The Three Overturns of the Throne
And the Movie "Braveheart"
A Message by Liaf
There is a misunderstood passage in Ezekiel 21:26-27 regarding the so-called "fall" of the throne of King David. 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. "That’s nice, but what does that have to do with the movie Braveheart?" Braveheart was a great movie to watch. I found it very moving, and very gory. Amidst all that violence, I suppose it’s a guy thing to watch such stuff. However, the historical setting is related to Ezekiel 21. Most new Bible translators incorrectly translate the word "overturn" as "ruin". In its more exact meaning, the Hebrew word really means "overthrow" which I suppose has a more violent connotation than "overturn" although they are basically synonyms. If one overturns or overthrows something, it may become a ruin, but not necessarily. I may overturn my car, but if a tow truck comes along to flip it over, it may be capable of being driven again. Ruin implies a termination through destruction whereas overturn or overthrow implies a change in order but not necessarily termination. That’s my English understanding of the words. I’m 42 years old now and I suppose that I would not have the definitions wrong after speaking English all my life. (I’ll admit my grammar is not the best, but that does not affect one’s understanding of words.)
Jeremiah’s Calling and Troubles
What does all this mean in relation to the throne of David? Let’s turn to the beginning of the book of Jeremiah and understand. God was calling the prophet Jeremiah who protested that he was only a child. What most do not understand is that Jeremiah was as important of a character in the Old Testament as the Apostle Paul was in the New Testament. What was this important mission to this child prophet when the Babylonian captivity would one day take effect? Jeremiah 1:10 says: See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. Bible scholars agree that he rooted out, pulled down, destroyed, and threw down. But where did he build and plant? "Over the nations"? What nations? These are the nations of the house of Israel and Judah, and all commentators agree that he did all that rooting and pulling and so forth to the throne of David. But if he was commissioned to do all that as an appointed work, then he must also build and plant. Those who do not believe in the perpetual nature of the throne of David are baffled as to where Jeremiah would build and plant. As a matter of fact, most commentators will claim Jeremiah "probably died in Egypt" after he and his remnant were forcefully taken down there. If anybody says that about Jeremiah, then they don’t believe the Bible where God promised him his life wherever he went.
Jeremiah had a load of troubles warning the kings of Judah about their punishment that God would inflict, and the coming Babylonian captivity. Without going into excessive detail but still to cite a few examples, Jeremiah had troubles with the mainline religious establishment and prophets. In Jeremiah chapter 28 we see that the false prophet Hananiah confronted him. Whereas Jeremiah was warning them of the Babylonian captivity, Hananiah dramatically removed Jeremiah’s yokes and broke them. The Lord’s reply to Jeremiah was to say to Hananiah that iron yokes would replace these symbolic wooden yokes that were broken, and that he would die. I take comfort in passages as these. I’m sure Hananiah would have been a companion to any of our well-known evangelists today. This false prophet was preaching "success" theology. Believe it and it will come to pass. Unbind these people in Jeeeesus’ name, Hallelujah! Meanwhile, the chosen prophet of God was looked upon as apostate. Insightful folk will see where I’m coming from. Blind folk will take offence at Hananiah’s death sentence pronounced by God himself. Hell is not like a hard disk drive that gets full. There’s always room.
