The Stone of Destiny

With no historical or biblical evidence to back them up, Anglo-Israelists turn to mythology and to what is known as the Stone of Destiny.[1] Anglo-Israelists defend this relic and the myths that surround it with so much zeal and surety that it nearly borders on idolatry. From their perspective, however, there is a biblical purpose in defending the stone so fervently. To them, the stone is a marker, a symbol of God’s supposed promise of the kingship line of David continuing through the British monarch.

Anglo-Israelists contend that the stone is the very one on which Jacob rested his head in Genesis 28:18. Jacob then used the stone to build a pillar after having a dream of God’s assurances to him. According to Anglo-Israelists, following his abduction to Egypt, the prophet Jeremiah returned to Judah and removed Jacob’s stone from its hiding place where he had stashed it away before his abduction. Later, Jeremiah, along with scribe Baruch, and Zedekiah’s daughters,[2] one of which would allegedly continue David’s throne, are said to have carried the stone with them when they supposedly journeyed to Ireland.

The problem with this history is it is only to be found within the mind of Reverend F. R. A. Glover. For some time, there had been a myth circulating about the coronation stone being from Israel. A rather well-known quote from John Toland (1670–1722) suggests this: “I had almoft forgot to tell you, that ‘tis now by the vulgar call’d Jacob-ftone, as if this had been Jacob’s pillow at Bethel.”[3] No doubt, this rumor was stoked by those who desired to find a familial link to the Israelites, a motivation that was becoming popular at this time. However, it is not until Glover, who in the 1800s published a book titled England, the Remnant of Judah, and the Israel of Ephraim, that this rumor is applied to a completely fabricated history.

To show “proof of the Descent of the Queen of England from the Kings of Judah,”[4] Glover rearranges and misrepresents the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters. This work is a collection of Irish histories brought together in the early 1600s by a Franciscan friar named Brother Michael O’Clery and three others, hence the name “the Four Masters.”

The Annals contain the genealogies of those who ruled in Ireland as well as those of distinguished families. Sprinkled with myths such as a story about a mermaid washing ashore,[5] a tale concerning Noah’s granddaughter reaching Ireland’s shores forty days before the flood,[6] as well as genealogical errors, the information found within the Annals is not exactly what one would call accurate. That said, even amongst all its storytelling and genealogical difficulties, there is no indication that the prophet Jeremiah ever came to Ireland with the stone from Bethel.

Glover uses generalized statements about a man referred to as Ollamh Fodhla, whose first name was Eochaidh. Glover tries to argue that the descriptions concerning Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) are about the prophet Jeremiah.

The actual text of the Annals, on the other hand, provides a very different picture of Ollamh Fodhla than the one Glover develops. This is what the Annals tell us of Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla):

“The Age of the World, 3882. After Faildeargdoid had been ten years in the sovereignty, he fell by Ollamh Fodhla, son of Fiacha Finscothach, in the battle of Teamhair.

“The Age of the World, 3883. The first year of the reign of Ollamh Fodhla, son of Fiacha Finscothach.

“The Age of the World, 3922. Ollamh Fodhla, after having been forty years in the sovereignty of Ireland, died at his own mur [house] at Teamhair. He was the first king by whom the Feis-Teamhrach was established; and it was by him Mur-Ollamhan was erected at Teamhair. It was he also that appointed a chieftain over every cantred, and a Brughaidh over every townland, who were all to serve the King of Ireland. Eochaidh was the first name of Ollamh Fodhla; and he was called Ollamh [Fodhla] because he had been first a learned Ollamh, and afterwards king of [Fodhla, i.e., of] Ireland.

“The Age of the World, 3923. This was the first year of the reign of Finnachta, son of Ollamh Fodhla, over Ireland.” [7]

Notice that Ollamh Fodhla is not a foreigner who journeyed from some faraway land. Ollamh was a native of the land of Ireland, whose father was Fiacha Finscothach. In addition, Ollamh becomes king. We might also add that Ollamh, according to the Annals, was not living during Jeremiah’s lifetime.

Glover’s Fabrication

Obviously, Glover did not like the fact that Ollamh Fodhla was described as a king within the Annals since it was not Jeremiah who was to rule but a daughter of Zedekiah. To disconnect Ollamh Fodhla from his throne, Glover relies on the general knowledge of the Annals’ genealogical errors.[8] In utilizing this, Glover twists the text into such a pretzel that the reader will be amazed by how far the highly imaginative reverend was willing to go to make Ollamh Fodhla into Jeremiah.

