Whither the Throne?
by
Philip du Nard
After reading the previous two articles, the reader may understandably be wondering what is considered to be the present manifestation or fulfillment of God's .promise to Judah and David regarding the scepter or throne or what it has been since Biblical times
Classic works such as Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright by J.H. Allen written and published a century ago examine the same scriptures under discussion here and take up this matter of what happened to David's throne in quite some detail so this is not some new teaching. But the impression that many may have of those who believe the Davidic throne to still be in existence is that they base this largely on extrabiblical sources, myths and legends, etc. and thus are guilty of giving heed to fables, something that the apostle Paul warned Timothy about in I Tim. 1:4.
Ancient writings that may be considered myth or history, depending on one's viewpoint, have indeed helped bridge the gap in answering the question, Whither the throne?, but they do not, obviously, and should not carry the same weight as Scripture. My aim is to provide the reader with a firm foundation in Scripture that is unaffected by this so that whatever can be said for or against extrabiblical sources that help answer this question, it can be shown that the wouldbe debunkers more often than not hold erroneous and unscriptural positions relative to the throne of David which is more serious than mistakenly believing a tale which may or may not be true but in either case does not violate any scriptural truths, and, more importantly, is more in harmony with the teaching of the Scriptures.
The last descendant of David of scriptural record to rule was Zedekiah and the state of affairs in the land of Judah at that time was pretty grim. The northern tribes of Israel had been deported from their land by the Assyrians about 130 years prior to this. The wickedness of the southern kingdom of Judah was such that God declared in II Kings 23:27, "And the LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there."
Chapters 24 & 25 of II Kings record how King Necbuchadnezzar of Babylon came and took Jerusalem, slew the sons of Zekekiah before his eyes, apparently with the intent of crushing any future hope of reviving the throne, and then putting out Zedekiah's eyes so that the death of his sons would be the last thing he would ever see before being taken captive to Babylon. The last chapter of II Chronicles, chapter 36, also records the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. This all occurred about 585 B.C. during the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Seventy years later, after Babylon had fallen to the Medes and the Persians, a remnant was allowed to return and rebuild the temple and ultimately, Jerusalem itself, but there was no restoration of the throne of David in Jerusalem. Thus, Bible scholars have felt compelled to teach, in effect, that though God dared not rend the throne from Solomon or Rehoboam or Jehoram as wicked as they were because He had made a sacred promise to David, that in the days of Zedekiah, things were so bad that He could no longer consider the throne and His promise to David as sacred as before and so He had to put everything on hold as in their view, as goes the kingdom of Judah, so goes the throne of David.
There are three separate scripture passages that might seem to suggest that this is indeed the case and that our contention that the throne of David survived the Babylonian captivity is all wrong and much ado about nothing and we can all go home now, so to speak. But closer examination reveals that these passages do not necessitate taking this position.
The first one is found in Hosea 3:4-5. It reads, "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and [without] teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days."
That seems to settle the question in many people's minds that there was to be no more throne until the second coming of Christ and they are not bothered by the fact that such an out of context interpretation of this scripture is not in keeping with God's promise to David or how God preserved the throne in the past out of faithfulness to that promise or that to interpret it this way would require God to "alter the thing that is gone out of my mouth," something that we previously saw in Psalm 89 God said He would not do with respect to David's throne. If one reads this psalm in its entirety, it will be seen that it is actually a fervent prayer rendered at the time the throne came to an end in Judah in which the psalmist is reminding God of his promise to David and that the then present deplorable state of things regarding the throne could not last for long and God still be considered faithful to His promise. When, in verse 47, the psalmist reminds God, "Remember how short my time is," it is clear that he was moved by the Spirit of God to boldly ask for a turnaround within his lifetime.
