In Genesis 9:3–6, God says to Noah:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

Do you believe that God, in this passage, reveals something new, something he did not say to Adam and Eve? Do you believe God always allowed humans to eat animals, only “without their blood,” or this is something new God is instating among humans? Do you believe that God set the rainbow in the skies as a sign of his covenant not to destroy the Earth by water again?

In Genesis 28:13–15, God says to Jacob:

And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

Do you believe that God is reveals something new, something that Adam and Noah did not know? Do you believe God is covenanting with a specific person, Jacob, describing how his offspring will stand apart from the rest of humanity in some specific way?

If you read these passages and think: “God treats groups of people—separated by time, events, and other groupings—in different ways,” then you believe in dispensations. This is, in fact, all a “dispensation” is—a way in which God deals with a group of humans, whether grouped by time, ancestry, service, or anything else.

This is the first element of dispensationalism.

The second element is simply reading what God says in the Scriptures literally. For instance, when God says in Genesis 17:13, “So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant,” God means he making an everlasting covenant that is in the flesh of Abaraham’s descendants. This covenant cannot end because it is everlasting. This covenant cannot be replaced by a “spiritual covenant,” because it is in “in your flesh.” This covenant cannot be transferred to someone outside Abraham’s physical descendants, because it is to his descendants “in their flesh.”

So, broadly speaking, dispensationalism makes these two claims:

• God deals with different people in different ways at different times.
• God’s promises and covenants should be read as literal promises that God—based on God’s own character—has or will fulfill in precisely the way God describes.

To these two, we can add a third that is almost universally accepted by all modern dispensationalists:

• Christ will return to return and reign on the earth for a thousand years from Jerusalem, or premillennialism. 

What about all the charts? What about all the graphs? What about the locust in Revelation being helicopters, and the false prophet being an AI? All of these things may be things particular schools of dispensationalist teach, but they are not, in and of themselves, dispensationalism.

With this background, let’s examine some false claims about dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is a Recent Invention

Dispensationalism was created as a completely new doctrine in the mid-1800s by John Darby and popularized by the Schofield Bible. Dispensationalism, as a set of ideas, is less than two hundred years old, while the other views reach back sixteen-hundred years!

All three of the primary eschatological views—dispensationalism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism—can be traced back to ideas contained in Rabbinical schools of thought that existed at the time of Christ. None of these views were “invented out of thin air” within the last two hundred years.

Further, all three of the widely accepted eschatological views have been modified and systemized within the last two hundred years.

A quick trip through history might help here.

Augustine, for some time after his conversion, held to a form of Chiliasm, a form of historic premillennial dispensationalism that seems to be a blend of the beliefs of the Essenes and the Sadducees in varying degrees. In this view, the events described in Revelation were already happening, and Christ would soon return to stand at the helm of the recently converted Roman Empire, using the political and social structure of Rome to build his kingdom.

When Rome fell, however, it became obvious that the Roman Empire was not going to be the vehicle for the Kingdom of God, so Augustine moved to a view similar to the Sadducees, holding to many of the same ideas a modern amillennialism. In short, the modern versions of the three primary eschatological systems did not even exist in the time of Augustine.

Moving much farther forward in history, Calvin seems to have held that the thousand-year reign of Christ described in Revelation was a figurative reference to the current church age, but that there was to be a future return of Christ once the world was converted, via government power, to his particular view of Christianity. Calvin, then, held to some elements of amillennialism and some elements of postmillennialism.

Again, skipping forward in history, Jonathan Edwards held Christ would return after his kingdom was established on the Earth, which modern theologians would classify as a form of postmillennialism. However, while many of the Christians in the founding generations of America held this new land was the place where God would create his new kingdom, the “New Jerusalem” to which Christ would return (a major element of the groups as diverse as the Latter-Day Saints, for instance), Edwards was convinced America was too sinful to serve such a role.

