Book: America & Britain

Who, then, is the “tender one” of Ezekiel’s riddle? The answer, in part, lies with a mysterious commission given to the prophet Jeremiah. In the opening verses of the book that bears his name, we read that Jeremiah was to be used by God in a peculiar way: “See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down”—all negative terms, to be sure. But he was also “to build, and to plant” (Jer. 1:10; compare 18:9; 24:6; 31:28; 32:41; 42:10). Recall that God said He Himself would plant a “tender one.” Would He use Jeremiah to accomplish this “planting”?

Commentaries are at a loss to explain just how or when Jeremiah did this pulling down and building or planting. They simplistically link this aspect of his role to “prophetic pronouncements” concerning the rise or fall of nations. While this may be applicable, certainly more is implied. As the passages listed above show, God did indeed “pluck up” and “plant” nations or peoples. But what was Jeremiah’s role in this regard?

Shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and Zedekiah’s death, we find that Jeremiah was released from prison and dwelled among a small remnant still in the land of Judea (Jer. 39:14; 40:6). The group was under the appointed governorship of Gedaliah, who was subsequently murdered by a fellow military leader named Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). Ishmael apparently rejected the political arrangement. In verse 10 we read that Ishmael and his band took the entire remnant as prisoners. Notice who is particularly mentioned as being among the group: “Then Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people … even the king’s daughters”—Zedekiah’s daughters!

According to the account, a Jewish military captain named Johanan rescued the captives. But fearing retaliation from the Babylonians for the murder of Gedaliah, Johanan set out with the remnant for Egypt (Jer. 41:11-18). This was in direct violation of God’s instructions through Jeremiah to stay in the land and not fear the Babylonians (Jer. 42). Apparently, Johanan took the group by force into Egypt. “But Johanan … took all the remnant of Judah … men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters … and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch…. So they came into the land of Egypt, for they did not obey the voice of the LORD. So they came to Tahpanhes” (Jer. 43:5-7). Note that this was Johanan’s disobedience, not Jeremiah’s.

Thus, Jeremiah, along with his faithful scribe Baruch (Jer. 36; etc.), accompanied the kings daughters into Egypt. Zedekiah was only 32 when he was taken to Babylon (II Chron. 36:11), so his daughters would have been relatively young, certainly in their early teens. History records their names as Scota and Tamar Tephi. Jeremiah was no doubt acting as guardian for the young princesses.

Remember, Jechoniah’s line had been fully disqualified from ever inheriting the Davidic throne, and Zedekiah’s sons had all been killed. The term “tender one”—as used in Ezekiel’s riddle—certainly implies a young female. Could one of Zedekiah’s daughters be used to perpetuate the throne? Would this be at all legal?

According to Hebrew law, a man could pass the family inheritance on to a daughter if he had no son (Num. 27:8). Certainly this would apply even to the throne. Athaliah, wife of King Jehoram of Judah, took the throne by treachery; nevertheless, her brief reign was not challenged because she was female (II Kings 11:1-3). The promise in Jeremiah 33:17—that David would never lack a man to sit on his throne—must not be taken to exclude women. While the Hebrew word ish is used throughout the Old Testament to designate a male, the term is used frequently of humans in general (Job 14:12; 15:16; 34:21; Psa. 39:11; 78:25; etc.). Moreover, the legitimacy of the maternal line is clearly upheld in the fact that Jesus’ only blood link back to David is through his mother, Mary.

It appears that Nebuchadnezzar’s desire was to destroy the dynasty established under Solomon and permanently end the succession of Jewish kings. But the Babylonian king may have been completely unaware of Zedekiah’s daughters; at the very least, he was apparently unfamiliar with Hebrew law—specifically that a princess could inherit the throne if there were no male heirs. There was, however, one stipulation: the heiress had to marry within the royal tribe, the tribe of Judah, if she was to retain the inheritance (see Numbers 36:6-7 for the precedent). Thus, Zedekiah’s daughters had every right to the throne of their father—as long as they married someone from the tribe of Judah.