Glover begins his revisions by pointing out that Ollamh is just a title, which, from reading the text, is accurate; however, Glover goes on to say “Ollav Fola” is no king at all,”[9] when, in fact, the text clearly indicates Ollamh Fodhla did reign. This does not persuade Glover. His way out of this is to make Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) into two different men.

To do this, he argues, Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla), at some point in history, became mixed together, that Eochaidh is really an adjective for the word “respect,” and that Eochaidh is the “respected” Ollamh Fodhla,[10] not King Eochaidh. After making Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) into two men, Ollamh and Eochaidh, Glover then combines Eochaidh and a king named Heremon together, thus creating his respected King Heremon (i.e., King Eochaidh-Heremon).[11] This frees Glover up to say Ollamh was Jeremiah and not a king. According to Glover, the result is this King Eochaidh-Heremon was a Danite who married Tea-Tephi, who was supposedly one of Zedekiah’s daughters.[12]

No doubt, the reader will be somewhat confused at this point, and he or she should be, since Glover’s concoctions and arrangements of persons are so wildly different from the actual Annals. Glover goes on to argue that King Heremon and Ollamh Fodhla were also contemporaries despite the fact that the Annals explain that the real King Heremon (Eremhon) began his reign in the year 3501,[13] which is 382 years before Ollamh Fodhla ruled. Glover writes, “Now, as to the proof that Ollam-Fola and Heremon Ardri were not ‘one man.’ We have been informed that ‘Heremon gave Ulster to Ollam Fola.’ Clearly, here are Two men, instead of One man; and, as the Heremon Eochaid, was the king, the other was not king.”[14] What Glover is trying to say here is Heremon, whose reign began in 3501, could not have given Ulster to Ollamh Fodhla unless they were two different men living at the same time. There is no argument that Heremon and Ollamh Fodhla were two separate men. What is in dispute is that Ollamh Fodhla and Eochaidh were two different men, that King Heremon was really Eochaidh, and that this invented person by Glover, King Heremon-Eochaidh, lived at the same time as Ollamh Fodhla.

As one looks a little more into this, one realizes that the quote Glover provides concerning Ulster is not presented in its full form. Glover leaves something out of the quotation of “Heremon gave Ulster to Ollam Fola.”[15] The direct quote is:

“Siorna was of the race of Eiremon [Heremon]; Ollamh Fodhla of the race of Ir, to whom, it was said, Eiremon gave Ulster.” [16]

This quote is taken from the Cambrensis Eversus edited by Reverend Matthew Kelly, who explains in his notes that Eireamon (Heremon) and Ir were brothers. Kelly goes on to say, “According to the common story, Ireland was divided into two parts; Eireamon took the north, but granted Ulster to his brother, Ir.”[17] In other words, Heremon gave Ulster to Ir, who was of the same race as Ollamh. Glover erroneously takes this out of context, giving it the meaning he needs, which is Heremon gave Ulster to Ollamh, making it seem as if these two men lived during the same era.[18]

The Annals themselves also disagree with Glover’s revision, despite the fact that they provide an additional, if slightly different, account than Kelly’s. Concerning Ulster, the Annals explain that “Eremhon divided Ireland. He gave the province of Ulster to Emhear, son of Ir.”[19] In this version, Ulster goes to Ir’s son. Either way, Ulster is not given to Ollamh Fodhla since he was not even born yet.

What is in dispute here is whether King Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) was, in fact, two men. In reading the Annals, they were not. Glover suggests that the reason Ollamh was considered “to be a king when he was none other than a prophet”[20] is that the “Conductor and Guardian of the King’s Daughters, would, as guardian of these high-destined women, be held by the vulgar, and by the Bards also in course of time, as himself a king.”[21] Glover provides no other evidence than his misquote from Reverend Kelly and his own opinion that it was the ignorance of the Bards who couldn’t tell the difference between a sage and a king that caused Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) to be tangled together into one man. However, the Annals tell us Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) was one man.

Ollamh Fodhla, the Hebrew Prophet

After attempting to extract Ollamh Fodhla from his name, Eochaidh, and his throne, Glover tries to squeeze Ollamh into an identity more like Jeremiah by saying Ollamh “was the chief and first, and founder of the Order of Ollams, in Ireland.”[22] For Glover, this order was “not of kings, but of priests or sages; Druids so called…They were not Pagans. They were, simply, Deistical Teachers.”[23] Glover continues, “This Ollav-Fola founded, also, a College of Ollams, at Tara; or, as the Hebrews would say, ‘a School of the Prophets;’ but not ‘a College of Kings.’”[24]

Glover goes on to equate the Hebrew word Ollam with the title Ollamh by pointing out that Ollam in Hebrew means “any period of time short of Eternity; or, of Eternity.”[25] Glover believes this is “a natural word to apply to the office of a man whose business it was to teach men to look to Him ‘who keeps the times and season in His own hand.’”[26]

It should be noted that it is not entirely clear what structure Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) built. The Annals tell us, “Mur-Ollamhan was erected at Teamhair”[27] by Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla). The Annals also give an account that Ollamh “died at his own mur [house] at Teamhair.”[28] We can surmise from this that the Mur-Ollamhan was simply Ollamh’s grand home. Nevertheless, the Annals do not explicitly tell us what this Mur-Ollamhan was.