So let us consider the background of the passage in Hosea. Sometimes the children of Judah are referred to as Israel since they are a part of Israel though they are never referred to as the house of Israel. But if one reads the preceding chapters of Hosea, one will see that the prophet distinguishes between Israel and Judah and his primary focus is the northern house of Israel as he foretells the Assyrian captivity. When the Assyrians deported Israel from their land in the 700s B.C. and they subsequently migrated to other lands, they were indeed without a king, prince, and, undoubtedly, without the other mentioned items and certainly, this continued for many centuries. But while this was going on, the descendants of David continued to reign over the southern kingdom of Judah at Jerusalem for the next 130 years or so. Therefore the immediate fulfillment of Hosea's prophecy did not spell an end to the throne. The expression "many days" does not have to mean until Christ returns. It just means that for the portion of Israel Hosea is speaking of, this condition would last for a long time while the Davidic throne continued elsewhere. The word, "afterwards,"that is, when they are no longer without a king, etc. is in "the latter days," which is still some time before the second coming.
In Acts 15:16, during a debate at the great church council at Jerusalem, James quotes Amos 9:11,"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: .."
Here reference is made to an entity known as the "tabernacle of David" that is in ruins and in need of restoration. This, too, might confirm in some people's minds that the throne is in hibernation. But this conclusion is based on the assumption that the tabernacle of David can be equated with the throne of David or, at the very least, with the house of David.
II Sam 6:17 speaks of a tabernacle which David built in which he placed the ark of the covenant and where he offered burnt offerings. It was the forerunner of the temple which later fulfilled these functions. Might this be the tabernacle of David?Certainly this tabernacle which David built and the temple are not to be equated with the throne of David. In Isaiah 16:5, in the midst of a prophecy concerning Moab, the throne, presumably David's throne, is mentioned in connection with the tabernacle of David but they are, nonetheless, distinguished one from the other. David was the civil leader of the nation. He built this place of worship. Therefore,the restoration of the tabernacle of David may be a reference to the facilitation of godly worship and the protection thereof by the government in the national life of Israel. Building a temple to reinstitute animal sacrifices would be a blasphemous rejection of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. But whether or not this is what the tabernacle of David represents prophetically, the tabernacle of David is in ruins but the throne was to be built up to all generations so how can we take the position that they refer to the same thing without causing one scripture to cancel another and forcing God's people to take sides and giving skeptics toward the Bible some more ammunition?
The third passage that might present us with some difficulty is found in Ezekiel 21:25-27. Keep in mind while reading this the earlier promise to Judah that the scepter would not depart from Judah until Shiloh ( Christ ) comes and the sons of David sitting upon the throne of David was the Biblical manifestation of Judah holding the scepter. The passage declares, "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]."
The profane wicked prince of Israel is not named but it evidently is a reference to Zedekiah because, as the last king of Judah ( Judah was a part of Israel but not of the house of Israel ) in Jerusalem, it would have been in his days that iniquity would have had "an end" rather than in the days of any of his predecessors. Also, Ezekiel did not begin his prophecy until Zedekiah's predecessor was already history Ezek. 1:2 . He is told to remove his crown. The last verse might be interpreted to mean that with the overturning of the throne, that it would "be no more," that is to say, no more in existence untl he come whose right it is, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, that is how it has been interpreted. But the middle verse speaks not of overturning but of a transfer of power, "exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high". In other words, someone other than Zedekiah was to wear the crown. The removal of the crown from Zedekiah's head and the overthrowing of the throne in Judah was a single event. But there were to be three overturns, or three separate events, the overturn involving Zedekiah being but the first. J.H. Allen, in his book, interprets the overturns to be three separate events, each of which resulted in a change of location of the throne which extrabibilical sources record. Thus when the scripture says, "it shall be no more," it is thought to be reference to the fact that after these three overturns, it shall be no more overturned rather than no more in existence "until he come whose right it is." Click here for an external link to a helpful essay examining the use of the word overturn.
This interpretation will not and does not satisfy everyone and it will be said that the word overturn is simply repeated for emphasis and that view is not without merit. However, even if that is the case, an earlier chapter in Ezekiel which we shall examine below sheds further light on this matter of exalting "him that is low"and what would come of that indicating that this tremendous shakeup of the throne in the land of Judah was a prelude to change and not simply destruction. We are all agreed that the throne was brought to ruin and cast down to the ground insofar as the land of Judah and Jerusalem was concerned and that no one is sitting on a throne of David in Jerusalem.