The story of Jeremiah and Zedekiah’s daughters ends with them still in Egypt—at least as far as the Bible goes. We are left to speculate—based on historical accounts, the prophecies of Ezekiel, the promises concerning David’s throne, and the “mysterious commission” given to Jeremiah—as to what happened next.

Why does Scripture—in light of the demise of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah, the temple, and (apparently) the Davidic throne— mention twice that Zedekiah’s daughters had survived? And why were they apparently under the guardianship of Jeremiah the prophet? What was Jeremiah to do with the king’s daughters? Was one of Zedekiah’s young daughters the “tender one” of Ezekiel, taken from the “tall cedar”—the royal dynasty established under Solomon—and planted by Jeremiah in another land? Would she ultimately marry into a long-established Jewish ruling line, thus preserving the throne of David so that it could continue to rule over some part of the seed of Abraham?

The overriding point to keep in mind is that God’s promises never fail. He has promised that David’s throne would remain active throughout all generations; thus, as that throne was ejected from the land of Judah, it must have been reestablished in a land where descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were well settled.

Davidic Throne Planted in Ireland

From a biblical perspective, the story of Jeremiah, Baruch and the king’s daughters ends on a positive note. God had previously warned the Judaic remnant against going to Egypt. Later, He explicitly declared that the entire group would ultimately die in Egypt—“except those who escape” (Jer. 44:12-14). Obviously, Jeremiah and his party were not in rebellion against God; thus, there is no doubt that they escaped God’s final judgment on the Jewish remnant. Verse 28 indicates that a small number of them did, in fact, escape Egypt and return to Palestine.

But as we will see, Jeremiah’s “mysterious commission” was to take him and his royal party elsewhere, for he was to plant one of Zedekiah’s daughters in a land already well populated by Israelites—the British Isles!

As you will recall from Chapter 9, Danite and Phoenician traders had explored and colonized the Isles back in the time of Solomon. In fact, it is probable that Danites had already settled the Isles back in the time of Israel’s Judges, as the tribe is criticized by Deborah—who governed Israel some 200 years before David—for being “away at sea” during a protracted local conflict (Judges 5:17). Later, just prior to the fall of Samaria in about 722 BC, many more Danites—and Israelites from other tribes—set out by sea to avoid the Assyrian captivity. Naturally, they would have settled in areas already dominated by Israelites—the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles.

Some of the earliest Danite settlements in the Isles were in Ireland. As these colonies became more developed, ruling clans of Danite kings arose. Eventually, however, these kings were superseded in Ireland by a Milesian line of kings made up of royalty from the Jewish line of Zarah (I Chron. 2:4, 6). As will be brought out below, this royal line developed when Danite and Judah-Zarahite refugees settled parts of ancient Greece prior to Israel’s enslavement while in Egypt. This Milesian line eventually made its way to Ireland. Jeremiah’s mission was to join the Davidic throne to the “Irish” throne through the marriage of Tephi, Zedekiah’s daughter, to an heir of the Milesian line—a prince named Eochaidh. This is how Jeremiah was to plant a “tender one” in what would eventually become a “high mountain”—the Israelite birthright kingdom of Great Britain.

From this point we must look to the historical writings of ancient Ireland, which reveal that Jeremiah did indeed travel, via Spain (Iberia), to the Isles with his scribe, Baruch, and a certain princess Tephi. While the following account is summarized from authenticated histories rather than mere legends, it is important to realize that, as with any ancient narrative, a certain amount of contradiction is to be expected.

The Irish are known for their dedication to recording their national history, which has been illustratively handed down in songs, poems, tales and legends. As such, Irish historical figures have often been endowed with almost magical powers, and actual events have at times been obscured by embellishment as they were told and retold by Celtic bards. As the Isles entered the Christian era, Irish history was first written down by monks, who compiled the stories into rare manuscripts. But adding their own “spin” to the tales, these clerics often made the accounts more confusing. Still, experts in Irish history have been able to establish certain common story lines among the hundreds of ancient legends.1