In his second edition of the Annals, John O’Donovan suggests in his translational notes that the Mur-Ollamhan might have been a palace. O’Donovan writes:

“In Mageoghegan’s translation of the Annals of Clonmacnoise, it is stated ‘that he [Ollamh] builded a fair palace at Taragh only for the learned sort of this realm, to dwell in at his own charges.” [29]

O’Donovan believed, however, this was “probably one of Mageoghegan’s interpolations” even though “a similar explanation of Mur-Ollamhan is given by O’Flaherty in his Ogygia.”[30]

O’Donovan goes on to suggest that this so-called palace may not have even existed for “Keating, who quotes an ancient poem as authority for the triennial feast or meeting at Tara, has not a word about the palace built for the Ollamhs.”[31] However, against this is the witness of the actual Annals, which states Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) built Mur-Ollamhan.

The result of this brings us back to not knowing what the Mur-Ollamhan was since the Annals do not tell us. Glover wants us to believe that the Mur-Ollamhan was a school Jeremiah built to teach and provide prophecy. It’s interesting that the Annals make no mention of these strange Israelite teachings Jeremiah (Ollamh) supposedly presented to the pagans at Mur-Ollamhan. Certainly, that would have made the history books.

Whether Mur-Ollamhan was a school or a palace is of no concern to those who do not support Glover’s theories. Similar to Irish historian Roderic O’Flaherty, who believed like Glover that the Mur-Ollamhan was a school, we do not need to separate Ollamh’s identity from that of a king to show Mur-Ollamhan was a school. In Ogygia, O’Flaherty writes:

“Ollamfodla, of the house of Hir, the son of king Fiach, slew Faldergod in the battle of Temor, and ascended the throne.” [32]

“He [Ollam] being a man of great literary knowledge, is called Ollam-fodla, i.e. through Ireland which is called Fodla in our language, he was a great professor of learning…which he deservedly obtained on account of his extensive learning. He erected Mur-Ollamhan, i.e. the wall of the learned, at Tara. You may call it a college, a canopus, a prytaneum, an academy, or a lyceum.” [33]

Unlike O’Flaherty, Glover can’t seem to imagine that Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) could have been a king as well as a learned man who had the ability and the means to establish a great place of learning. However, Americans have a man in their country’s history: Thomas Jefferson, who was not only the third president of the United States but also the founder of the University of Virginia.

A Man of His Time

According to Glover, other evidence convinces him that Ollamh was Jeremiah. Glover again quotes Dr. Matthew Kelly, who provides Glover with the means to make Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) at least a contemporary of Jeremiah and, by Glover’s logic, the same man.[34] According to Dr. Kelly:

“A very old authority cited by O’Connor…namely, a poem attributed to Fortchern, ‘omnium hactenus memoratorum antiquissimum,’ tracing the genealogy of Cimbaoth the Irian, makes him eighth in descent from Ollamh Fodhla…If Fortchern be right, Ollamh may have lived some 240 years before Cimbaoth, and not about 589, as Dr. Lynch will have it, or about 320 according to O’Flaherty.” [35]

The difficulty with using this quote is the period for King Cimbaoth’s reign is unsettled. Tighernach[36] has it about 305 BC.[37] The Annals have it in the year 4484[38] (716 BC). According to the Annals, since Ollamh reigned in 3883, then he was king 601 years before Cimbaoth (1317 BC). If we take Tighernach’s date of 305 BC for Cimbaoth’s reign, along with Fortchern’s information that Ollamh was alive 240 years prior to Cimbaoth, then this would make Ollamh’s lifetime to be around 545 BC. In using this dating, it is plausible that Ollamh could have lived during Jeremiah’s lifetime. However, since the period for King Cimbaoth’s reign is debatable, we are left with an unreliable starting point. Furthermore, even if it were found that Ollamh was a contemporary of Jeremiah, it would not prove that Ollamh was Jeremiah.