But first, we should ponder a passage from Jeremiah. Jeremiah lived to witness the momentous events of the time in question. As Jeremiah prophesied concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, we would be right to look to this prophet to gain insight into what was to happen to David's throne as this would naturally be on people's minds during a pivotal time such as this.
In Jeremiah 33, in the darkest of hours, God, nevertheless, speaks of the glorious tiime to come for the nation and the restoration and how He would "cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up to David..."(v.15), a reference to Christ, the Messiah. That is yet in the future. In light of what God will bring to pass, the Scriptures continue, "For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
[Then] may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant [be] not with day and night, [and if] I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, [so] that I will not take [any] of his seed [to be] rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them."
Because this prophecy regarding David's throne looks ahead to the Messianic Age and the reign of Christ, the promise of David not wanting, that is, not lacking a man to sit upon his throne has been limited by many to this future time. But the prophecy also links this promise to the time when the priests and Levites were still offering burnt offerings.This was before Christ's death put away the religious ordinances and the Levitical priesthood was replaced with the order of Melchisedec as the book of Hebrews sets forth. Therefore,it is also in this time period which would certainly include the years between the Babylonian captivity and the crucifixion of Christ that David would not lack a man to sit upon his throne. As the temple was destroyed about 585 B.C. and for 70 years no sacrifices were offered there and probably none in Babylon either yet God made a promise to the Levites that they would not lack anyone to do sacrifice continually", it is plain that this practice must have continued elsewhere. This may be a challenging proposition but one would hope that we would not be as the skeptics who demand to see "the print of the nails" before we believe the Word.
In verse 22 of the above passage from Jeremiah, the Word states, "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant..." Isn't that interesting? We all know about the multiplicity of seed that God promised to Abraham. How many of God's people give any thought to the multiplicity of seed promised to David or the significance of that? Why was such a promise given? Since it was made in connection with David not lacking someone to sit upon his throne, was it not given to ensure that that would indeed be the case? Keep in mind that this promise was given when everything was falling to pieces in Jerusalem and Zedekiah was about to be removed. Dear reader, if you honestly think that God told Ezekiel that overturning the throne means it would be no more in existence until Christ returns and that after Zedekiah, the only descendant of David that matters is the Lord Jesus Christ, then why would God multiply the seed of David to ensure that David would not lack a man to sit upon his throne? There certainly would be no need to multiply the seed of David in the kingdom age when Jesus Christ will, in fact, be the descendant of David who will sit on that throne throughout eternity. God would not even need to multiply the seed of David to get us from Zedekiah to Christ's birth if there would be no more rulers of David's line until Christ. Only two lines of descent are recorded for that. But the seed of David would need to be multiplied if, through iniquity, individuals like Zedekiah were disqualifying themselves or if there were to be more than one manifestation of David's throne as there were to be many Israel nations.
There is at least one remaining tactic that those who disbelieve what is being presented here will use in rebuttal that we should give attention to before proceeding any further. They will acknowledge that yes, in keeping with the promise, David and the Levites must have an enduring seed ( which they imagine to be among the Jews ) but they have not executed their office as this was conditional upon obedience to God. In other words, they will say,Yes, David does not lack for a man to sit upon the throne, he as the manpower to fulfill that function and that is what is meant by God's mercy not departing from him as He took it from Saul but his descendants are not fulfilling that function because they did not meet the required condition. And yes, during the Babylonian captivity, the Levites had the manpower to do sacrifice continually but they quite obviously were not fulfilling their office during this time. There are at least two passages that they will rely on: I Kings 2:4 and Psalm 132:11-12.
The passage from Psalms states, "The LORD hath sworn [in] truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore."
It will be said, "See?, it's all conditional upon David's descendants keeping the covenant and testimony as to whether or not they will sit upon the throne." This is a valid point and we all agree that there is both a conditional and an unconditional aspect to the Davidic covenant. The disagreement is over where one leaves off and the other begins. The first half of the above passage expresses the unconditional aspect. The last part expresses the conditional part. Fortunately, we have an example in Scripture written for our learning that shows how all this operated.