Instead, Edwards held that God would re-establish the Jewish state, that massive numbers of Jews would convert to Christianity, and Christ would return to the literal Jerusalem once his kingdom had been established there. Edwards also held out great hope that China would play a major role in rebuilding the kingdom of God on the Earth.[1]

When did the three modern views—dispensationalism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism—take the form they have today? Between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s. Why this period? Because of the sheer volume of social upheaval and technological progress concentrated into a single century. Just consider a few of the things that happened in this period:

• The invention of modern steel making processes
• The invention of the telegraph, telephone, transistor, and the beginnings of computers and computer networks
• The invention of many kinds of modern transportation, including the automobile, the train, the airplane, and modern shipping
• The expansion of voting rights by the removal of property ownership requirements in 1856, the expansion of voting rights to all races in 1870, and the expansion of voting rights to women in 1920
• The “New Deal” reforms in the 1930s, creating welfare and public works systems

The massive innovation and change between the War Between the States and the two World Wars led to a mood of almost unbridled optimism. Many held that technological progress could be translated into social progress, as illustrated by this quote from 1912:

The engineer by producing powerful weapons and the means of concentrating troops quickly has made war so costly and so deadly that we must credit him with being a most efficient peacemaker. In improving personal morals, as well as national morals, and thereby advancing civilization, the work of the engineer is extremely powerful.[2]

The Christian counterpart to this progressive exuberance was the rapid rise of postmillennialism among the American and European elite. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” a postmillennial anthem, was wildly popular. Christian pastors and leaders throughout the world provided strong support for things like eugenics as a path to eliminate crime and poverty, all part of “building God’s Kingdom” on Earth.[3] Many theologians even directly supported (and many Christian Nationalists today still support) the rise of the Third Reich in Germany as the financial and social model through which “the Church” could build the kingdom over which Christ would eventually rule.

Darby’s systemization of dispensationalism started as a “middle brow” counterweight to the progressive exuberance of this period. At the end of the Second World War, when progressivism collapsed into more a more cynical pursuit of money and power, dispensationalism rose to prominence in Christian circles, primarily through the lay Bible Camp movement and The Fundamentals, a series of books mailed large numbers of pastors in America.

With the rise of computer and computer networking technologies in the 1960s, progressive exuberance once again gripped the Western world, and Darby’s systemization of dispensationalism once again fell to the wayside.

What all this history teaches us is, in fact, quite simple:

None of the existing eschatological systems have existed in anything like their present form for more than about two hundred years.

Dispensationalism teaches Disengagement

Dispensationalism teaches Christians should just hide out and disengage from culture!

This is another set of arguments based on a half-truth which only gains rhetorical power by ignoring similar kinds of arguments made against amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Perhaps an illustration would help here. Assume, for a moment, that Christians are gardeners, and the families, churches, and other organizations around each group of Christians is a garden. Around this garden—or around each garden, depending on your point of view—there is a wilderness we can call “the world.” How should Christians grow these gardens?

According to amillennialism and postmillennialism, Christians should primarily grow these gardens from the top down. Christians should create Christian governance structures, and intentionally place Christians into roles of responsibility, to impose Christian ethical and social values onto the wilderness. Whether quickly or slowly, then, the wilderness becomes a garden.

The primary difference between amillennialism and postmillennialism in this illustration is when and to what Jesus returns. In postmillennial thought, Christ returns once Christians have made the entire world into a garden and ruled over that garden for some time. In amillennial thought, Christ returns once Christians have prepared the garden to the point that Christ has a kingdom to rule.

Dispensationalism, being premillennial, holds a different view. In the dispensational view, the role of each Christian is to grow the garden around them organically, from the bottom up. This isn’t just a matter of converting people to Christianity, but of making disciples, of creating paths from conversion to spiritual maturity.

The difference is not in whether Christians should engage culture or society, it is how Christians should engage culture or society. Should Christians engage from the bottom up, using organic means, or from the top down, using various kinds of political power?

Dispensationalism is for Losers

Dispensationalists believe the Church is going to lose! I’m not a dispensationalist because the Church is going to win!

The first problem with this accusation is that it assumes “winning” means something like: Taking over the world to build a Christian kingdom via political power.

What if this is not what “winning” means, however? What if “winning” means something like: Fulfilling God’s purpose as outlined in the Scriptures. In other words, “winning” could just mean “remaining faithful,” rather than some version of what the world would recognize as success.

The alternatives to dispensationalism take their meaning of “winning” primarily from Matthew 16:18.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

These systems read “my church” as a unified socio-political organization that will not be prevailed against. This reading, however, assumes what it seeks to prove—that Jesus intended to found a socio-political organization called “the Church,” which was to then grow into a kingdom that would rule the Earth.