Tea Time

As mentioned, the reason why it is vital for Glover to make Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) into two men is that a King Ollamh would not coincide with the prophet Jeremiah, who did not have a rightful place to reign within the Davidic line. Glover’s other motivation in splitting Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla) into two and combining Eochaidh with Heremon of the year 3501 is because Heremon married a woman named Tea. Glover desperately needs a woman in his story because it is through one of Zedekiah’s daughters that he believes the line of David was to continue. Once he turns Eochaidh into Heremon, he then transforms Heremon’s wife, Tea, into Zedekiah’s daughter. He then goes on to combine Tea with another woman identified in the Annals as Tephi because of her connection to Taragh, which was later called Tea-mur.

What is actually recorded in the Annals is very different from what Glover presents. To demonstrate this, we first begin with Tea, who was the daughter of Lughaidh, son of Ith.[39] The Annals also document Tea marrying Eremhon (Heremon) in Spain.[40] Next, we turn to Tephi. Glover utilizes a poem written by Cu-au O’Cochlain in 1024 concerning Tara. Glover shamelessly cuts out a part of the poem describing Tephi as the daughter of Cino Bachtir and the wife of Canthon. He leaves in the information of Tea being the wife of Heremon. By excluding the information concerning Tephi’s origin and marriage, the poem ends up sounding as if these two separate women were one and the same.[41], [42]

Glover then goes on to write, “Now all this, it is to be observed, was at Tara, called also Teamar; where the Stone, which came from over the sea, was set up, with the promise of blessing and perpetuation, at the time that the Jacob’s Pillow disappeared from Judea. And this Woman, mysterious and royal, is declared to have caused the importance and consequence of Teamar; and to have given it a new name, as the Stone was said to have done, also, to Tara. That her name also should be Teamar, or Teamair, is not without significance, considering that Tamar, as a woman’s name, occurs twice in the nomenclature of her ancestry.”[43]

With this statement, Glover attempts to combine the identity of Tea and Tephi due to their shared connection to Taragh, which was renamed Teamhair or Tea-mur after Tea. He then tries to claim that this one woman, whom he refers to as Tea-Tephi,[44] was a Hebrew because Tephi is a Hebrew word[45] and because Teamhair or Tea-mur, which Glover spells conveniently as “Teamar,” is similar to the name of Tamar, King David’s daughter.

This theory once again falls apart when we read the actual Annals and Cu-au O’Cochlain’s poem in its entirety. Not only are Tea and Tephi described as two completely different women, with two completely different husbands, but Irish history also provides its own explanation for why the place was referred to as Tea-mur. It was not named after an individual from the line of David but was simply named after Tea. O’Donovan provides Mageoghegan’s translation of the Annals of Clonmacnoise, which says the following:

“But first, before they landed on this land, Tea, the daughter of Louthus, that was wife of Heremon, desired one request of her said husband and kinsmen, which they accordingly granted, which was, that the place she should most like of in the kingdom should be, for ever after, called by her name; and that the place so called should be ever after the principal seat of her posterity to dwell in; and upon their landing she chose Leytrymm, which is, since that time, called Taragh, where the King’s pallace stood for many hundred years after, and which she caused to be called Tea-mur. Mur in Irish, is a town or pallace in English, and being joined to Tea, maketh it to be the house, pallace, or town of Tea.” [46]

In other words, Tea established a place named Teamhair or Tea-mur. In this story, a palace is built on top of the site. In this way, Tea-mur is understood as House (Mur) of Tea. It should be added that, in another tale, Tea is said to have been buried at this location. In this story, it is thought that Tea-mur refers to this mound (Tea’s mound).[47] The name Teamar, as Glover spells it, has nothing to do with this supposed Tea-Tephi’s genealogical connection to Tamar, David’s daughter.

The influence of Glover’s fictional Tea-Tephi is so great that if the reader were to do a Google search on Zedekiah’s daughter—the first and main result generated would be Tea-Tephi. However, the biblical text makes no mention of the names of either of Zedekiah’s daughters, and the annals of Irish history do not record anyone with that combined name. Tea-Tephi is merely the result of Glover’s manufactured narrative.

