more passages of Scripture to look at which address God's promises to David or are otherwise used by the supporters of Anglo-Israelism as prooftexts.

The eighty-ninth Psalm is probably the most relevant of all of these other passages of Scripture. Indeed, this Psalm of Ethan the Ezrahite (one of the choir of Levites and musicians designated to accompany the Ark of the Covenant - see I Chronicles 15:16-19) is all about God's promise to David! We read: "You said, 'I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant, ‘I will establish your line forever and make your throne firm through all generations.’" (Verses 3-4, NIV) OR as it is rendered by the ESV: "You have said, 'I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant: ‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.'" (The NLT is an outlier in its presentation of this passage) Notice that there is a strong sense in both of these translations that this is something that God WILL do in the future. Later, in the same Psalm, we read: "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever, a faithful witness in the skies." (Verses 27-37, ESV) Now, Solomon was NEVER the "highest of the kings of the earth." And, once again, the sense is that "it shall be established forever" (future).

Unfortunately, supporters of Anglo-Israelism rarely quote the remainder of this Psalm (as we will soon see, for good reason). Continuing in the passage, we read: "But now you have cast off and rejected; you are full of wrath against your anointed. You have renounced the covenant with your servant; you have defiled his crown in the dust. You have breached all his walls; you have laid his strongholds in ruins. All who pass by plunder him; he has become the scorn of his neighbors. You have exalted the right hand of his foes; you have made all his enemies rejoice. You have also turned back the edge of his sword, and you have not made him stand in battle. You have made his splendor to cease and cast his throne to the ground. You have cut short the days of his youth; you have covered him with shame." (Verses 38-45, ESV) Now, although there were definitely occasions within David's life where he might have felt like God had rejected him (think Absalom's rebellion), we know that God's promise to David was irrevocable (enduring like the sun and the moon).

Now, we have already mentioned that we will have a great deal to say about Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises made to David and the predictions of the prophets in this regard in Part VI of this series. Nevertheless, we will address some of the passages which the supporters of Anglo-Israelism employ from the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to support their contention that Solomon's line continued to reign in the British Isles after the Kingdom of Judah was destroyed by the Babylonians. However, before we examine those particular passages, we should point out that both prophets (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) served during the time of Judah's downfall. Hence, when we attempt to understand something which they have written, we should keep this context firmly in our minds.

The supporters of Anglo-Israelism make much of the commission which God gave to Jeremiah in the opening of the book. In the first chapter, we read: "Look, I have put my words in your mouth! Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. Some you must uproot and tear down, destroy and overthrow. Others you must build up and plant." (Verses 9-10) Now, while these folks admit that the tearing down, destroying and overthrowing obviously refers to what happened to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, they claim that the building and planting mentioned here refers to a secret mission by the prophet to carry one of King Zedekiah's daughters to Ireland and replant David's royal line there! The truth, however, is that we don't need to be so imaginative or creative! If we truly desire to understand what God was commissioning this prophet to do, all we need to do is turn to the thirty-first chapter of the book! We read there: "'The day is coming,' says the Lord, 'when I will greatly increase the human population and the number of animals here in Israel and Judah. In the past I deliberately uprooted and tore down this nation. I overthrew it, destroyed it, and brought disaster upon it. But in the future, I will just as deliberately plant it and build it up. I, the Lord, have spoken!" (Verses 27-28) So, we see that God was talking about the future redemption and restoration of what the prophet had helped to tear down and destroy! We will have more to say about both in the next part of this series, and we will also discuss what this prophet had to say in the thirty-third chapter of his book about Jesus Christ in the last part of this series.

Oddly enough, the supporters of Anglo-Israelism attempt to support the notion of Jeremiah's commission by turning to another passage from the book of Ezekiel! In the twenty-first chapter of that book, the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, the kingdom, and the monarchy is discussed. In that context, we read: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear; because, I say, that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand. And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." (Verses 24-27, KJV) Now, supporters of Anglo-Israelism go outside of the Bible to explain this passage! They say that it refers to the turning over of David's throne to Ireland, then to Scotland, and then to England! Once again, however, we do not need to be so imaginative or creative in our interpretation of this passage! Indeed, we have already referenced what this passage refers to in the twenty-third through the twenty-fifth chapter of II Kings. We read there how an Egyptian pharaoh overthrew King Jehoahaz and replaced him with Jehoiakim (who hadn't been in line to assume the throne). Later, the Babylonian king overthrew King Jehoiachin and replaced him with King Zedekiah (another prince who hadn't been in line to assume the throne). Then, finally, the King of Babylon overthrew Zedekiah and destroyed the Kingdom of Judah. Moreover, the sense of the original Hebrew clearly argues in favor of the way that most translators have understood this passage - that is that the throne would cease to exist until the rightful heir inherited it (and, as we shall see in Part VI, that heir was Jesus Christ).

In addition to all of the other passages of Scripture which we have already cited in this section, there are a number of other passages which clearly underscore the fact that this line of Davidic kings failed. In the next part of this series, we will look at a number of Scriptures which talk about Israel's redemption and the promise of the Messiah. And we will see that there are many passages which talk about David's fallen dynasty being restored (Amos 9:11, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Ezekiel 17, etc.)

Finally, despite the mountain of Scriptural evidence that Solomon could NOT be the "son" of God's promise to David, a further objection has been raised by some supporters of Anglo-Israelism. They point out that God said: "I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he sins, I will correct and discipline him with the rod, like any father would do. But my favor will not be taken from him as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from your sight." (II Samuel 7:14-15, NLT) And, since we all know that Jesus didn't sin, they reason that this passage MUST refer to Solomon! Well, what about that?

As I related in a previous post, the explanation is found in the basic Christian doctrine of imputation. Christ didn't personally sin, but all of the sins that we have committed were laid on/imputed to him. (Isaiah 53, I Corinthians 15:3, II Corinthians 5:21) Hence, it wasn't that God was anticipating Solomon's sins - it was more like he knew that all of those sins would be imputed to HIS Son. Thus, we have the Son chastened "with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men" for the sins that he figuratively committed. Indeed, this underscores the fact that those sins really were imputed to Christ! Moreover, this explains why God's mercy would NEVER depart from him as it had from Saul!

I would also remind my readers that we have already demonstrated that God's patience with Solomon and his descendants definitely did eventually run out! God did take the throne away from Solomon and his descendants! Once again, their participation in the promises made to David was clearly contingent upon them following in the example of their forefather's devotion to God - just as Abraham's descendants could only share in the promises made to him if they were obedient to God and followed his instructions!

Hence, this particular passage does NOT disqualify Christ as the object of the promise to David. And, as we have already mentioned, we will conclusively demonstrate that Christ is the ONLY person who could have been the Son spoken of in God's promise to David. Once again, the very best that we can say about Solomon in this connection is that he was a very feeble "type" of Jesus Christ - foreshadowing the actual and eternal fulfillment of this promise to David!

Thus, while the British monarchy has a long and interesting history of its own to draw upon, we have seen that there is NO Scriptural foundation for claiming that that line of kings is a continuation of David's/Solomon's throne. In the next part of this series, we will explore the failure of the children of Israel to abide by the terms of their covenant with God, and God's plans to eventually redeem them from that failure. Stay tuned!