If we turn to Jeremiah 36, Jeremiah had his scribe, Baruch, write the words of judgement on a scroll. The warnings were to the nations (Israel and Judah) from the days of king Josiah until that time. Baruch was to read the scroll in the temple and when the officials heard of it, Baruch was invited to read it to them. They were very troubled by these prophecies and upon telling Baruch and Jeremiah to hide, they took the scroll to Josiah’s son King Jehoiakim. As it was being read, he took a penknife and sliced off pieces and to his amusement, threw the pieces into a fire. King Jehoiakim wanted Baruch and Jeremiah seized, but instead the Lord told Jeremiah to rewrite the scroll and then some! There is an important curse to Jehoiakim pronounced in verse 30: Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David. A similar curse was pronounced on his son Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:30 with the whole of that chapter describing the reasons. So as the reader can see, Jeremiah was not very popular. He was indeed doing his share of rooting out, pulling down, destroying and throwing down. In another one of Jeremiah’s perils, there is a character I want to mention. That is the character Ebed-melech the Ethiopian. I like this guy. He had more sense than all of them put together. During the reign of the "last" king Zedekiah, some irate princes persuaded Zedekiah to put Jeremiah to death, in which he was imprisoned and sinking in a miry pit. It was Ebed-melech the Ethiopian who persuaded the king of the evil intent of the princes and persuaded the king that Jeremiah should be rescued. Had it not been for the faithfulness of that Ethiopian, Jeremiah would not have been around to carry out the call of God, which was to perpetuate the Davidic throne!
Promises of Safety
We should turn our attention to God’s promises of safety to Jeremiah, Baruch the scribe, and Ebed-melech the Ethiopian. In spite of all Jeremiah’s difficulties, and in spite of what commentators say, there is a passage in scripture where Jeremiah and his company was promised safety. Jeremiah 15:11 says: Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil and in the time of affliction. Baruch was promised likewise in chapter 45: Thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all the places whither thou goest. Ebed-melech was also promised the same in Jeremiah 39 because he saved Jeremiah and trusted God: For I will surely deliver thee, and thou shall not fall by the sword, but thy life shall be for a prey unto thee: because thou hast put thy trust in me, saith the Lord. In what I said so far, I think there are enough examples of Jeremiah’s dangerous conditions considering the historical context, and that God promised him and some others safety in spite of the situations. Therefore, after all is said and done, he must still build and plant. "What does this have to do with Braveheart?" I’ll get to that later. When we get to the 39th chapter of Jeremiah and the fall of Jerusalem, Zedekiah flees but was overtaken in the plains of Jericho where he was taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah. There they slew his sons before his eyes. The princes were also killed. Zedekiah was blinded. They were trying to extinguish the royal lineage of the "last" king of Judah. What they did not realize was that God made provision way back in Numbers 36 that if male heirs were absent, the inheritance could be passed down through female heirs. This passage was not written to make women libbers happy, but rather God allowed this for future consideration when the Davidic throne would be passed on through female heirs. If this were not true, then as far as I am concerned, there would be no other reason for such a passage. It would act as a token passage that God is not sexist and nothing else. I seem to believe that the Word of the Lord is deeper and more profound than that.
If we continue following the story about the Babylonian assault and captivity from Jeremiah chapter 40 onward, we can see that there is certainly something more profound happening regarding heirs to the throne. Jeremiah was amongst the captives when the captain of the guard said to him (chapter 40:2) The Lord God hath pronounced this evil upon this place (v3) Now the Lord hath brought it, and done according as he hath said: because ye have sinned against the Lord, and have not obeyed his voice, therefore this thing is come upon you. (v4) And now, behold, I loose thee this day from the chains which were upon thine hand. If it seem good unto thee to come with me into Babylon, come; and I will look well unto thee: but if it seem ill unto thee to come with me into Babylon, forbear: behold, all the land is before thee: whither it seemeth good and convenient for thee to go, thither go. Jeremiah was freed and given permission to go wherever he wanted. From the start, any insightful reader of the Bible would see that God had something yet for Jeremiah to do (as opposed to getting dragged down to Egypt later and just dying there). Jeremiah returned to Gedaliah, the appointed governor of the land over the remaining people. The king of Babylon appointed him, so obviously eyes would have been on him, not to mention the political ramifications of his position. Gedaliah told his people he would represent them before the Babylonians and they should go about their business as usual. A member of the royal family, Ishmael, revolted