“Oh, Danny Boy”

Several legends exist concerning how the chair, on which kings sat, ended up in Ireland and then Scotland. One begins with the king of Greece, Neolus or Heolaus, who had a son named Gaythelos. Because King Neolus did not give his son, Gaythelos, any authority, Gaythelos rebels against his father. His father then banishes him. There are variations to this story, but the basic tale is that Gaythelos sails to Egypt and marries Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh.[48] Scota’s father is then killed at the Red Sea while chasing the Israelites.[49] The Egyptians then force Gaythelos out because he is a foreigner.[50] Later, he becomes the king of the banished Greek and Egyptian nobles who decide to search for a new land.[51] Gaythelos travels to Africa and wanders the land as Moses had,[52] eventually ending up in Spain. Gaythelos then decides to send out explorers to find better lands. After their journeys, they come back describing an island.[53] Gaythelos dies, but his sons travel to this island.[54] One story describes that a part of the island is named Scotia (Scotland), after their mother.[55] There is also an account where Gaythelos brings a chair and other regal ornaments to Spain with him from Egypt. [56]

Another legend picks up this story, explaining that the king of Spain gave this same chair to his son Smonbret or Smonbrec. Smonbret then travels to Ireland with an army and the chair, which is made out of marble. He places the chair on the highest spot in Ireland called Tara.[57] The tale continues with a king named Fergus coming from Ireland to Scotland, bringing with him the marble chair. The story explains that this was Smonbrec’s chair.[58]

Glover has a fable to tell himself. He equates this chair with the Stone of Destiny. Glover writes, “So we are informed that the Tuatha de Danaans, with whom some Simon Breig (Baruch?) is associated, were those who did bring the Stone to Ireland.”[59] Glover’s habit of finding anyone in Irish history who may have had a similar name to those of the biblical record continues when he suggests “Simon Breig” or Smonbret was Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch. What apparently piques Glover’s interest in Smonbrec is that the aforementioned tale has him bringing a marble chair and placing it at Tara.[60] Glover seems to discount the fact that the stone is said to have been made of marble in this legend because other accounts explain the stone was of a different material.[61] He also implies that the mention of this Simon Breig is proof that Baruch, along with the Tuatha De Danaan, brought the stone to Ireland. Glover does this by utilizing the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which speaks of the Lia Fáil:

“There were four cities in which the Tuatha De Danann were acquiring knowledge, namely Failias, Goirias, Finnias, Muirias.” (p.143)

“From Failias was brought the spear of Lug, and the Lia Fail, which was in Temair…That stone used to utter a cry under every king that should take Ireland.” (pp. 143 and 145)

“Thereafter the Tuatha De Danann took the kingship of Ireland. It is they who brought with them the Stone of Fal, which was in Temair.” (p. 143) [62]

Glover proposes that the Tuatha De Danann were Israelites of the tribe of Dan.[63] Glover goes on to suggest that Jeremiah boarded a Danite shipping vessel on its way to Ireland with the stone in hand, accompanied by Baruch (Simon Breig) as a passenger. According to Glover, this is why the legend has the Tuatha De Danaan bringing the stone to Ireland.[64]

Glover utilizes what he wants from the text while eliminating other elements not useful to him or that completely contradict his presupposed ideas. The point of all this is that Glover really didn’t need evidence. He simply had to find a general description within the text, such as Eochaidh (Ollamh Fodhla), who was a sort of learned man, to turn him into Jeremiah. Couple this with several leaps in logic, a conveniently edited version of a poem, a misspelled place name, several erroneous biblical connections, and he was able to make a case for an audience who was more than happy to hear they were Israelites, God’s chosen people. These so-called connections, however, baffle the non-supporter because of the complete fiction they are based on and essentially the ripping apart of a text Glover himself relies upon to generate his theories.

Today, the Stone of Destiny represents more of the ongoing rivalry between the Scots, Irish, and British than the once all-important need of finding a connection to Israel. Nonetheless, this story of Jeremiah bringing the stone to Ireland has infiltrated the British culture to such an extent that one can find the tale, or some variation of it, everywhere, including on TV shows, and particularly on the internet.

The British Israel World Federation (BIWF), an organization that peddles Anglo-Israelism on unsuspecting Christians, seems to have distanced itself from Glover’s identifications—well, somewhat anyway. The BIWF apparently suggested that Scota was one of Zedekiah’s daughters and that this is how the stone arrived in Ireland.[65] According to the Annals, however, Scota lived around the year 3500[66] and had nothing to do with the time of Zedekiah’s daughters. The Annals also record that she died battling the Tuatha De Danaan right after landing, thus ending any potential reign.[67] Anglo-Israelists can’t give up the fight. They have far too much of their life, money, and, sadly, their faith wrapped up in this tale to just walk away from it.

It is not surprising that the British would believe in a tale that has the Davidic line continuing through their monarch, since it gives their king or queen a kind of godly legitimacy, but it is amazing to this author why American Christians would believe in it. If it were true, it would mean America rebelled against the line of David during the Revolutionary War.