Josiah was the last good king of Judah. Several of his descendants, variously named, succeeded him. In Jeremiah 22, we read of one of them, Coniah, elsewhere called Jehoichin. This man was so evil that we read of him in verses 29-30,O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord, Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."
Of this we can be certain: none of Coniah's descendants are sitting on the throne of David though he, himself did so briefly until God removed him. The disqualifying aspect of the Davidic covenant as it is expressed in Psalm 132 applied to this man and his descendants to the fullest extent. Did this bring the throne to an end? The record of Scripture reveals that it did not. God just got somebody else of David's seed to take his place and the throne continued as an institution.
The other passage often referred to in rebuttal reads thus: "Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel."
Seemingly, David does appear to make more hinge on the obedience of his descendants to the ways of the Lord than the original promise to him would indicate, including the very heart of the promise, that of there always being a man of Davidic descent on the throne. But again, the issue here is not the continued existence of the throne of Israel which was to be synonymous with the throne of David but whether a particular man of Davidic descent would prosper or fail, that is, be destroyed or cut off upon that throne as the Hebrew word indicates. This is the interpretation that harmonizes with how the promise was originally expressed. Nevertheless, our adversarial brethren will use this passage as a sort of loophole that relieves God of the necessity of faithfully keeping someone of David's line on the throne in light of the checkered behavior of his descendants. But they do not apply their interpretation consistently. If they did, they would have to take the position that it also absolves God of having to see to it that the Messiah descends from David and this position they will not take. But is not this the ultimate fulfillment of David not lacking a man to sit upon his throne? They will appeal to other scriptures to show that God will, nonetheless, ensure that the Messianic line descends from David.
In like manner, other scriptures show that, even if we might conclude from this passage that God is potentially unbound from maintaining the throne before Christ returns to reign, He has, nonetheless, chosen to bind Himself by what He has declared in the previously cited 33rd chapter of Jeremiah. Returning to that passage and reading further, it is written in verses 25-26,"Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant [be] not with day and night, [and if] I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, [so] that I will not take [any] of his seed [to be] rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them."
It should go without saying that the language of I Kings 2:4 does not permit us to say that what is promised here in Jeremiah is conditional on the actions of men. God sets forth here the conditions that would have to prevail for him to not take any of David's seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Day and night would have to cease first. In other words, "it ain"t gonna happen." If we think God told Ezekiel that with the three overturns of the throne, it was to be no more in existence until Christ comes because of human failure, we are saying that the conditions presently exist in which God will not take any of David's seed to be rulers over Israel but try convincing the average person that night and day have ceased!
There will still be a persistent attempt to project and limit this to the Messianic Age but rulers is in the plural and this would not be the case if Christ were the only offspring of David that mattered. Does the word rulers include presidents and prime ministers, members of Congress and parliament? Perhaps. But the context of Jeremiah 33 specifically mentions the throne (v.21). The point is, as Israel developed into the many nations of Christendom, and many of these lands had kings, from a scriptural standpoint, there is no reason to believe that the descendants of David have not figured significantly into the governance of these nations but there is, instead, good reason to believe that they did. This is axiomatic. Hence we can conclude this without resorting to myths and legends and unearthing extrabiblical genealogies that make this connection.
Thus, we could end our discussion here. But it behooves us to consider yet more Scripture.To get some idea as to what was to transpire next, we turn to Ezekiel 17, another scripture that receives little attention.
The Babylonian captivity took place in phases and Ezekiel was among those who had been taken captive before Jerusalem fell some years later. And though much of his prophetic message in the preceding chapters concerns the goings on in Jerusalem, it is largely directed to the house of Israel that had gone into the Assyrian captivity over a century before. Much of the house of Israel was still in the vicinity in the lands of their captivity and evidently they were pinning their future hopes on Jerusalem and Ezekiel was telling them, in effect, to forget it.
When we come to the 17th chapter, Ezekiel is told to "put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel..." We are told of a great eagle that came to Lebanon and "took of the highest branch of the cedar." He also took some young twigs from this branch and planted them elsewhere. He also took some seed and "planted it in a fruitful field "and it became a vine. We also learn of another great eagle and the vine "did bend her roots toward him" but that it would not prosper.