and slew Gedaliah. In addition, he slew Jews that dwelled at Mispah with him, and Chaldean men of war too. Not too cool. That’s a little trouble waiting to happen. He then killed some others on the way to the house of the Lord and threw them into a cistern. He took captive the remaining people of Mispah and headed towards the Ammonites. If we look at chapter 41, we see in verse 10 something interesting about these captives. Remember, these were people left behind when the Babylonians took their captives. Here comes a rebel who assassinates the appointed governor, some countrymen and Chaldean warriors and wants to make off to a supposed refuge with the remaining people. Let’s read verse 10: Then Ishmael carried away captive all the residue of the people that were in Mizpah, even the king’s daughters… Did you get that? Who was the king? The king referenced here was the king who just got taken captive, King Zedekiah. He was the rightful king just before the governor was appointed. His sons were slain if you remember, but here this passage clearly says his daughters were alive and present with these captives. Without going into the details of the rest of the story, what basically happened after that was that a fellow by the name of Johanan rescued them and Ishmael took off. However, although they were rescued, they were all afraid of what the king of Babylon would do to them. In chapter 42, they essentially asked Jeremiah what they should do (they were afraid of the king of Babylon). They expected Jeremiah to prophesy a certain way because of their final reaction. They said in verse 6 We will obey the voice of the Lord our God. OK--- after 10 days God gave Jeremiah the answer (v10) If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent of the evil that I have done to you. The Lord could have easily done that. The king’s daughters were there. There were people and the royal lineage could have continued there. But that’s not what happened, and understanding the biblical story is puzzling enough, without going into "what if" situations. The point is that this is not what happened. What else did Jeremiah say? (v15) If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt, and go to sojourn there [thinking they would be safe there from the king of Babylon] then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye feared, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt, and the famine [etc. etc.] (v17) they shall die there by the sword, famine, and by pestilence… So after all this warning, what did they say to Jeremiah? "You lie! We’ll go to Egypt!" They failed another faith test again. "We want to hear you teach, Liaf. What do you have for us today? Your classes are so interesting----- Oh, that’s nice" (thinking) that’s not what we want to hear. And life goes on as normal with one doing whatever he wants to do anyway. Johanan took the remanant down to Egypt. That’s just what Jeremiah told them not to do through the Word of the Lord. Chapter 43:6 says that he took even men, and women and children, and the king’s daughters…. Now the mainline church will say that the perpetual throne of David that we teach about is ridiculous. They will go through every verse of scripture and speak with all kinds of theological language saying how they know what the Bible says. They stress hermeneutics. They look into every detail with their scholarly pride, and yet amidst this detail of theirs, they miss this about the king’s daughters. Those girls surely got around. How many of you know that Deuteronomy 19:15 says at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established? "But that has to do with convicting somebody". Nope. The principle still applies. Hey, the mainline church will assign spiritual and abstract interpretations to other passages more liberally than I do with this passage. I say that the principle applies. God wanted us to know that one mention of something or one witness to something may be false. But if something is mentioned two or more times then there is a significance to it and it should not be overlooked. That’s the second time those girls got dragged into this. Is God trying to say something here?
Now we must realize that if Jeremiah and the king’s daughters (and this would include the others) were dragged down to Egypt, and these same people were to experience sword, famine, and pestilence, what became of Jeremiah and his company? The "logical" conclusion is that if he "apparently died there in Egypt" with the rest, then he must have perished horribly indeed. Yet, this contradicts the promises given to Jeremiah and his remnant earlier. Therefore, the person of real faith says that the bulk of those who went down to Egypt died horribly (and they did) but that Jeremiah and his remnant would escape. Is this what happened? That’s what my Bible says. If we read the promise of God in Jeremiah 44:14, we see that it says: So that none of the remnant if Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, that they should return into the land of Judah, to which they have a desire to return to dwell there: for none shall return BUT such as shall escape. What does all this mean? The King James is harder to understand with today’s way of speaking, but this verse essentially says that all who went down to Egypt will perish except for a small group. That’s amazing because if we look at a prophecy of Isaiah, that is the same thing that Isaiah said.
