As we will see, the “Stone of Destiny” and its history are closely connected with the history of the “crown” and the Throne of David.

To begin with the “Throne of David” and the “crown,” our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America,” addresses the history and future of the throne of David, stating this:

“The Bible foretells that the throne of David would be overthrown or transferred three times (compare Ezekiel 21:27). And so it happened… it was transferred from Jerusalem to Ireland, then from Ireland to Scotland, and finally from Scotland to England. Today, it is in ENGLAND, from where the Queen [and now King Charles III] rules, sitting on the throne of David, over one of the tribes of Israel (i.e., Ephraim).

“Ezekiel tells us: ‘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 [to] him’ (Ezekiel 21:25–27, Authorized Version).

“The Hebrew word for ‘overturn’ means to be overthrown for committing iniquity leading to ruin (Strong’s #5762). This happened three times to David’s dynasty from the time Ezekiel wrote this prophecy. The first ‘overturn’ involved King Zedekiah, the last king of David’s dynasty in Jerusalem, who became exalted, but was to be made low. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and all of his army came against Jerusalem and besieged it. King Zedekiah fled out of the city but was captured by the Babylonians. The King of Babylon killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes in Riblah, as well as all the nobles of Judah. Moreover, he put out Zedekiah’s eyes and carried him off to Babylon (Jeremiah 39:1, 4–5, 6–7). ‘But Johanan (a warrior) took…the king’s daughters (of Zedekiah)… and Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch the son of Neriah [and] they went to the land of Egypt’ (Jeremiah 43:5–7).

“God stated that ‘none… shall return [from Egypt] except those who escape’ (Jeremiah 44:14). Subsequently Jeremiah, Baruch and the king’s two daughters [known in history as Tea and Scota] did escape from Egypt. They were taken to Ireland.

“It was Jeremiah’s commission to uproot and to plant (Jeremiah 1:10). He had to uproot the kingship of Zedekiah over Judah, and he had to plant the kingship of Zedekiah’s daughters over another tribe or tribes of Israel. According to Irish records, shortly after the time of Jerusalem’s fall in 600 B.C., two princesses arrived in Ireland from Egypt with two wise men. We are even told that the one princess, identified as Tea or Tea-Tephi, married the Irish king, Eochaidh, while Scota married into a noble family, perhaps giving her name to Scotland. Irish scholars maintain that the later kings of Ireland knew that they were descendants of King David. Both princesses feature in many Irish poems, songs and legends.

“Thus David’s line continued the new dynasty in Ireland. This dynasty was later moved to Scotland, which, in accordance with prophecy, was the second time the crown was ‘overturned.’ Ultimately, it was moved to England, thus fulfilling the prophetic third time it was ‘overturned,’ when the Stewart line of David came to England in 1603 in the person of James I…

“But it doesn’t end there… the line of David was prophesied to continue ruling over the house of Israel up until the return of Jesus Christ, who will then take over this same throne. God has this to say about this future event: ‘Your eyes will see the King in His beauty’ (Isaiah 33:17).”

In a Q&A about the throne of David, we added the following:

“We are told that David’s ‘seed’ or descendants would rule or have dominion over Israel. This could be fulfilled in ANY of the tribes of ‘Israel’–the name given to Jacob by God (Compare Genesis 32:28; 35:10). We are specifically told that God would establish the throne of David’s kingdom forever over Israel, in his son Solomon.

“2 Samuel 7:12-13: ‘…I will set up your [David’s] seed after you, who will come from your body… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.’

“2 Chronicles 13:5: ‘…the LORD God of Israel gave the dominion over Israel to David forever, to him and his sons…’

“Psalm 89:4: ‘Your seed [David’s seed] I will establish forever, And build up your throne to all generations.’

“When Christ returns, He will take over and sit down on an existing throne of David, here on earth (compare Luke 1:32).

“Until the last King of Judah, Zedekiah, the descendants of David ruled as kings over the house of Judah. The house of Judah consisted of the tribes of Judah, Levi and a part of Benjamin–they are the ‘Jews’ and called ‘Jews’ in the Bible.

“But the Babylonians killed all the sons of Zedekiah, and placed Zedekiah into captivity. There has never arisen since then a descendant of David to rule as king over the house of Judah, the Jews. Today, the state of Israel is not ruled by a king. Where, then, is the throne of David today? In which country do we find a descendant of David ruling as king?