Why Christians everywhere do not reject this idea is also perplexing since it is not biblical. Anglo-Israelists often cite a verse from the book of Jeremiah to give their theory some authority:

“See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” [68]

In reading this verse, Anglo-Israelists believe Jeremiah was to plant a monarch—the British monarch, to be exact. However, the verse does not say anything of the sort. In fact, this notion completely neglects what should be understood in this verse, which is that Jeremiah would not only declare the throwing down of the entire Southern Kingdom of Judah but that he would also proclaim the coming of the kingship of Christ. This verse has nothing to do with the earthly British monarch.

It should be noted that the promises of David’s kingship line continuing forever are about Christ’s kingship lasting forever. This becomes evident when we read the assurances to David concerning his throne in 2 Samuel 7 and compare it to Luke 1:32–33 where it is explained that David’s throne would exist forever through Christ. It is noticeable that God did not provide conditions for this particular throne. No matter what, David’s kingship line would continue. The reason for this is that God was speaking of Christ’s throne.

On the other hand, 1 Kings 9:4–7 describes Solomon’s kingship line as being conditional. This is because the topic is about the actual earthly reign of Solomon. It is not about Christ’s reign. Solomon is told by God, “if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.”[69]

This earthly kingship line was conditional. Anglo-Israelists forget that. They forget the “if.” As humans, we often forget the “if,” do we not? You’ll get a toy if you clean your room. You’ll get a promotion if you make that sale. You’ll go to heaven if you put your faith in Christ. We know Solomon forgot the “if” since he was disobedient to God by marrying women who eventually led him into idolatry, as recorded in 1 Kings 11:1–13. In retribution for this, but for the sake of David, God did not take away the throne from Solomon. Instead, He took it from Solomon’s son, Rehoboam. Also for David’s sake, God allowed Rehoboam to rule over the tribe of Judah, according to 1 Kings 11:13. Jeroboam, Solomon’s official or servant, as 1 Kings 11:26–39 tells us, was given rule over the northern tribes.

After Jeroboam was crowned king of the Northern Kingdom, the earthly Davidic line ended for the Northern Kingdom, never to return. No other earthly king from the Davidic line would ever rule over the northern tribes of Israel again as decreed by God.[70] Jeroboam was also told his rule over these tribes was conditional, like that of Solomon’s, according to 1 Kings 11:38. As we know, Jeroboam, as well as most of the kings who followed him, did evil in God’s eyes, which led to the Assyrian exile. However, the Davidic line ended for the northern tribes the day the crown was placed on Jeroboam’s head.

For Judah, the line of David continued under Rehoboam. We know that most of the kings who followed Rehoboam and the people of Judah themselves became so disobedient that the Babylonians were eventually allowed to come in and do what the Babylonians do. God was patient to a point, but He eventually was true to His conditional promise concerning the earthly Davidic line. It would end due to the sinful ways of the kings. Therefore, the last king of the Davidic line over Judah was Zedekiah.

Some quote only a portion of the original promise concerning the kingship line of Judah, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,”[71] to claim this line needed to continue through the British monarchy since it was promised it would never “depart.” However, near the end of this verse, it reads, “until Shiloh come,”[72] meaning this assurance of an earthly kingship was never intended to extend past the first coming of Christ. However, as shown, God cut it short after Zedekiah due to the disobedience of its kings and people. These biblical facts not only put a hole in Anglo-Israelists’ theory of the line of David continuing through the British monarchy; they sink it.

A Happy Ending

Everyone wants a happy ending. In this case, Anglo-Israelists desire one for Jeremiah. However, the prophet’s fate is unknown. God told Jeremiah, “And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not: for, behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the Lord: but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest.”[73] God would spare Jeremiah for a prey, for a time. However, we are not told how Jeremiah died. It is likely he was stoned to death as Matthew 23:37 implies.[74]

As for Jacob’s stone, Glover tries to create a happy ending by piecing together a scenario by which it would be plausible for Jeremiah to have hidden the stone before being abducted to Egypt. His efforts, however, end up feeling desperate.

Jeremiah’s death and the termination of the Davidic earthly kingship line both make for an unhappy ending, so much so that it is easy to see why so many are tempted to believe there is a happier conclusion. However, as Christians, we do have a happy ending, do we not? It is a finale in which God reveals His mercy, for we have already received our promised king through the Davidic line. Amen! There is one Rock that will never be stolen on Christmas Day or broken into pieces,[75] and that is our Savior, Jesus Christ. It is to Him, our true King, we should put our faith in—not in some stone or earthly monarch. Praise God!

Closing Thoughts on Anglo-Israelism

Some suggest that after being used as a pillar, Jacob’s stone ended up in Jeroboam’s altar of idolatry at Bethel. When Josiah took the throne, he had this altar destroyed, turning it “to powder,” according to 2 Kings 23:15.