Fortunately, the interpretation of the riddle is given in the same chapter. The first eagle is a reference to the king of Babylon who took captive to Babylon King Jehoichin (Coniah ) and put Zedekiah in his place but Zedekiah rebelled against him and turned to Pharoah, king of Egypt, who is represented as the other great eagle to which the vine turned. But this alliance with Egypt would not prosper. Thus, the highest branch of the cedar refers to the king and/or the royal line and the young twigs refer to the princes that were taken captive as well and Zedekiah or Zedekiah's kingdom is the vine. All of this is symbolic language for historical events concerning the throne and the royal line that are recorded in the Scriptures.
But when we come to the last three verses of the chapter, verses 22-24, we read, "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 from 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 will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all 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, 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]."
God is telling the house of Israel that although King Jehoichin was forcibly taken to Babylon and King Zedekiah would not prosper either and Jerusalem would fall that He, God, would also take a young twig from the royal family ( not a descendant of Coniah however because of the aforestated curse upon him ) and plant it in a land where part of Israel was situated and there it would do well and continue and come to have great influence and protective power over many peoples.
This would be in harmony with the promise that the scepter would not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.
Again, traditionally, this has been interpreted to be yet another reference to Christ and the Messianic age but if we follow the symbolism, this cannot be. While the transplanted twig represents a continuation of the Davidic line exercising royal power, something else occurs also: the abasement of the"high cedar" or "tree"from which it came and the exaltation of another tree altogether, the "low" or "dry" tree. When Christ reigns, it will not represent the abasement of the tree from which He comes. Secondly, Christ, though a son of David, did not biologically descend from any of Josiah's sons which apparently is what the highest branch of the high cedar represents in this context so did Christ even come from the highest branch of the high cedar ? Only if the highest branch of the high cedar is a reference to all of David's descendants and not just the extended royal family of the time under examination. But even if we allow for that possibility, it is still the entire tree that is abased.
This is indeed a riddle and the symbolism requires study. How can a transplanted twig from a high green cedar tree grow up and become a "goodly cedar" and yet there be another tree altogether figure into this picture as well, not a new tree mind you, but a preexistent one that was low and dry and now has new life and is exalted over the tree from which the tender twig came? This is similar to the thought expressed later in chapter 21 which we discussed earlier that with the overturning of the throne in Judah, God would abase him that is high and exalt him that is low. Again, it is more than just a few individuals like Coniah and Zedekiah that are brought low or exalted but entire trees, or lines of descent.
It might be debatable as to whether or not this question can be answered definitively this side of eternity but the story put forth by the British Israelites which has been told so many times for over a century would seem to fit the situation. How both trees can figure in is by the merger of two lines through marriage. The observation has been made that reference is made in Jer. 41:8 to the king's daughters who did not go to Babylon but were taken to Egypt along with Jeremiah who was taken against his will. The group who fled to Egypt to get away from the Babylonians did so in disobedience to God and judgments were pronounced against them. But though they were to perish, there would be a small number that would escape Jer. 44:28.
We know that Jeremiah"s scribe would escape according to chapter 45:5 and we might reasonably presume that Jeremiah did as well. Another observation that has been made is that Jeremiah was commissioned not only to oversee the destruction and throwing down of kingdoms but "to build, and to plant" Jer.1:10 as well and that the Scriptures do not record this latter phase of his life.
It is well that we realize that the Scriptures do not specifically state that the king's daughters would be in this group that survived but it cannot be ruled out. We should also realize that, according to the civil laws of the Bible, an inheritance can pass to a daughter under certain conditions provided she marry within her own tribe Numbers 27:1-11; ch.36. There would need to be such a provision for Christ to claim the throne of David as He is descended from David through his mother, Mary. The genealogy of her husband , Joseph, is also recorded in the Bible to show she married within her own tribe so she could pass her Davidic inheritance on to the Lord. Thus, the Davidic throneline could legitimately continue by way of these daughters provided they married within the tribe of Judah. This law as it relates to the throne of David may make allowances for the existence of queens of Davidic descent as well as kings.It should also be noted that there undoubtedly was a lapse of time before royal power was restored to the Davidic line in another land. In the Scriptures, there was a period of six years in which the rightful heir was prevented from occupying the throne due to a Satanic attempt to upset thngs but constituional government was subsequently restored II Chronicles 22:10-12. Therefore, allowances are also apparently made for brief interruptions or interregnums but this does not justify accepting the notion of a two thousand year interregnum.