“The prophet Jeremiah lived at the time when the Babylonians enslaved the house of Judah, and when the last king of the house of Judah, King Zedekiah, was captured. God gave Jeremiah the commission to uproot the throne of David, but also to plant it.

“Jeremiah 1:10: ‘I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, To root out and to pull down, To destroy and to throw down, To build and to plant.’

“God gave Jeremiah a prophecy regarding the kingship or throne of David, which was to be transferred from the nation or house of Judah to the house of Israel. [The house of Israel, the ‘Northern Kingdom,’ consisted of descendants from the other sons of Israel or Jacob, including Joseph and his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. It had been taken into captivity by the Assyrians more than 100 years prior to Jeremiah. They never returned to the Promised Land and have become known as the ‘Lost Ten Tribes.’]

“Jeremiah 33:17, 21, 26: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel… he shall [always] have a son to reign on his throne… [David’s] descendants [will be] rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’

“Jeremiah was to be instrumental in uprooting the throne over the house of Judah, and to plant it over the house of Israel. Before, it was said that David’s descendants were to rule over Israel [or Jacob; that is, ANY of the descendants of Jacob]. That INCLUDED the house of Judah, of course. But from the time of Jeremiah’s prophecy, David’s descendants were to rule over the HOUSE of Israel–which EXCLUDED the house of Judah.

“The throne of David was to be transferred three times, before Christ would return to occupy it. Ezekiel 21:27: ‘Overthrown, overthrown, I will make it [the crown, compare verse 26] overthrown!’

“The crown or throne of David was overthrown first in Judah and transferred to or planted in Ireland… The throne or rule of David’s descendants was later overthrown in Ireland and transferred to Scotland [where some of the tribes of the house of Israel had settled]. It was transferred to the royal house of the descendants of David in Scotland—to the offspring of Scota, the other daughter of Zedekiah… Thirdly, it was overthrown in Scotland and transferred to England, where the Stewart line of David had settled around 1600, in the person of James I. Also, descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, had settled there. The subsequent royal rulers in England all descended from King David, and so the throne of David is today in England…

“Nowhere else could the existing throne of David be today, but in England. It is not in the state of Israel [which is part of the house of Judah], and it is not vacant, either. Jesus Christ will occupy it when He returns (Compare Luke 1:32; Isaiah 9:6-7); He has not occupied it so far. And it is a throne here on earth—not somewhere in heaven. Christ, from the house of Judah, will come back to this EARTH, and it says that He will then SIT on the throne of His father David, here on earth. Jesus will once again establish rule over Israel in Jerusalem (Compare Zechariah 1:17; 2:12). Remember, the scepter would not depart from Judah.”

In this and the next Q&A, we will provide further information on Jeremiah and the two daughters of King Zedekiah and their travel to Ireland, as well as the three “overturns” of the throne of David, and we will also show and concentrate on the connection between them and the so-called “Stone of Destiny.”

Much has been written about the “Stone of Destiny,” and no doubt, many concepts are based on mere speculation and on fairy tales, but tradition should not be dismissed outright either—especially the claim that it is identical with the stone on which Jacob rested his head when he dreamed of a ladder reaching to heaven, with God on top (to be discussed later).

As we will see, the repeated claim has been made that many, if not all kings and queens have been coronated in Ireland, Scotland and England in connection with and upon the so-called “Stone of Destiny,” which is also called the “Stone of Scone” or “Jacob’s Pillar Stone.” In this context, claims have been made about the origin of this Stone, and we will explore the biblical significance of that claim.

We will begin our discussion with the allegation that a fake had been made of that Stone, and that, for instance, Queen Elizabeth II was coronated upon that fake, and that that fake was returned to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland in 1996, while the original Stone is believed to remain on the East Coast of Scotland.

Even though somewhat irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion herein, we have been advised by the Edinburgh Castle Admission that “various lines of research very strongly indicate that the Stone held within Edinburgh Castle is the authentic Stone…

“Firstly, geological analysis has identified a tightly defined area close to Scone where the stone was quarried from. Further detailed analysis of the stone has identified multiple phases of use, wear and tear that overlie one another; this includes evidence for gradual weathering over a long period of time prior to the Stone being used for inaugurations, when it may have formed a step or threshold to a significant building at Scone. Such wear and evidence for multiple phases of use would not be possible to fake. Another point to consider is, if the Stone currently held in the castle was fake – why were there such celebrations upon its return in 1996 and why did no one speak out or reveal the true stone?