It matters little if this destruction included Jacob’s stone or not. The stone’s importance is based on a false premise that it was essential to have in order to proclaim the next King of Judah. This is not the case. Anglo-Israelists point to verses such as those found in Judges 9:1–6, where Abimelech stood beside a pillar as he was about to become king. The backstory of this scene, however, sheds a different light on this so-called Israelite ritual.

The story concerning Abimelech took place in Shechem, which was north of Bethel. This was during the time when judges ruled over the people of Israel. It is well before the Davidic line of kings. Saul was the first official king of the Israelites and, of course, David began the Davidic line. The Davidic line did not commence with Abimelech. Abimelech, however, did want to set himself up as a king of Israel with the help of the pagan god Baal. What Abimelech was doing by standing beside a pillar was conducting his own ceremony without any authority from God. More than likely, this was a Canaanite ritual. It most definitely was not an Israelite, God-ordained proclamation of a king.

A few other verses, such as 2 Kings 11:12–14, 23:1–3, and 2 Chronicles 23 have the person who is about to become king standing beside a pillar. The Hebrew word for “pillar” in these verses would be better translated as “column,”[76] not pillar. The ceremony described in these verses took place in Jerusalem at the Temple. The Temple had two columns at its porch. These columns were even given names.[77] The kings stood near one of these columns.

It is human nature to believe the best things about ourselves. For example, if someone were to tell you that you were from a long line of murderers, you’d probably exert much time and effort into trying to prove the statement false. However, if someone were to inform you that you were one of God’s chosen people, an Israelite, then it is likely you’d say, “Well, of course, I am. What took you so long to say so?” This is what Anglo-Israelism is today. It is a means by which to elevate oneself.

If Anglo-Israelists want to go around calling themselves Israelites, then one supposes it is their prerogative. In what has become a self-identifying society, Anglo-Israelists will probably continue to follow suit and, in turn, receive little questioning from the world. The problem occurs, however, for the Christian when, to gain some authority, Anglo-Israelists misuse the Bible to try to support their claims. This is the point at which the believer must step in and explain the error.

Beyond the biblical lore and romanticism surrounding the Stone of Destiny, there is a darker side to Anglo-Israelism, which comes from mixing it with the Christian Identity Movement. When combined, supporters are not only told they are God’s chosen people but are taught God’s actual chosen people are Satan’s physical children. The CI Movement also contends that Adam is not Cain’s father despite the fact that Genesis 4:1 states he is. Yet, without any genealogical evidence whatsoever, supporters of the CI Movement claim they are Israelites. The double standard is astounding. Sadder still is that there is a kind of desperation for those who follow these beliefs. They need it to be true, for, through these ideas, they are attempting to reach God, not through faith, but through ancestral links, just as the Jews did during John the Baptist’s day. However, this is not a path to everlasting life. It is a route to nowhere.

Footnotes

[1] In England, the Stone of Destiny is also known as the Coronation Stone or the Stone of Scone. It is a block of sandstone used in coronations. Some believe the Lia Fáil, a pillar set in Ireland is the Stone of Destiny.

[2] In order to have a man rather than a woman sit on the throne, some Anglo-Israelists assert one of Zedekiah’s daughters would marry a descendant of David from the line of Zarah. (See “British Israel,” www.cai.org).

[3] J. Peele, ed., A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Toland, vol. 1 (London: 1726), p. 105, https://books.google.com.

[4] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, Preface, vii.

[5] John O’Donovan, trans., Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, vol. 1 (Dublin, 1849), p. 541 https://archive.org.

[6] Ibid., p. B1 footnote b and p. B2 – According to the Annals, Ceasair is Noah’s supposed granddaughter who came to Ireland with fifty girls and three men, one of which was called Fintain who is said to have survived the flood (p. 4 footnote i). However, another tale records that Ceasair is the daughter of someone named Grecian (p. B1 footnote b).

[7] Ibid., pp. 53–55.

[8] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 19.

[9] Ibid., p. 20.

[10] Ibid., p. 26.

[11] Ibid., p. 27. The way in which Glover spells the names of individuals recorded within the Annals usually does not coincide with O’Donovan’s translated designations.

[12] Ibid., p. 128.

[13] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, p. 27.

[14] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 28.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Rev. Matthew Kelly, ed., Cambrensis Eversus, (Dublin: The Celtic Society, 1848) p. 431, footnote e, https://archive.org.

[17] Ibid., p. 462, footnote p.