Isaiah 37:31-32 says And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. "That’s crazy. Isaiah is referring to the returned exiles who will rebuild Jerusalem and reestablish the Jewish nation." Well, let’s look carefully at this verse for those who would throw in hermeneutics, rules of exegesis, or whatever. If these were returning exiles, how could they be going out of Jerusalem and Mount Zion if they are returning? And how could they be escapees if Cyrus allowed them to return to the land again? With traditional Christianity’s exegesis like this, believe me, there will be an "exit-of-Jesus" if they refuse to believe the truth. What this verse is saying is that a remnant--- Jeremiah’s remnant--- will escape out of Jerusalem. Remember that they were promised their lives as a prey. Now do you suppose that they escaped the fate of the rest in Egypt, returned to Jerusalem, and made their way off somewhere to do Jeremiah’s building and planting? What would Jeremiah want back there in Jerusalem? More on that later. "What about Braveheart? Was Mel Gibson in the Bible?" More on that later, too.
Two Eagles and a Vine
So if we saw that Jeremiah and his remnant who were of the house of Judah escaped Egypt, went back to Jerusalem, and made off somewhere to take root downward and bear fruit upward (i.e., resulting in building and planting), all these things would fulfill the requirements of Isaiah 37:31-32. Meanwhile, let’s turn our attention to what the Bible says about the Throne of David during this time in history. Ezekiel 17 is a riddle about two eagles and a vine. This explains what would ultimately happen to the throne. Without typing out the entire chapter, the riddle is symbolic as to the political situation there regarding the "last" kings Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. As a matter of fact, the Lord himself interprets the riddle. They were to think about is first, but then the Lord interprets it (so there is no doubt) and asks know ye not what these things mean? So much for evangelists who bash the intellectuals who cannot accept things by their hearts. Seems that God was engaging the brain here a little. Put forth a RIDDLE, son of man, and if you cannot figure it out (become some like the simpler things of the Lord by their hearts) then I’ll tell you what it means! The first great eagle (v3) is the king of Babylon. The "highest branch" of the cedar and "top of his young twigs" (v3-4) is Jehoiachin and the princes carried off to Babylon (the "land of traffick"). That cedar is the house of David, and all the high branches are the generations until kings Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (including royal relatives). The "seed of the land" by "great waters" becoming a "spreading vine of low stature" is the appointed king Zedekiah (also of the house of David). He was to be under the overseeing of the king of Babylon, thus a "vine of low statue". Now enters another "great eagle" in verse 7. And the "vine" bent her roots toward him. Zedekiah approached Pharoah of Egypt hoping deliverance from the king of Babylon. Well, that was a foolish thing to do, because Nebuchadnezzar’s army defeated the Egyptian forces and Zedekiah was caught and his sons slain as I previously mentioned. Thus, the Lord asked the rhetorical question in verse 10 being planted, shall it prosper? Shall it not utterly wither? What we must remember is that this entire chapter is symbolic. An eagle is not an eagle, but a ruler. A vine is not a vine. A cedar is not a cedar. These are representations of kings and the house of David. I think my readers get the point. Now we shall look at the end of the chapter after the Lord gave the actual interpretation as to what would happen. Now God would take his part of the high cedar and do some cropping himself. Verses 22-24 say: Thus saith the Lord God; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: In the mountain of the height of Israel I will plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all the fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. And all the trees of the field shall know that I the Lord have brought down the high tree, and have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the Lord have spoken and have done it. According to this passage, the Lord himself will crop off the top off the high cedar. "That’s a promise of the Messiah. He’s the tender twig, oh that gentle Jesus." No. The "tender twig" is in the feminine gender, whereas if that represented Messiah, the masculine could have been used. "I don’t accept that. Gender is not a strong enough argument for me that this is somebody other than Messiah." Well then let’s take a good, close, intelligent look at the verse and see from where the Lord is cropping the tender twig. He is cropping it from the highest branch of the high cedar. Now Jesus is know as the "Branch" but is he the "highest branch"? Not according to Luke’s genealogy. Jesus’ blood lineage came from NATHAN, the other son of King David, not Solomon’s lineage (see the message about Matthew’s genealogy). The highest branch is from the generations of rightful kings from Solomon. Nathan’s lineage was not