You are hereWill David Reign Again?

Will David Reign Again?

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By EWMI - Posted on 25 June 2007

by Albert Persohn
Some Historic Dispensationalists teach that King David will be resurrected and sit on the throne of Israel forever. They teach that some prophecies speaking of David's throne refer to Christ while others refer to David. Their futurization of Ezekiel allows them to place a resurrected David on an eternal throne as the prince of Ezekiel.Some Historic Dispensationalists teach that King David will be resurrected and sit on the throne of Israel forever. They teach that some prophecies speaking of David's throne refer to Christ while others refer to David. Their futurization of Ezekiel allows them to place a resurrected David on an eternal throne as the prince of Ezekiel.This article was inspired by the answer to "Will David Reign Again?" offered by Dispensational ministry "Herald of Hope".

The Dispensational Position and Luke 17:20

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luke 17:20

From the H.O.H. FAQ: John the Baptist came to announce that the son of David had arrived to sit upon the throne of David. He preached, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand (near)”. Jesus and His disciples preached the same message, but when the nation rejected His miraculous claims He told the Pharisees that the kingdom “cometh not with observation (literally, near view)”. It had been deferred, until His return as the lightning in the heavens (Luke 17:20-24)

H.O.H. chooses to translate "observation" (Gr: paratērēsis) as near, not as "without external showing" or "without outward show". This would be their paraphrase of Luke 17:20b: "The Kingdom of God cometh not soon". It would seem that they have John the Baptist and Jesus disagreeing about the timing of the Kingdom. They say that John's "at hand" meant "near" to the hearer. In the Dispensational model John would have been right when he declared the "at hand" Kingdom because Israel had not rejected Christ. Jesus' statement in John 17:20 would also have been right because God had, by that time, switched to His alternate plan.

Was John's "at hand" Unique?

According to the Dispensational position John's "at hand" Kingdom was deferred because Jesus was rejected. What then do we make of the "at hand" statements made by the inspired Apostles? (listed at the bottom). Paul certainly believed that his death (2 Tim 4:6) was "at hand" and it was. Was Paul's "at hand" statement correct about his death and wrong about the Eschaton? If so, how can we declare that he was inspired at all?

The Tabernacle Of David

From the same article we find an interesting set of assumptions, in brackets, about James' comments on the restored tabernacle of David:

“God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name (the Church)... 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: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles (in the Millennium), upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things”(Acts 15:14-17).

Rather than read James' dissertation simply and directly as the fulfillment of Amos 9 these Dispensationalists ignore the reason for the Acts 15 Congress itself and hold that James was talking about an event some 2000 years and counting in the future. What they would have us believe is that 1) Gentiles start coming into the church 2) James invokes Amos prophecy about a time when God will bring Gentiles into the church 3) it is concluded that the Gentiles coming into the church are not the fulfillment of Amos prophecy and will not really happen until the millennium.

James states that the "words of the Prophets agree" with the testimony of Paul, Barnabas and Peter. If Paul, Barnabas and Peter were talking about Gentiles coming to Christ in the first century and Amos was talking about Gentiles coming to Christ in the Millennium would not James have said "the Prophets disagree with Paul, Barnabas and Peter?" The Dispensational reading of Amos 9 and Acts 15 is a case of ultra-literalists spiritualising a literal passage.

The Question: "Will David Reign Again"? and the answer provided by Dispensational ministry Herald of Hope can be read here:

The curious reader can download a three part talk by Boyd Roberts and Al Persohn in response to Herald of Hope's book: "Preterism Weighted And Found Wanting" at

At Hand Statements From The Epistles

Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Philippians 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

gwynedd1's picture

It is easy to confirm in Hebrews that the temple in Ezekiel was to be an earthly copy of the temple in heaven. The first thing to notice is "forever" is not 1000 years. The other is that condition set here "if they are ashamed of all they have done".
Does Dispensationlism claim that they fulfilled obedience?

Ezek 43
"9: Now let them put away their idolatry and the dead bodies of their kings far from me, and I will dwell in their midst for ever.
10: "And you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple and its appearance and plan, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities.
11: And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, portray the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, and its whole form; and make known to them all its ordinances and all its laws; and write it down in their sight, so that they may observe and perform all its laws and all its ordinances."

Ed's picture

You mention the Tabernacle of David. I wrote an article some time ago (actually preached it at a RPCUS church). It is posted here:

It deals with the prophecy of Amos being fulfilled in the Interim Period firstfruits church.



Papa is especially fond of us

Life14all's picture


I just read your article about the Tabernacle of David. The Amos prophecy clearly seems to point to that "interim period" of the firstfruits church. I also like the vision you demostrate in your article in interpreting these things.

Good job,




EWMI's picture

Thanks Ed,

That is a good article!

You have observed that the Tabernacle of David stood for 40 years. That is significant in relating it to the transitional church.

I think I saw a comment you made on a discussion somewhere about the significance of the fact that the it was almost exactly 1000 years from the dedication of the first temple to the end of second. Is that correct?


Ed's picture

The article was originally written to a partial preterist audience, with some definite leanings towards a full preterist understanding of the New Jerusalem. I used to call that view "Maximized Preterism." I preached it, as a ruling elder, at an RPCUS congregation with quite a good reception.

Within a few years, I had embraced full preterism and left the RPCUS. I was helped by Joseph Gautier Jr. with rewriting the article to better suit a fully preteristic understanding. That's his website (now defunct) where it is posted.

Since then I have moved slightly to a more inclusive understanding of things. With it came some further clarification (in my mind anyway) of things; like the millennium as the time from David to Christ, circumcision as The Mark of the Beast, and the Beast as Solomon, etc. None of these things nullify what I wrote in the above article, but I think that they add to it significantly.

So, to answer your question, YES, I do believe that the millennium was the time from David to Christ. The promise to David was fulfilled in Christ. He was the ONE who sat on David's throne to rule all Israel. Solomon, although chosen by God (Saul was chosen also), became a usurper much the same way as Saul did. Those that followed Solomon, rather than Christ, as David's son were "worshipping the beast," and his image (the image of man, rather than the image of Father). The False prophet was the religious leadership that stood in opposition to the true prophetic voice in Israel, the Church.

I could go on, but time doesn't permit. I am in the middle of doing research for my PhD studies. It ain't easy to say the least.



Papa is especially fond of us

EWMI's picture

Thanks Ed,

Could you email me at please?

tom-g's picture

G'day Al,

Great article. Although it is near impossible to convince a confirmed Dispy, I have found that Jn. 17:4 and 11 are as effective as any other.

Either he completed the work the Father gave him to do and he is no more in this world, or he failed to complete it.

If the work he was given to complete was to reestablish the kingdom as perceived by the Jews, then he failed and his prayer is false.

If he did complete the work then the Jews anticipation of the Christ was false and HOH and Dispy is wrong.


Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43