“A great deal of research has been carried out into the Stone. There’s a very good published volume: The Stone of Destiny: Artefact & Icon, by Richard Welander, David J Breeze & Thomas Owen Clancy (2003).”

An additional report by Peter Hill, provided by the Edinburgh Castle Admission, titled, “The Stone of Destiny: A Review of New Imaging,” gives evidence proving that the Stone in Edinburgh Castle is the genuine Stone.

David H. Caldwell wrote a lengthy report in 2018 about the legitimacy of the claim that the Stone in Edinburgh Castle is genuine. In addition, and more importantly for the purpose of these Q&As, Caldwell provided much evidence as to the history of the Stone:

“After a sojourn of nearly 700 years in Westminster Abbey, the Stone of Scone was returned to Scotland in 1996… The Stone of Scone is an artefact of ritual and symbolic importance. It was on this rock that kings of the Scots, up to and including John Balliol in 1292, were seated when made kings, and it later served the same function for coronations of monarchs of England and of the United Kingdom…

“The Stone has had different names over the years… we normally refer to it as the Stone of Scone, a name that first appears in the mid-14th-century Chronicle of Lanercost describing events in 1327… but that is not the only correct name. Possibly the earliest mention of it is in an Irish poem, thought to date to the late 11th century, which mentions ‘the most powerful eastern stone’…

“In English sources recording its early fate in English hands it is called (in Latin) a ‘tribunal’, meaning a dais, platform or seat of authority, or else a great stone on which kings of Scotland were crowned… Thus it also came to be known as the royal stone (of Scotland) and more recently as the coronation stone, reflecting its function in Westminster Abbey.

“… there can be no reasonable doubt that this is the stone that Scottish kings up to, and including, King John (Balliol) were seated upon at Scone during their inauguration ceremonies, that it is the stone removed by the English and housed in a specially built chair in Westminster Abbey that was used for the coronation of English monarchs, and later rulers of England and Scotland….

“[A] story, derived from the Bible, about the Stone’s origin first surfaces in an English chronicle by William Rishanger (born 1249/50, died after 1312) covering the reigns of Henry III and Edward I of England. In the context of John Balliol’s ‘coronation’, the royal stone on which he was seated is described as the one on which Jacob rested his head when he went from Beersheba to Haran… This was on the occasion Jacob had a dream of a ladder reaching to Heaven with Angels descending and ascending on it to God, who promised Jacob that he would have very many descendants. When he awoke, Jacob set the stone up as a pillar (Genesis 28/10–22)….

“The 16th-century English antiquary, John Leland (c.1503–52) picked up this tradition… and by the end of that century there was a tablet on or beside the coronation chair in Westminster Abbey identifying the Stone as the one on which Jacob reposed when he had his dream… This was no doubt a preferable version of the Stone’s origins for the English than one that focused on a prophecy that the Scots would reign wherever the Stone was placed. King Edward I, as conqueror of Scotland, could be seen as inheriting a biblical mandate.

“… the account given of the Stone of Scone by the English chronicler, Walter of Guisborough, writing about 1305, describes it as lapis pergrandis (a very large stone), very probably referencing the same term used in the Vulgate version of the Bible to describe the stone set up by the Prophet Joshua as a witness to the covenant made by God with the people of Israel at Schechem when they renounced false gods. The idea that the Stone had biblical origins might well originally have been developed by the canons of Scone…

“[Upon the transfer of the Stone to Westminster Abby,] the Stone was set in a chair, commissioned by King Edward I, which was positioned next to the altar in St Edward’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey… It was intended, on a day-to-day basis, to serve as a seat for the priest saying Mass at that altar. It is probable that from the very beginning the abbey clergy would have accepted the biblical identification of the Stone, more specifically as Jacob’s Pillar, and as a result viewed it as sacred relic… For the coronations of Henry IV in 1399 and Edward VI in 1547 the chair was moved to the crossing of the abbey church, as for the coronations of Mary and Elizabeth I…

“At the time this Stone was selected for use in royal inaugurations there was probably a clear understanding of why it was appropriate. This very probably was nothing to do with stories of Scota, Simon Brecc and so on, or with Jacob dreaming in the desert. This original rationale has been lost… The Stone really was an object of destiny, a guarantee of the right of kings of Scots to reign wherever it was. Edward I and later English kings no doubt saw the potency of sitting on this Stone of Scotland in demonstrating their claim to overlordship of Scotland…

“Although it was probably always Edward I’s intention that the Stone, incorporated in the chair he had made for it, should be used in future coronations of English kings, the community of Westminster Abbey saw the Stone as a sacred biblical relic, and the chair and stone essentially for their liturgical use.”