Dispensationalists, however, rely heavily on the Great Commission found in Matthew 28:19–20.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

This call is bottom-up oriented, calling out people from within all the nations and teaching them to be disciples. Thus, the alternatives to dispensationalism read the Great Commission as being contained within creating God’s kingdom, and dispensationalist read Matthew 16:18 as similar to the promise Jesus gives in Matthew 28:20, that Christ will not abandon his disciples even until the end of the age.

Further, dispensationalism asserts that “things getting worse” is a well-worn pattern in the Scriptures. From Adam to Noah, things became progressively worse. From the first Judge in Israel to the last, things became progressively worse. From Saul to the Babylonian captivity, things became progressively worse in Israel. Even Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts assumes this recurring theme—God calls, God is rejected, and then God must step into history.

Dispensationalists also point out that the alternatives assume we can somehow find a man, or a group of men, that are “sin free” enough to lead a Christian nation. This does not, from a dispensational view, seem to take the problem of sin seriously enough.

“Dispensationalism is for losers,” then, really depends on what the word “winning” means, how seriously a Christian takes the patterns of history, and how seriously we take the problem of sin.

Dispensationalism teaches Escape

Dispensationalists believe there is a coming tribulation. Rather than sticking around and witnessing, they just want to escape, as if God should treat them as special little snowflakes!

The first point against this accusation is that Jesus, himself, teaches that Christians should escape, if possible, from certain calamities. For instance, in Luke 21:20–22, Jesus says:

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

We do not need to agree about when this took place or will take place to understand the underlying statement Jesus is making: “In this case, if you see this happen, flee.” It’s interesting that Josephus seemed to hold Jesus’ words here account for the lack of Christians in Jerusalem at the time of its fall and destruction at the hands of the Romans.

Jesus doesn’t say: “If you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, make certain you stay in the city, ministering and being a witness until you die.” While that might have been a noble course in some situations, Jesus is saying it’s not the right course in that situation.

The idea that it is okay to flee from trouble of this kind can be traced back to, and supported by, various incidents in the Tanach. For instance, God commands both Abraham and Isaac to flee a coming famine in the land.

Further, there is another foundational principle to consider. In Genesis 18:22, Abraham says:

Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?”

While God does not directly answer this question, the ensuing conversation about how many righteous must exist for God not to sweep the Cities on the Plain away implies God’s answer is clearly “No!” Moses asks a similar question in the Wilderness, and God again answers “No!”

The obvious question from the dispensationalist’s point of view is this:

If Christians, those indwelled by the Holy Spirit, are among the righteous, then where shall they flee if God is judging the whole Earth, rather than just a nation or a place?

The only reasonable answer is God must remove the righteous from the Earth before judging the Earth to stand with the principles outlined in Genesis 18. There is no place for God to remove these people but off the Earth entirely.

Finally, most dispensationalists are not going to argue from the perspective of fleeing from a coming trouble, but rather that removing the Church is necessary for God to shift his focus back on fulfilling his promises to Israel. According to Paul, one of the various purposes of Christianity is to bring Israel back to God through jealousy. According to dispensationalism, God moves from making Israel jealous through Christianity at some point in the future, returning to dealing with Israel directly, as he did in the days of the Theocratic Kingdom.

Conclusion

Modern theology is often presented as a set of stark, rigid, and completely defined systems. Modern amillennialism and postmillennialism are taught as complete and whole systems that have stood the test of time, while dispensationalism is an unformed system recently invented to cater to the fears of a few weak Christians.

None of this is true.

The theological world—especially in the realm of eschatology—is broad and deep, with many streams, recurring ideas, repeating themes, and modifications. The craze of systemization and progressive exuberance that started in the mid-1850s brought on a wave of new ideas, including the modern forms of every popular eschatological system.

Dispensationalism is neither new, novel, nor escapist. It is a serious set of ideas that deserve attention and care, rather than outright dismissal based on poor arguments grounded in half-truths.

---

[1] See Victor Zhu, America’s Theologian Beyond America: Jonathan Edwards, Israel, and China, with Douglas Sweeney (Oxford University Press, 2022).

[2] John Lyle Harrington and John Alexander Low Waddell, Addresses to Engineering Students (1912), 342.

[3] See, for instance, Christine Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, 1st edition (Oxford University Press, 2004).