The future-kingdom advocates put great stress on the literal application of Old Testament prophecies. A Prophecy concerning Israel must be applied to Israel in the flesh, and Jerusalem means the Jerusalem in Palestine. Zion must have its literal application, and so with “throne” and “kingdom”, etc. With them, there must be no “spiritualizing.” The lamb and the lion must refer to literal lion and lamb. But will they stick to that line? Hardly. Isaiah said: “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places plain.” (Isa. 40:4.) Now, the inspired historians of the New Testament applied that Scripture to the work of John the Baptist; yet we are told by the future-kingdom advocates that every prophecy must have its plain, literal fulfillment. If so, the inspired New Testament writers were mistaken on this point, and that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. But we are told that the prophecies mean exactly what they say. Now, is that really so? Then, what about the four beasts in Daniel 7? “Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other.” Yes, it is true that these matters were interpreted for us, but it is also true that the interpretation shows that the four beasts were not actually four beasts. It also shows, as do other passages, that many prophecies are couched in highly figurative language. The prophecy concerning the work of John (Isa. 40) shows how highly figurative some prophecies are. Or will the future-kingdom folks say that even this prophecy must yet have its literal fulfillment? But it is contended that the throne of David means the rule over the fleshly house of Israel in the land of Palestine, and that unless Christ rules over the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine he does not occupy the throne of David. He must have a civil government, with Israelites as citizens and the land of Palestine as the territory; otherwise, he does not occupy the same throne David did. This would imply that the kingdom over which Christ rules must be an exact replica of the kingdom as it was in the days of David. If not, why not? If it can be changed in one particular, why not in others? It is argued that God’s oath to David (Ps. 89:34, 35) precludes the possibility of any change in the kingdom. But even after so arguing, do our future-kingdom advocates outline a kingdom just like the kingdom of David? They do not. Here are a few points wherein the kingdom of David differs from the future kingdom as outlined by its advocates: David’s reign was local; Christ’s reign to be worldwide. Every kind of Israelite, good and bad, citizens in David’s kingdom: only regenerated Israelites to be citizens in Christ’s kingdom. Fleshly birth made citizens of David’s kingdom; a Jew must be born again to be a citizen of Christ’s kingdom.