As concerns Jeremiah and princess Tephi, their arrival in the Isles is well documented in the annals of Irish history; however, the accounts differ, sometimes widely. Archeologist E. Raymond Capt has concisely described Jeremiah’s “planting” of the Davidic throne in Ireland. According to Capt, Irish records tell of a particular ship of the “Iberian Danaan” coming to Ireland in about the year 583 BC—a mere three years after the fall of Jerusalem (this date varies somewhat in other accounts). The ship was of Danaan origin, meaning it was linked to a particular group of Danites who had earlier settled in Greece. It came to Ireland by way of Iberia—Spain. As the ship approached the northeast coast of Ireland, it ran aground near the area known today as Carrickfergus. Though the stories vary, it is clear as to the ship’s passengers: an aged Hebrew patriarch called Ollam Fodhla, his attendant named Brach (or Breack, Barech, Berach, as it is variously spelled in the legends), and “an eastern king’s daughter” called Tephi.2

Irish tradition asserts that Ollam Fodhla was the prophet Jeremiah (appropriately, the name means honored prophet). Baruch, his scribe, can clearly be identified from the variations of his name listed above. The royal princess Tephi is identified in the archives as the daughter and heiress of King Zedekiah; her sister, Scota, is said to have remained behind in Spain (Jeremiah and his party apparently spent several months in Iberia). As John Fox writes in his classic book The World’s Greatest Throne, the various records include “an account of the marriage between the royal princess and Eochaidh the Heremon, or King of Ireland, giving the princess’ name as Tamar Tephi….” Heremon means chief and was a title used of kings. Eochaidh is traced in early Irish records as having descended from the patriarch Judah, through the Zarah line.3

In his Lost Tribes of Israel Study Maps, researcher Daniel Walsh relates information taken from the 1886 work The Book of Tephi. J. A. Goodchild wrote the book—which takes the form of a 3,000-line poem— after spending years studying Irish legends. “The poem records the journey of Tea Tephi, Jeremiah and Baruch from the House of Judah to the ‘Isles of the West.’ The Isles are known as a home for the remnant from the tribe of Dan. The group left Tahpanhes and the Nile Delta aboard a [Hebrew] ship from Tarshish [Iberia]. The ship’s pilot was a Danite.”4

Based on Goodchild’s poem, Walsh goes on to outline the journey: from Egypt the Danite ship stopped at Carthage, then Rome; the group then sailed to southern Iberia (Carteia, in the area of Gibraltar) where they stayed about five months; from there they made a brief stop at Tarshish (Tartessus) before going on to Cornwall, in southern England. A few weeks later, the party made the short trip up the coast to eastern Ireland. Irish chieftains convened soon afterwards to confirm Eochaidh as Ard-Righ—High King of Ireland. Princess Tephi was also confirmed as Queen and a royal marriage was soon arranged. The poem also brings out that Eochaidh’s coronation was conducted over a unique stone brought to Ireland by Jeremiah—called Lia Fail (“Wonderful Stone”) by the Irish. This stone is apparently “Jacob’s pillar” from Scripture, and has been utilized in the coronation of all the kings of Ireland, Scotland, and England who are traced back to Eochaidh (see Appendix 5).

Concerning Eochaidh, Walsh writes: “One of Ireland’s rulers was a man named Eochaidh Heremon. Eochaidh is Irish for the Greek name Achaios, and the term Heremon is a title meaning Chief of the Landsmen, a king. He was a Milesian living among the Tuatha de Danann…. His genealogy traces back to Chalcol [I Chron. 2:6; I Kings 4:31], the Zarahite founder of Athens, who is said to have planted a royal dynasty in Ulster [Northern Ireland].” 5

Thus Tephi, heiress to the Davidic throne, married into an existing Jewish royal line which had been ruling for some time over Israelites settled in Ireland. As the newly crowned Queen of Ireland, Tephi brought the very authority of the throne of David to Eochaidh’s reign. According to tradition, Eochaidh’s coronation took place in about 580 BC—six years after the fall of Jerusalem. Ultimately, through their offspring, the “tender twig” would become a “majestic cedar” (Ezek. 17:22-23)—a new royal dynasty in its own right—through which the Davidic throne would be perpetuated. Thus, in keeping with God’s sure promises, David’s throne has remained active— ruling over Israel in all generations.