recognized as the lineage being discussed here. Jesus did not come from some highest branch from Solomon, other than legally, to be applicable to him. No, this is a female heir from the house of David, and the only daughter(s) of the king mentioned are those of Zedekiah. The Lord would plant it on an eminent mountain of Israel. Again, we must remember that a mountain is not a mountain. It is a nation. And this mountain is eminent. At the time of this prophecy, and even after the return of the Jews to their homeland, Israel was still scattered throughout the nations. This prophecy therefore is saying that the tender twig will be planted wherever Israel resided, and Israel is shown to be an eminent nation. Remember in II Samuel 7:10 the Lord said to David that he would appoint a place for his people Israel. And wherever this place ended up to be, the people of Israel could spread abroad (Genesis 28:14). And in these people would be a racially diverse mixture as indicated by the phrase "fowl of every wing". But who is the low tree and high tree? Or who is the dry tree and green tree? The clue to that is found in Ezekiel 21:26-27, the very verses we started this message off with. Exalt him that is low. It is amazing how our hermeneutic friends interpret that passage. Some Bibles say these "low" folks (the same as the low tree or dry tree in Ezekiel 17:24) are the poor of the land, or perhaps some other humble, unfortunate people. Now let’s take this verse in context and stop wresting scripture. The subject being spoken of is the crown. The high (or green tree) would have been Zedekiah, the ruler of the kingdom of Judah there in the land. Now would the crown be transferred to poor, humble people without noble birth? I hardly think so. No. This crown is going to some "low" or "dry" lineage. This is symbolic of a ruling line of Judah which did not rule there in Israel. This lineage would be exalted. The three overturns in verse 27 indicate a threefold change of order of these rulers. Soon we will be getting to our "Braveheart" theme. But that comes nearer to the third overturn. First things first. We must locate where the throne of David (from Zedekiah through his daughters) would be transferred. We already know that Jeremiah’s remnant was promised safety and they would go somewhere from Jerusalem. In that remnant was king Zedekiah’s daughters. We know that the Lord was to take a tender twig and plant it wherever Israel resided, and lastly we know that a "low" line would be elevated, and ultimately there would be a change or order in that monarchy. We must now introduce some fellows of the lineage of Zarah, the son of Judah. King David descended from Judah’s son Pharez.
Kings of Zarah and their Migrations
Zarah and Pharez were Judah’s twin sons. The record of their birth is in Genesis 38. When they were being born, the midwife took a scarlet thread on the hand of the first baby being born. This way they could indicate which was the firstborn. Ironically, he withdrew his hand and the other came out first. This breach resulted in the name of the second one to be called Pharez (breach) and this prophesied of a time when the Pharez lineage would be dominant rulers in the land of Israel. The real child of the scarlet thread, Zarah, came out later. Consequently, although the descendents of Zarah always ruled, their rule was elsewhere and not recognized as the "high" or "green" tree there in the land of Israel. However, the very name of Pharez or "breach" also indicated a time when there would be a breach in the lineage of Pharez, only to be continued in the brother Zarah who was the rightful prince of the scarlet thread through a union. Hence, the Zarah lineage would be elevated through the descendents of King David. I Chronicles 2:6 says that the sons of Zarah were Zimri, Ethan, Herman, Calcol and Darda. What many people do not realize is that as soon as the "scepter promise" was given to the lineage of Judah (in Genesis 49:10), the descendents of Judah ruled over the people even in Egypt. This was until a pre-exodus of the people of Zarah before the rest of the Israelites left under Moses. Where did these Zarahite people go? Secular historical documents reveal that the so-called "Egyptian" Dardanus was none other than Darda of I Chronicles 2:6. And Dardanus in turn was the founder of ancient Troy. Historical references claim that the Egyptians expelled some of their aliens because of various calamities (or plagues?) and these Zarahites would have been amongst those who left Egypt. Dardanus’ descendents led his people in Troy until the famous siege of Troy. Aeneas was the last royal of Troy then migrated with his remnants to Italy where he married the daughter of Latinus, the famous king of the Latins (and founded the Roman Empire). Aeneas’ son Brutus then migrated to Malta with many Trojans and from there to where modern day Britain is located. This new city was called "New Troy" and the Romans called it "Londonium" which is none other than the city of London today. The descendents of Judah obviously migrated around the Mediterranean all the way up to the British isles ruling over the Israelites who were with their band.