In addition, W.H. Stacpoole, L.L.D., wrote in his book, “Coronation Reglia” about the belief that the stone “came from the plains of Luz, and may be the very stone on which the patriarch Jacob rested his head.”

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In the previous three installments, we have shown that the text in Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) is NOT a formula to be uttered by the baptizing minister, and to insist on using these exact words as a formula would be erroneous and unbiblical. We have also investigated the question as to whether this passage is even genuine or whether it was added at a later time, and we left it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Some may respond that the Worldwide Church of God under the late Herbert W. Armstrong [who died in 1986] engaged in the practice of baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and that we must therefore do so as well.

This argument is flawed for several reasons.

We say this in our Statement of Beliefs, under Doctrinal Foundation:

“The major doctrines of the Church are those, which were taught by Herbert W. Armstrong, derived from the Biblical teachings as followed by God’s faithful servants, and originally established by Jesus Christ through the founding of His Church in the time of His chosen early apostles. Since we are to increase in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, we are committed to review and alter any of our teachings, if and when proven to be wrong by the Bible.”

As we have explained in this series, the idea that Matthew 28:19 –whether genuine or not – is a formula, to be repeated verbatim by the baptizing minister, is wrong and not in accordance with the Bible.

Therefore, no minister in the Church of the Eternal God and its international affiliates would use such language when baptizing a person. Instead, he would have asked the person to be baptized, during prior counseling, to study first our free booklet, “Baptism—a Requirement for Salvation?”, and he would then review pertinent Scriptures with the person to be baptized at the time of baptism, such as Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Matthew 3:11; Acts 19:5; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 2:28; as well as the concept alluded to in Matthew 28:19.

He would then tell the person before the act of baptism what is about to happen (placing the person fully under water) and what is going to happen after this symbolic burial (placing the minister’s hands on the person’s head and praying to God the Father, in Christ’s name, to grant the person the gift of the Holy Spirit).

The minister would then ask the person the following pertinent questions:

Have you repented of your sins?

Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?

Do you believe in the gospel of the Kingdom of God and do you accept the fact that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is necessary, but also sufficient payment for the penalty of your sins?

After these questions were answered with “Yes,” the minister would then baptize the person in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of his or her sins, to become a begotten child of God the Father and a begotten member of the Kingdom and Family of God.  The exact wording is not that important, as long as the concept as to what baptism symbolizes is being conveyed.

This process of baptism consists of three parts—placing the person under water to symbolize his or her death; the coming out of the water, symbolizing his or her resurrection from the dead to walk in newness of life; and the laying on of hands with prayer to the Father, asking for the gift of the Holy Spirit being poured out into the person.

For a full explanation, please see our free booklet, “Baptism—a Requirement for Salvation?”, page 42.

In the past, many may have been baptized in the “name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Does this mean that this baptism would have been invalid? Not necessarily, if the following rings true (compare pages 42 and 43 of our afore-mentioned booklet):

“Christians who have been baptized ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ however, do not need to worry that their baptism is invalid, as long as they understood the proper meaning of baptism, including the facts that God is not a Trinity and that the Holy Spirit is not a separate divine being. After all, when one is baptized ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ the baptism ‘in the name of Christ’ is included, and, as we have explained, the Father and the Holy Spirit have an important role during the baptismal ceremony. As long as a person understands, at the time of his or her baptism, the functions and the nature of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, his or her baptism is valid.”

Still, knowing and understanding now that the wording in Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, ministers of the Church of the Eternal God and of its international affiliates would not today use those words when baptizing a person.