We are left to speculate on who or what the low dry tree represents but the reader may recall our earlier article entitled, Joseph and Judah in which the significance of the manner in which two of Judah's sons, Pharez and Zarah, came into the world was briefly touched upon and how that each could have had a case for being the firstborn. Zarah put his hand out of the womb first and the midwife put the scarlet thread around his hand to show he was the firstborn but Pharez ended up coming out first instead to the midwife's surprise. To Pharez, she said, "This breach be upon thee"Gen. 38:29 These are puzzling words. If she had said, "This blessing be upon thee" we would understand that the child was being blessed or if she had said "This curse be upon thee," we would understand this to be a curse but what does "this breach be upon thee" translate into? It would seem to indicate that down the road, the circumstances of this birth would be revisited somehow and the "breach," that is, the break in the expected order of things would not be forgotten and brushed aside or without consequence to the Pharez line.
As the Pharez line was honored with the Davidic line of kings, including the ancestry of Christ, it was exalted relative to the Zarah line. and there is only limited mention of Zarah's descendants in the Scriptures. It is well that we acknowledge that the Scriptures do not specifically state that the Zarah branch of Judah is what is meant by the low, dry tree so we are entering the realm of educated speculation here and secular history.
What is often cited are two ancient writers, Hecataeus and Diodorus who provide what would appear to be references to the Exodus which indicate that not all the people who came out of Egypt followed Moses but some went to Greece and Asia Minor and some of the placenames and tribal names suggest a connection with Dan and Judah, particularly the Zarah branch. There are other indications that some of these were among the early settlers of Ireland. Also, these are not considered to be the only precaptivity migrations of Israel.
Ancient Irish records speak of a prophet named "Ollam Fodlah" who came to Ireland at about the same time as the events we have been discussing. He was accompanied by his scribe, Simon Brug, or Bruch and an eastern king's daughter. It is tempting to believe that this was Jeremiah, Baruch, and a daughter of Zedekiah as many do. The daughter was subsequently married to the prince of the land, Eochaidh, and they produced a line of Irish kings which was later transplanted to Scotland and from there to England when King James to VI of Scotland assumed the English throne to become King James the I of England where he subsequently authorized the translation of the Bible into English. This would represent a continuation of the Davidic line but concurrent with the exaltation of the Zarah branch of Judah ( into which the king's daughter apparently married ) until Christ returns and restores the Pharez line to favor. It can truthfully be said that in the heyday of the British Empire, fowl of every wing came to dwell in the shadow of the branches thereof Ezek 17:23.
Others have dealt with this in more depth but this presents an overview. Whether or not it happened exactly this way, God has assured that, to the praise of his glory, Judah would hold the scepter until Shiloh comes and as Britain has all the marks of an Israel nation, it makes sense that her monarch is of Davidic descent.
One does not need to know all of this in order to have a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But there should be a fervent desire to partake of the meat of the Word of God and not remain on a milk diet. Restricting oneself to spiritual milk results in undernourished Christians who are vulnerable and ineffective. There is muchtalk of the sovereignty of God as well there should be. But when we see that it truly extends to such enduring institutions as the throne of England, instead of regarding this as a fantastic fable, we ought to begin to capture a vision that God has a plan for nations as well as individuals and conform our thinking to this. We ought to consider that the negligence and rejection or ignorance of a national message of the Scriptures by Bible believing Christians is at the heart of many of the world's troubles.
Let us realize that it is the Word of God and the truth contained therein that cleanses and sanctifies and ere the nations of Christendom are sanctified to serve God's purposes, there will, of necessity, be an acceptance of truth that heretofore has been labelled heretical and dismissed as fantasy. May we find ourselves in the will of God.