Our story does not stop there. Judah’s son Calcol also migrated. He was the founder of Athens with a band of colonists from Egypt. Here again, notice that traditional history suggests these colonists were "Egyptian" so the connection to the Israelites may not be made. However, if there were calamities in which people were expelled or perhaps left, it seems more likely that the candidates for this would be aliens rather than natives of a country. The people of Calcol migrated westward along the Mediterranean. One settlement was in Spain now called "Saragossa", but this was originally known as "Zarah-gassa" which literally meant the "stronghold of Zarah". From there they continued onward until reaching Ireland. These were known as warrior people called Milesians. The tribes of Israel associated with Ireland back then would have been Judah and Dan. The Danites were seafaring people (Judges 5:17) and at various times throughout history, they were travelers of the sea and the bulk of the Danites probably left the land of Israel before the rest went into captivity. What we must realize is that I am attempting to summarize complex facets of historical migrations in a few pages. There was no single migration of the Israelites. Migrations happened in waves at various times of history. I am laying the foundation of the location of the rulers of Zarah who migrated out of Egypt before the rest of Israel. These "Zarah" kings were the ones that Jeremiah the prophet would perpetuate the Davidic line.
The First Overturn
We’ve established the royal lineage from Zarah-Judah and their migrations, and we’ve seen the plan and promises in the Bible regarding Jeremiah and his remnant. From this point, we have to search for any incident where Jeremiah and his remnant came in contact with the people of these kings in order to perpetuate the Davidic dynasty. Are there such records? There sure are, and sources such as "Chronicles of Eri", "The Annals of the Four Masters", and the "Annals of Clonmacnoise" say exactly that. Although there are variations over the years regarding exactly what happened, many of these records make reference to an old man prophet (or patriarch or saint) "Ollam Fodhla". With him was an "Eastern king’s daughter", and a companion Simon Brug. Some other variations of that name are Brach, Breack, Barech, and Berach. These are variations of the name "Baruch" and that old man was undoubtedly Jeremiah. Some stories even claim that daughter was the daughter of King Zedekiah. They arrived in Ireland. With them were relics such as a harp, and ark or chest, and a special stone called Lia Fail (meaning the stone of fate or destiny) The reader may read more about the stone Lia Fail in my message on that subject. This was supposedly the stone that Jacob slept on, and had the "ladder" dream at Bethel where God made great promises to him. Legend has it that the Israelites were in possession of that stone throughout the ages, and Israel’s kings were crowned on it. This stone was symbolic of Christ and there are many interesting Biblical references to it. For those who are familiar with the tabernacle furnishings, the ark was no doubt the "Ark of the Covenant" (in which the famous Indiana Jones movie was based on). The harp was the legendary harp of King David. Interestingly enough, the harp became the national symbol of Ireland. In the version of the story that the daughter was that of King Zedekiah, the story names her as Tea Tephi. Another sister, "Scota" was married off in Spain before their arrival and thus the "Spanish" connection to the Celts. Tea Tephi accompanied Jeremiah to Ireland to marry a king called Eochaidh. Their capital was changed from the name Lothair to Tara. Jeremiah coronated her husband there on that stone Lia Fail. In another version, Scota is not the sister but a female ancestor of the Milesians and had a son named Eochaidh. With a little etymology used here (although this message will not go into detail here), the name "Scota" is the basis for the word "Scots". In spite of the variations of the stories, all agree on a stone (Lia Fail) as coming from Spain and beforehand from Egypt by an aged man named Ollam Folla (Hebrew for a "revealer"). Eochaidh and Tea Tephi was crowned King of Ireland upon the stone Lia Fail.