[18] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 26 footnote 2.

[19] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, p. 29.

[20] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 22.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., p. 20.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, p. 53.

[28] Ibid.

[29] John O’Donovan, trans., Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, 2nd edition, vol. 1 (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1856), p. 52, footnote n, https://archive.org.

[30] Ibid., pp. 52-53, footnote n.

[31] Ibid., p. 53, footnote n.

[32] Rev. James Hely, trans., Ogygia, vol. 2 (Dublin: W.M. Kenzie, 1793), p. 70, https://archive.org. For easier reading, O’Flaherty’s quote has been modernized. During this era, the letter “s” was written as our letter “f.”

[33] Ibid., p. 71.

[34] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, pp. 27–28.

[35] Kelly, Cambrensis Eversus, p. 441, footnote c.

[36] Tighernach O’Braein – Irish annalist, one of the earliest, who died 1088.

[37] Martin Haverty, The History of Ireland, Ancient and Modern (Dublin: James Duffy, 1867), p. 25, second footnote. https://books.google.com.

[38] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, 2nd edition, p. 69.

[39] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, p. 31.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, pp. 59–60 and 87–88.

[42] To view this poem in its entirety, see The Annals of Ireland Translated from the Original Irish of the Four Masters translated by Owen Connellan vol. 2, pp. 294–295, available at https://books.google.com, and compare it to Glover’s edited version on pages 59–60 and 87–88.

[43] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 88.

[44] Ibid., p. 87 footnote 2.

[45] Ibid., p. 92.

[46] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, p. 30, footnote h.

[47] Ibid., p. 30 footnote e.

[48] William F. Skene, ed., “John of Fordun’s Chronicle of The Scottish Nation” in The Historians of Scotland, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872), p. 6-7, https://books.google.com.

[49] Ibid., pp. 8-9.

[50] Ibid., p. 9.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid., p. 10. Although not Anglo-Israelists, Scottish and Irish writers may have unwittingly laid the foundation for Anglo-Israelism by how they framed their histories within biblical timeframes. For an Anglo-Israelist, it perhaps was an easy step to go from reading about the Scots being part Egyptian/part Greek, who roamed the land like Moses, to believing the Scots wandered the land because they were Israelites.

[53] Ibid., p. 12.

[54] Ibid., p. 14.

[55] Ibid., p. 15.

[56] Ibid., p. 23.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., p. 42.

[59] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 57.

[60] Skene, “John of Fordun’s Chronicle,” p. 23.

[61] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 54.

[62] R. A. Stewart Macalister, ed., trans., Lebor Gabála Érenn, pt. 4 (Dublin: Educational Company of Ireland, 1941), https://archive.org.

[63] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 57. According to Anglo-Israelists, the tribe of Dan traveled westward, naming rivers such as the Danube River and countries such as Denmark (Mark of Dan) as they journeyed, finally ending up in Ireland where they came to be known as the Tuatha De Danann. However, there are other reasons why the word, Dan or words similar to it ended up in our vocabulary. One of the most compelling is that the Danube River perhaps received its name from the goddess Danu. Also, the Tuatha De Danann are considered to be the people of this goddess, thus explaining the similarities in their names. This goddess Danu is mentioned along with the Tuatha De Danann on p. 135 of the Lebor Gabála Érenn.

Beyond this etymological possibility, the question should be raised, where does a westward migrating tribe of Dan lead us? According to Anglo-Israelism, the reason why the tribe of Dan moved west was so that the Davidic line could reign over them. This continuation of the Davidic line through the British monarch is a biblical inaccuracy. Due to this, the motivation for the tribe of Dan to move west to have a king from the Davidic line is also a fallacy.

[64] Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, p. 57.

[65] “Joseph’s Birthright and the Identity of Israel Today,” www.britishisrael.co.uk/index.php.

[66] O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, p. 25.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Jer. 1:10.

[69] 1 Kings 9:4–5.

[70] Prophecy concerning the Messianic rule over a united Israel is recorded in 1 Kings 11:39, Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23, 37:15–28, Hosea 3:5, and Amos 9:11–12.

[71] Gen. 49:10.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Jer. 45:5.

[74] See Jeremiah 43 for how the prophet and Baruch end up in Egypt. It is likely that when things began to go bad in Egypt, as God said they would, the people turned on Jeremiah and murdered him. There is no indication that Jeremiah was one of the few spoken of in Jeremiah 44:28 who returned to Judah.

[75] These are incidents that have happened to the Stone of Destiny.

[76] Ibid., ‘ammûwd, 5982. This word means column.

[77] 1 Kings 7:15–22.

Return to Home Page