Healing an Ancient Family Breach

The union of Tephi and Eochaidh not only established a new dynasty over Israelite Ireland, it also resolved an ancient breach or division in the tribal family of Judah. This breach, which took place shortly before Jacob relocated his family to Egypt, resulted from the unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of Judah’s and Tamar’s twins, Zarah and Pharez.

As we see from the story in Genesis 38, Judah had arranged for his son, Er, to marry Tamar. But before they could have children, God killed Er for his wickedness. As was the custom, it fell to Er’s brother, Onan, to “raise up seed” for his dead brother. But Onan refused and was also killed by God. The duty then fell to Judah’s youngest son, Shelah, who was too young at the time. So Tamar lived as a widow at her father’s house while waiting for Shelah to come of age.

As time went by, Judah’s wife died and Shelah came of age. But for some reason, Tamar was not given to Shelah. Becoming impatient, Tamar decided to take matters into her own hands. Determined to have a child, Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute in order to seduce Judah, her fatherin- law. Tamar became pregnant and was subsequently sentenced by Judah to die for harlotry. Thus, Tamar was forced to reveal that Judah was in fact the father—a move that saved her life.

When the time came for Tamar to give birth, her midwife discovered she was carrying twins. Surprisingly, one of the infants put forth its hand, to which the midwife promptly tied a red string, saying, “This one came out first.” Assuming that it would be born first, the midwife was simply trying to keep track of which baby was the firstborn. But the child withdrew its hand and the other baby was born first. To this unexpected turn of events, the midwife declared, “What a breach you have made for yourself!”—or, “This breach be upon you!” (verse 29). Fittingly, this male child was named Pharez, meaning breach. His twin brother who had put forth his hand was named Zarah, meaning dawn—a name that suggests he came first. One must wonder why this story is included in Scripture, for this breach is never again mentioned. What purpose could there be to these remarkable events?

The unusual circumstances surrounding the twins’ birth no doubt caused some controversy as to which child was truly the firstborn. At stake were the rights of the firstborn, a prominent aspect of Hebrew culture. The twins were born a short time prior to Jacob relocating his family to Egypt. Once in Egypt, it would be another 17 years or so before Jacob would give his prophecy of Genesis 49. Thus, when the boys were born, it was not yet known that Judah’s offspring would inherit rights of royalty (Gen. 49:10). Because of this unique inheritance—the rights of royal lineage—the Pharez- Zarah controversy became paramount. Royal lineage was at stake.

While the biblical accounts of Judah’s genealogy list Pharez first, the fact that Pharez was blamed for (and even named for) this breach implies the development of a significant brotherly rivalry. There is no doubt that Zarah and his subsequent Zarahite line believed that they had been deprived of the firstborn position—and the right to rule over Israel. This family breach, however, would be resolved through the royal marriage of Eochaidh and Tephi.

Zarahite Migrations Prior to the Exodus

By the time Pharez and Zarah were born, Joseph had already been in Egypt for some 20 years. Shortly after the seven-year famine began, Joseph relocated his father and all of his family to Egypt. Another 70 or so years would pass before Joseph died. Scripture is silent concerning the transitional years following Joseph’s death—except for this one note: “And there arose a new king [Pharaoh] over Egypt who did not know Joseph” (Ex. 1:8).

Much is implied in this ominous statement. Joseph and the Israelites were held in high regard—after all, they had been given Goshen, the most fertile region of the Nile Delta. Accordingly, we must not imagine that with Joseph’s passing there was a sudden end to the substantial Israelite influence in the land. Who ruled as “governor” of Egypt after Joseph’s death? Since all Israel understood that the scepter belonged to the tribe of Judah, we can make the assumption that Judah’s descendants ruled not only over Israel while in Egypt, but also likely served as governors under Pharaoh.6 But who specifically ruled in Joseph’s place? And how long did this unique political arrangement continue?

We read in I Chronicles 2:5 that Pharez had two sons, Hezron and Hamul. Other than appearing in genealogical listings, nothing noteworthy is ever said about either son. Since Pharez was the “accepted” firstborn of Judah, we might assume that his sons ruled in Joseph’s place. But perhaps not. We also read that Zarah had five sons (verse 6). Three of them were noteworthy: Heman, Calcol, and Dara.

In I Kings 4:31, Solomon’s extraordinary wisdom is compared to the wisdom demonstrated by other celebrated leaders—Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the “sons of Mahol.” (It is generally accepted that Chalcol is a later variation of Calcol and that Darda is a later variation of Dara.) But how are these three brothers the sons of Mahol—were they not sons of Zarah? Several commentaries note that Mahol is not a proper name as such, but an appellation describing particular characteristics or skills common to these men. Adam Clarke, for example, writes that the term signifies dance or music—that a “son of Mahol” was a person particularly skilled in music.7

But why would Solomon be compared to these three Zarahites who predated him by centuries? Why would they be noted for great wisdom unless they, like Solomon, were great leaders—perhaps governors—in their own day? If so, when did these sons of Zarah rule? Could it be that they ruled as governors in place of Joseph—over Israel and perhaps Egypt—well prior to the children of Israel becoming enslaved to the Egyptians?

At any rate, this Zarahite “dynasty” was apparently well respected by both Israelite and Egyptian—for a time, perhaps as long as one hundred years (at least two generations would need to pass in order for a pharaoh to arise who had no knowledge of Joseph). But the Israelites eventually fell out of favor with the Egyptians, who saw them more and more as foreign usurpers of power. It was only natural that there would be a gradual loss of the loyalty that was originally tied to Joseph. In time, the Egyptians would indeed ask, Who was this Joseph?

Thus, the untimely collapse of Zarahite rule in Egypt is suggested in this simple statement found in Exodus 1:8. Soon the Israelites were no longer welcome in Egypt—and were no doubt greatly persecuted. And as we know from Scripture, this eventually led to slavery. As circumstances went from bad to worse, it appears that the wealthy and powerful Israelites fled Egypt by ship. Given the fact of the Danites’ later proclivity for seamanship, it is likely that they were already exploring the Mediterranean. The ruling “aristocratic” Zarahites would have also left Egypt before the situation reached a crisis point.8 The unprivileged masses were left behind to go into slavery—and ultimately be delivered under Moses. Later, in the Promised Land, the Pharez line would inherit the throne over the Kingdom of Israel starting with King David. (Of course, another possibility is that the Pharez line actually ruled in Egypt, which prompted the disenfranchised Zarahites to abandon Egypt by sea.)

While all of this may sound a bit too speculative, history does support this scenario. For example, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (c. 80-20 BC) tells of several Israelite flights from Egypt at this very time— most notably into Greece—under two key Israelite leaders, Danaus and Cadmus. Quoting Diodorus, Walsh writes that the Egyptians claimed that a large number of colonies were “spread from Egypt over all the inhabited world” and that exiles led by Danaus “settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos.” According to Walsh, other ancient sources verify that Danaus captured and developed Argos, known originally as Danaidae. Ancient Greek literature refers to these “Egyptian” pioneers as Danaans (Danaidae, Danai), noting that they spread throughout much of what is today known as Greece—reaching as far as Macedonia (which retains Dan’s name). Danaus was obviously of the tribe of Dan. (Other Danites, of course, went into slavery in Egypt. Later, under Moses and Joshua, these Danites were not surprisingly given a coastal territory in Palestine favoring their love of sea travel.) At some point, perhaps before Solomon’s time, Ireland was settled by some of these same “Greek” Israelites—known as the Tuatha de Danann, the tribe of Dan—whose ancestors had fled Egypt.9

But what became of the royal Zarahites who abandoned Egypt? History shows that the Greek city of Athens was founded by the legendary Cecrops. Diodorus wrote that Athens was settled by colonists from Sais, Egypt, located in the Nile Delta. Was Cecrops an Israelite? Walsh notes that “some scholars maintain that Cecrops is none other that Chalcol of the Zarah branch of Judah.” He adds: “Like their Phoenician counterparts, the seafaring Danites and Zarahites spread [Israelite] colonies throughout the Mediterranean. It is even said that Chalcol planted a royal dynasty of Irish kings in Ulster. Indeed, the ancient Greeks spoke highly of the Irish…. Diodorus says that the [Irish] ‘are most friendly disposed toward the Greeks, especially towards the Athenians.’ ”10

Chalcol’s brother, Darda, is said to have founded the city of Troy. The first Trojan king was Dardanus, undoubtedly a variation of Darda, from whom the Dardanelle strait obviously derives its name. Capt writes that “the descendants of Darda ruled ancient Troy for some one hundred years.” He adds that a Zarahite descendant, Brutus, migrated to Britain—to what they called the “great white island” due to its massive chalk cliffs—and established New Troy, later called London as a variation of the Roman Londinium.11

Concerning Zarahite expansion to the west, Capt writes: “Historical records tell of the westward migration of the descendants of Chalcol along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea establishing Iberian (Hebrew) trading settlements. One settlement, now called Saragossa, in the Ebro [like Iber, Ebro is short for Hebrew] Valley in Spain, was originally known as Zara-gassa, meaning the Stronghold of Zarah.” Back to the east is the Italian island known as Sardinia, which retains elements of both Zarah and Dan in its name—Zar-Din-ia.12

Capt continues: “From Spain they continued westward as far as Ireland. The Iberians gave their name to Ireland, calling the island Iberne … which was subsequently Latinized to Hibernia, a name that still adheres to Ireland….[13] Many historical records point to Israel’s presence (particularly Dan and Judah) in Ireland at a very early date…. Writers such as Petanius and Hecatoeus … speak of the Danai as being Hebrew people, originally from Egypt, who colonized Ireland.” He adds that in Moore’s History of Ireland it states that “the ancient Irish, called the Danai or Danes, separated from Israel around the time of [actually well prior to] the Exodus from Egypt, crossed to Greece, and then [later] invaded Ireland.”14

A Zarahite-Milesian Royal Line

History indicates that the Athenians—whose Jewish founders were Zarahites via Chalcol—took the Greek city of Miletus around 1000 BC. Thus, those known in history as Milesians are actually Judah-Zarahites. As noted earlier, Chalcol is credited with planting a Zarahite dynasty in Ireland. Precisely when this took place is not clear; the most likely scenario is that one of Chalcol’s descendants, a Milesian bearing the Chalcol family name, established a royal dynasty in Ulster some years after the Zarahites settled Miletus. Their Danite brothers had already begun to settle Ireland, going back to the time of the Judges or earlier. The so-called Milesian invasion of Ireland was, in reality, an effort by Zarahites from Miletus to exert rulership over their Israelite kinsmen.

According to Capt, one of the earliest and best preserved chronicles of Ireland, known as the Plantation of Ulster, includes the “Milesian Records.” These archives give an account of Milesian conquerors of Ireland belonging to the “scarlet branch of Judah”—the Zarahites. He writes: “The Milesians invaded Ireland in about 1000 BC, subjugating the de Danann….

Both the de Danann and the Milesians were kinsmen, who long ages before had separated from the main Hebrew stem [possibly while in Egypt]. Many historians today erroneously refer to these people as Celts and Gaels, whereas, in fact, they are only forerunners of the Celtic tribes that [later] wound their several ways across Europe from the East … finally blending … in one great Gaelic stream into the islands of Britain. The Celts were also kinsmen, but mainly of the later westward [overland] migrations of the Israelite tribes following their captivity in Assyria….”

Concerning the historical “scarlet branch of Judah,” he adds: “It was Zarah’s hand bound with a scarlet thread that probably accounts for the origin of the heraldic sign employed [even] today in Ulster, northern Ireland, consisting of a Red Hand coupled at the wrist with a scarlet thread.”15 While the Irish today are largely unaware of the true origin and meaning of this symbol, it is, nevertheless, strong proof that the ancient Zarahites—who left their indelible imprint on the British Isles—had long remembered the unique and unfavorable circumstances of Zarah’s birth and sought a way to reconcile their apparent loss of royal rights.

The marriage of Eochaidh—a Milesian of Zarahite descent—to Tehpi, who through David was of Pharez descent, healed this ancient breach by uniting both lines in the establishment of a new royal dynasty. To revisit the prophecy of Ezekiel 21, we can see that God had abased the one who had been high, King Zedekiah and the entire nation of Judah—for they lost the throne. At the same time, God exalted the one who had been low— Israel. Moreover, from a certain perspective, the Pharez line had been abased in that they no longer exclusively held the throne—for they would now share that right with an exalted Zarahite line.