Tara Hill reached its climax and greatest fame during the time of Cormac (High King of Ireland) and was the capital of the Celtic (Irish) kings throughout the ages. This was an impressive center or core of the country which had the king’s house, the coronation stone Lia Fail, the Royal Seat, a banquet hall, forts, and so forth. An aerial view of Tara Hill today shows large and impressive circular indentations where all this once stood. The Irish also point out two locations that supposedly have Jeremiah’s remains. One can find statues of Jeremiah, too. In addition to all this, more Irish boys have the name "Jerry" or some variant form of it than Jewish boys. If Jeremiah was Jewish and not Irish then the reader must ask, "why do the Irish have this obsession with the prophet Jeremiah?" A skeptic will argue that the lack of certainty as to where Jeremiah’s true grave is located disproves the whole thing. No, I say that this actually proves something. The lack of certainty demonstrates the proliferation of legends throughout time regarding this prophet. That would only happen if there was truth to the stories. People do not create stories out of nothing albeit distortions sometimes occur. Oftentimes we hear the advice to ignore rumors. Actually, if I want to know what is going on, I listen carefully to rumors, but try to separate the distortions from reality. Evangelists want you, dear reader, to sweep this under the rug and ignore all this like a rumor while trying to explain to you why God does not preserve the Davidic throne. They will warn you of Hell if you do not accept Christ as Savior by faith, yet they mock the likes of me when I tell you the truth. What faith do they really have? Don’t listen to such false prophets. Here’s something else added to all this evidence. A mound of stones at one of the burial sites has one particular carved stone known as Jeremiah’s judgement seat. About thirty stones are within the supposed sepulchre with strange markings on them. The markings, upon being deciphered, seem to indicate certain astronomical positions (and they relate well to the time that Jeremiah would have arrived in Ireland). They also indicate a boat with four passengers, but one was dropped off at some point. This means there were originally five. Let’s recall Jeremiah’s remnant. First there was Jeremiah himself. That’s one. Then there were the King’s daughters (the Bible does not say how many for sure). That’s at least two more since "daughters" is plural, so we are up to at least three people. Two more people were promised safety: Baruch and Ebed-melech the Ethiopian. Those two bring the total to at least five people. And as previously mentioned, the records indicated one daughter was married in Spain before the rest arrived in Ireland.
If indeed we sum up all the records and evidences regarding Jeremiah, the King’s daughters, the Kings of Ireland, Tara Hill and so forth, and if the reader accepts this as a very distinct possibility, then all this constituted the first overturn of the Davidic throne. The throne was transferred from Jerusalem to Ireland when the king’s daughter of the Pharez-Judah line was conjoined to a line of the Zarah-Judah family.
The Second Overturn
From this point onward, the rest is secular history. The first overturn is the vital link from Jerusalem to Ireland. From there, the lineage of the kings can be traced to ascertain the other two overturns. The second overturn occurred when Fergus Mc Erc (Fergus the Great) from the Irish Gaelic Kingdom of Dalriada invaded Scotland where the Picts (tattooed pictured people) resided. There was a prophecy attached to that Lia Fail stone that "wherever the stone is found the Scottish race will reign". The stone was transported to Scotland and the Kings of Ireland (starting with Fergus) became the kings of Scotland and was thus crowned on that stone.