Returning to the argument that we must baptize in the way the Worldwide Church of God practiced under Mr. Armstrong, and that Mr. Armstrong may have considered Matthew 28:19 as authentic and that it set forth a biblical formula to be adopted and spoken,  it appears that Mr. Armstrong never addressed the possibility that Matthew 28:19 might not be genuine. In an older booklet, “All about Water Baptism,” copyrighted 1948, 1954 and 1972, Mr. Armstrong addresses Matthew 28:19 on pages 7 and 8 from the perspective that one reference in the Bible is enough, and that the thought that each thing must be established “in the mouth of two or three witnesses” only applies to the words of humans, but not of God. Mr. Armstrong nowhere addresses the question as to why he felt that the passage was genuine. It appears, he never considered the possibility that it might not be.

Mr. Armstrong, in trying to explain the inconsistencies between Matthew 28:19 and the rest of the Scriptures, felt that the term “baptizing in the name of Jesus,” just means, “baptizing by His authority.” While this might explain some of the Scriptures, it does NOT explain why the apostles baptized people only into [“eis”] the name [“onoma”] of Christ, but NOT into [“eis”] the NAME [“onoma”] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We discussed this aspect in the first installment of this series.

In addition, as mentioned before, we must grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and we must correct any erroneous understanding when we discover the need to do so. Mr. Armstrong had to do this himself in regard to certain aspects pertaining to the understanding and procedure of baptism. At one time, the Church felt that non-ordained and even unconverted people could baptize, as long as they were associated with the true Church of God. That was the reason why in the “early days,” non-ordained Ambassador College students of the Church were sent out on “baptizing tours.”  It is unclear as to whether they “just” baptized, or whether they also laid hands on the head of the baptized person, but in any event, they would have had no biblical authority to do either, and in a sense, that kind of “baptism” would have been unbiblical.

The incorrect understanding of using unordained students for baptisms was apparently derived from the fact that Jesus Christ authorized and used His unconverted disciples to baptize others (John 4:1-2). But we must understand that His disciples and especially His apostles were in a completely unique situation and category. They partook of the New Testament symbols of bread and wine during Passover—something which is today only permitted for those who have been properly baptized and who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit—and they were empowered to cast out demons—something which today, no unordained person should attempt to do.

The Church under Mr. Armstrong seemed to have come to the understanding that unordained persons were not to baptize, and later abandoned this practice, so that only ordained ministers were called upon to baptize persons, with the laying on of hands and prayer to the Father.

But even that procedure was not fully understood, it seems, at the beginning. An initial baptismal Church outline for ministers only included the thought that the minister would say that he baptized the person in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nothing was said in the initial outline that the minister would lay hands on the head of the person and pray to the Father to bestow the person with the gift of the Holy Spirit. These requirements were later clearly practiced by baptizing ministers, and rightly so. As we point out in our afore-mentioned booklet, the laying on of hands by the baptizing minister is a necessary requirement for a proper baptism.

Again, the question may be asked as to what happened to those who were baptized by non-ordained students and died before they were able to receive a proper baptism. Did they receive the Holy Spirit? God, in His mercy, might very well have honored this procedure, as the Church, at that time, did not understand it better. BUT, He would most certainly NOT honor such a procedure today, as He has now given His Church proper knowledge and discernment.

There is no doubt in our minds that Herbert W. Armstrong had the Holy Spirit; in fact, that he was an apostle who was used mightily in the Work of God.  He describes his baptism when he came to the faith; namely, that he was baptized by a Baptist minister. We would never recommend such a procedure today, but at the time, Mr. Armstrong did not understand it better and just acted upon what God had revealed to him.  We have also been informed that subsequently, Mr. Armstrong had doubts as to whether that baptism was proper, and so he had a minister of the Church of God Seventh Day baptize him. The author of this article has seen the small river in Oregon where Mr. Armstrong, according to eye witnesses who were allegedly present at that ceremony, was baptized again by the Church of God minister. Whether true or not, as we said, God had clearly given Mr. Armstrong His Holy Spirit, but again, we would most certainly not recommend today a baptism which would be conducted by unordained or even unconverted lay persons, or by ministers unassociated with the true Church of God who do not believe the Gospel.

We bring this up for the sole reason to explain that we must grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. In the context of our discussion, this means that irrespective of what the Church of God under Mr. Armstrong might have believed and practiced in regard to proper baptism, God has revealed to us today that Matthew 28:19, even IF genuine, does not set forth a trinitarian baptismal formula to be used, verbatim, by God’s ministers.

Lead Writer—Norbert Link