In the riddle of Ezekiel 17, “the trees of the field” are likened to the other nations of the world—which would in time come to realize that God had brought down the “high tree,” Judah, casting her into slavery, while exalting the “low tree,” Israel. Indeed, God had dried up the “green tree”— removed its prized Davidic throne and reestablished it in Irish-Israel so that the formerly “dry tree” might flourish.

From this new Zarahite-Pharez dynasty would spring many Israelite monarchs—all ruling in the British Isles. In fact, all of the royal lines of Ireland, Scotland, and England trace back to this fateful union—including Queen Elizabeth II who currently occupies the Davidic throne, held in reserve for its rightful heir, the Messiah.16 Importantly, Genesis 49:10 indicates that there will be a monarch of Jewish descent ruling from David’s throne in the last days (verse 1), just prior to Jesus’ return to claim the throne.

Thus, through the prophet Jeremiah’s mysterious royal commission, the scepter remained fully in the possession of the tribe of Judah; the Davidic throne was preserved for safekeeping in the British Isles; and a land was prepared to accept Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Israelites who would over several centuries migrate to their new home.


1. No honest researcher denies the myriad of contradictions in Irish history. What is important, however, is that the identity of modern Israel does not hinge on a perfect understanding of Irish history or the “transfer” of David’s throne to Ireland. The massive amount of evidence available today clearly demonstrates “lost” Israel’s migration from the Mideast into the British Isles. As such, it far surpasses any unanswered questions regarding David’s throne being established in the Isles.

2. E. Raymond Capt, Jacob’s Pillar, pp. 31-32. John Fox corroborates this information in his book The World’s Greatest Throne, pp. 23-24.

3. John Fox, The World’s Greatest Throne, p. 24. Fox adds this: “Travelers to western Ireland today who visit Loch Erne … are taken especially to Devenish Island and are shown what tradition has always stated to be the prophet Jeremiah’s burial place or tomb, carved out of solid rock. And those visiting county Meath, north of Dublin, are taken to Tara, to the spot where Queen Tamar Tephi … was interred” (p. 24). Another traditional site for Jeremiah’s tomb exists in Meath, near Oldcastle (Capt, p. 39).

4. Daniel Walsh, Lost Tribes of Israel Study Maps, vol. 3, “Jeremiah’s Journey,” p. 3

5. Walsh, p. 6

6. The reader should recall these passages: “Judah [has indeed] prevailed among his brothers, and from him [has come] the chief ruler, but the birthright [has remained] Joseph’s” (I Chron. 5:1-2). “The scepter [symbolizing rulership and authority] shall not depart from [the tribe of] Judah, nor a lawgiver [ruler] from between his feet…” (Gen. 49:10).

7. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (on I Kings 4:31)

8. The wholesale departure of Zarahites from Egypt may be reflected in their omission from Judah’s genealogy found in I Chronicles 4:1.

9. Walsh, vol. 1, “The Pre-Exodus Flights,” pp. 2-3

10. Walsh, p. 3

11. Capt, p. 26. Fox as well notes that in Welsh bardic tradition the city now called London was founded by Brutus the Trojan, from the tribe of Judah, who afterward ruled over parts of ancient Britain (p. 21).

12. Capt, p. 27. Psalm 72:10 says, “The kings of Tarshish [Iberia, Spain] and of the isles shall bring presents [to Solomon]: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.” Perhaps this is a reference to various Mediterranean island-nations—such as Sardinia—with Israelite roots. It could also refer to the early Zarahite kings of Ireland.

13. Indeed, Ireland is even today called Hibernia; moreover, a group of islands off the coast of Scotland are known as the Hebrides. Both indicate the name Hebrew.

14. Capt, p. 27

15. Capt, p. 28

16. The entire royal line can be traced from David to Queen Elizabeth II in the book The Royal House of Britain, An Enduring Dynasty by W. M. H. Milner (Covenant Publishing, London, 1991).