The Third Overturn
Now we get to Braveheart (finally). We are around year 1300, and the Scottish kings still reign and so do the British kings who descended from Zarah through Darda (as previously explained). The royal lineage which we are interested in is that of the Scottish kings, and during this time in history that (rightful) king was Robert the Bruce. During a battle, the stone Lia Fail was captured by King Edward (Longshanks in the Braveheart movie). He carried that off to Westminster Abbey in 1296 where it became the stone that the British kings were crowned on. He made the famous "Saint Edward’s Chair" (the pictures on our home page) to hold the stone. Due to disputes as to who would be heir of the Scottish throne, King Edward was asked to arbitrate, and he was offered the golden scepter, the Scottish crown, and some crown jewels for holding. The movie ended with the battle of Bannockburn in 1314 between Robert the Bruce and King Edward. (They met for him to accept his crown and endorsement from Edward, but Robert the Bruce led his men instead to a bloody massacre of the English and hence won their freedom from English tyranny). Although the crown, scepter and jewels were returned, the stone Lia Fail was not returned to the Scottish claimants. The Scots claimed the stone was theirs throughout all of history, and that is what finally prompted the return of the stone to Edinburgh in 1996 under the condition that it would be returned to St. Edward’s Chair for the next coronation. With the stone being taken to England in 1296, some consider this the third overturn of the monarchy to Britain. And in connection with that stone was the prophecy that "a king of Gaelic blood would reign" wherever it went. The third overturn was actually realized when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of Britain. This is all straightforward history, and royal links are given at the end of this message for the reader to study the details of royal lineage. If we check out the royal web sites, we see the Scottish lineage of Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of today. And according to the "overturn" prophecy, there will be no more overturning "until he come whose right it is" (Christ). So as the reader can see, the throne is perpetual as promised by God to King David. The reader may ask, "Well what’s the point in all this?" Plenty. For starters, Israel was to be God’s light-bearing people to spread his gospel message to the world. Although they became the "Lost Tribes" and migrated elsewhere forgetting who they were, God planned their assembly elsewhere under a Davidic King so that the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be fully realized. They became a Great Nation and Commonwealth of Nations (or many nations) which gave them the position and might to fulfill their God-appointed destiny. Not only that, but understanding who the nations of Israel are will enable one to understand end-time prophecy better. For example, when I saw that stone being moved and grumbling of the people to do away with the British Monarchy, I knew that since no more overturn is possible until Christ comes, that the end is near (if indeed this all were to happen). One other thing. If God promised an eternal throne to King David from that time forward, then God must perform what he said or else he is a liar. No telling who would end up saved if God said he would save us and then not do it! It is amazing how people wrest the scriptures in defining the word "eternal". They say the throne (or office of the throne) is eternal but interruptions could occur. The problem with that definition is that if interruptions occurred, the throne would cease to be eternal. That is the intrinsic definition of "eternal". If there are interruptions, then it is an intermittent throne and not an eternal one. Some say that "eternal" means from the millennial reign of Christ onward. No. Just look at the verse in the title of our home page. The "eternal" part was promised and understood from David’s time onward. What about an eternal "office" in heaven? No. The Davidic throne is an Earthly throne of the Lord which parallels the heavenly one. This is an example of "spiritualizing" everything to heaven by making something like this "out there" somewhere while Earth continues unchanged. People who believe this way severely misunderstand the whole purpose of God’s Kingdom and his plan for the Earth from Adam’s time onward. Even in the very end, a new heaven and New Earth will be created. What’s the whole point in all of this if Earth is not important? Besides, the perpetual nature of the throne according to Psalm 89 is witnessed by the sun and moon. These astronomical bodies do not witness to heavenly things, but earthly things. The context of this scripture is that these astronomical bodies are a witness over the throne of David.
Let us hope in these end times that people will open their eyes to the truth of God’s promises. One final thought. Next time somebody bugs you by asking, "Are you watching that bloody Braveheart movie again?" Just reply to them, "No. I’m watching a Bible movie about the third overturn that Ezekiel 21 prophesied about!"
References: