Date Posted：16/04/2008 7:36 AMCopy HTML
Evil Kings and the promise of the throne
One of the British Israel arguments against my works regarding the conditional nature of the throne, is their maintaining that the 'conditional nature' actually meant only that the King would removed or disciplined, but that his throne would continue. This particular understanding seems fairly subjective and simply does not hold up under investigation. Of course every King had to die, so this line of reasoning is perhaps a little ambiguous to start with. However, a fundamental flaw in this reasoning is that many 'evil' Kings had a longer reign than the 'good' kings.
For example Jotham, a good King, had a reign of sixteen years and we have at least 10 other bad Kings who reigned for as long or longer than he did.
In fact the longest reigning king in the OT, of either the Southern or Northern Kingdom, was probably one of the most evil kings of all. It was Manasseh the 13th King of Judah, who reigned a full 55years. Indeed it was because of his reign that God said that "So I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies" (2 Kings 21:14). Manasseh was in reality, the beginning of the end.
Manasseh showed some form of repentance later on, but this did not to have undone his earlier evil. 2 Kings 23:26 tells us that even all the reforms of the good King Josiah could not undo the "provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him".
This highlights the fact that the cutting off of the natural ascendancy to the Throne was not necessarily for the disobedient King of the time, but for their future generations. Unfair perhaps in some eyes, but that is how God did it.
Was God not able to cut Manasseh off? According to certain British Israel reasoning, shouldn't one of the most evil kings have had the shortest reign?
British Israelites often make appeal to some specific verses in Psalm 89. Firstly, we note that David's seed was to endure forever (vs. 29). This is a catch cry of BI. Now it seems obvious, but the only way the seed of David 'can' become eternal is through eternal beings. This could only be guaranteed through Jesus Christ. No matter how much BI try and shift things around, QEII and her offspring will not endure for ever in the natural (spiritually I cannot comment, but according the Revivalist doctrine of salvation, the Royals are on a sinking ship there as well).
Even if QEII was on the 'Throne of David', then according to the BI theory, she will have to give it over to him, so again her line of the throne will not endure forever and again there is no point to having her in the equation. Now because her line, at some stage in eternity, will come to an end, the ONLY way the promise can be maintained is through Christ, no other way. Christ has already been born through the seed of David (and fulfilled the promise). He will not reborn under the current Queens lineage.
Secondly, BI try to insist there must always be someone on the throne over Israel. Again this aspect of someone 'always being on the throne' was never unconditional (see the article on the conditional throne). In any case, when considered objectively, BI themselves have to admit there have been times in the Zedekiah to QEII history when people have not been sitting 'on the throne'. Now if BI can admit a break of fifty years here and there, why not a break of several hundred years? An 'unconditional promise' is broken whether it be 5 minutes or 5000 years?
At the end of the day, the Bible itself maintains that Israel would be without a King for a time.
For those wishing to read further about the fate of the Israel / Judah Kings, see the article on the overview of Jeremiah