Print Friendly and PDF


Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. —  5 Comments

Postmillennialism has dispensationalism as its major impediment to acceptance in evangelical circles. Dispensationalists approach the Bible in a literalistic-when-convenient fashion that postmillennialism cannot match. Below I offer a humorous critique of dispensationalism’s literalism, which unfortunately holds so many in its clutches.

I consider Dr. John F. Walvoord to have been one of the two leading scholarly representatives of classic dispensationalism in his heyday. He and Charles C. Ryrie were the most prominent advocates of dispensationalism throughout the period of dispensationalism’s hegemony in the populist market (1955–85). Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost never quite made the grade, partly due to the problem regarding his magnum opus: Things to Come ought to have been called Things to Quote. It was merely an inventory of classic dispensational thought with little creative interaction.

I myself was once a dispensationalist, though I got over it. I graduated from a dispensational college with a degree in Biblical Studies (Tennessee Temple College, B.A., 1973). I always found Walvoord and Ryrie to be the most reputable, trustworthy, and compelling authorities to cite in promoting dispensationalism during those halcyon days in which I could study at leisure in the comfort of my home the identity of the (current) Antichrist prediction and formulate new and more compelling dates for the rapture.

In this blog I will be focusing briefly on the new Jerusalem as found in the Book of Revelation. The new Jerusalem imagery is an excellent test case for demonstrating the consistency of dispensationalism (with its literalistic hermeneutic) on the one hand and its embarrassing absurdity on the other. Let me explain.

Walvoord’s Approach to Revelation

In 1966 Walvoord released his commentary on Revelation: The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Moody, 1966). In his Preface he states his general interpretive approach to Revelation, a mistake that casts its shadow over the entire book (and even extends about three inches beyond the book when left in the full sun at about 3:00 on a summer afternoon): “The author has assumed that this book should be interpreted according to the normal rules of hermeneutics rather than as a special case.” Apparently, this is due to his surmise that Revelation is simple a normal book and without any special features.

Indeed, Walvoord notes of his commentary conclusions: “The result has been a more literal interpretation of prophecy and revelation in general and a clearer picture of end-time events than is frequently held by expositors.”

Thus, Walvoord attempts a literal approach to this remarkable book. We must remember that Revelation presents us with a leading character who not only is of a scarlet hue but also has seven fully-formed heads possessing ten horns. These ten horns serve as effective anchors for ten diadems which otherwise would be swept off his heads by fluvial action as he makes his way up from the sea channels below to the seashore above. There, once in full public view, he presents himself not so much as an aquatic creature but as a compound of animals, two of which normally avoid water sports (the leopard and the lion, Rev 13:2). (The bear is known for frolicking in rivers and streams in search of trout. The tiger is really the only cat that seems to enjoy water. But I digress, for the tiger is not even mentioned in this amalgamated creature.)

The New Jerusalem Problem

Perhaps no better exposé of both the tenacity and absurdity of dispensationalism exists than dispensationalism’s attempt at explaining the new Jerusalem. John’s vision of the new Jerusalem absolutely defies literal description. Let us note some of the oddities created by the dispensationalist attempt at explanation of this glorious symbol.

In introducing the new heaven and new earth to which the new Jerusalem descends, Walvoord makes some important geological observations on John’s statement “and there was no more sea” (Rev 21:1c). Walvoord explains: “Most of the earth is now covered with water, but the new earth apparently will have no bodies of water except for the river mentioned in 22:2” (p. 311). This is odd enough in itself: to where does the river flow? Does it make a continual loop around the world, never pooling into a lake, sea, or ocean? Perhaps future dispensational exegetes can explain this geographical oddity. But Walvoord does not. He refuses to go beyond what Scripture actually states — unless something pops into his mind that seems to him to be a good idea.

Indeed, Walvoord compounds the problem when he observes the three dimensions of the city in 21:16. He suggests that it “could be in the form of a pyramid with sides sloping to a peak at the height indicated.” He notes in this regard that “this would have certain advantages, not necessarily because smaller, but because this shape provides a vehicle for the river of life to proceed out of the throne of God, which seems to be at the top, to find its way to the bottom, assuming our experience of gravity will be somewhat normal also in the new earth” (Walvoord, 323). (This is an actual quote from him; I did not make it up.

I am not certain of this, but I suspect that had Walvoord been pressed he might have argued that this shape would also make an excellent ski slope for the new world. Undoubtedly he could have availed himself of his clearly stated scientific assumptions and then backed this by a compelling Scripture reference too often overlooked in Revelation’s exegetical history. Let me explain.

Referring back to his quote cited above, we may observe that Walvoord is already operating on the geo-physical assumption that “our experience of gravity will be somewhat normal also in the new earth.” And since the water in the new Jerusalem flows down from a height of 1500 miles above the earth the temperature would be quite nippy and ideal for icy conditions.

Doubtless he could have referred to the lubricating properties of surface ice conditions that would facilitate slipperiness thereby increasing ski enjoyment for those who strap boards on their feet to let gravity pull them down to where the drinks are served. After all, with fewer chemical bonds holding them in place, surface molecules in ice tend to vibrate with greater amplitude than those located in the bulk crystalline sub-structure of the ice mass. This obviously leads to an important reality of physics: the Mean Square Displacement of both the hydrogen and oxygen atoms on the icy surface of frozen water reflects the thermal vibration that increases as a natural function of temperature. But Walvoord is strangely silent on these scientific observations that would have further elucidated our understanding of the new world.

When we add these geo-physical assumptions to Scripture references elsewhere, the matter is irrefutably solved. Building on these scientific observations Walvoord could easily have pointed out that the top of the pyramid might also be the place to which God refers when he asks Job: “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow?” (Job 38:22). Job was stumped because he lived long before the rapture and obviously could not have entered the storehouses at the peak of the pyramidal new Jerusalem.

Of course, we will have to overlook Walvoord’s views on the maintenance of gravitational mechanics in the new order when we consider the crushing weight of a city that exists as a 1500 mile high, wide, and long entity. Hopefully the new Jerusalem will be built upon a four inch concrete slab thereby preventing it from being driven down into the mud.

This would not be a concern during the millennium, however, for Walvoord notes: “If the new Jerusalem is in existence throughout the millennial reign of Christ, it is possible that it is a satellite city suspended over the earth during the thousand-year reign of Christ as the dwelling place of resurrected and translated saints who also have access to the earthly scene.” A benefit of this view would obviously be that during the millennium the river flowing down the slope of the pyramidal new Jerusalem could be a primary source of fresh water for the earth below. As the river flowed down the sides of the new Jerusalem, it would fall into the atmosphere, collect into clouds, and rain down upon the inhabitants below who would be marveling at the 1500 mile long city floating above. We could also back up Walvoord’s theories by providing Scripture support for this possibility: “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (Eze 36:25). This would allow us to take Ezekiel literally, rather than spiritually.

We must, however, recognize Walvoord’s reservation: “The possibility of Jerusalem being a satellite city over the earth during the millennium is not specifically taught in any scripture and at best is an inference based on the implication that it has been in existence prior to its introduction in Revelation 21” (Walvoord, 313). Nevertheless, regarding the question as to when the new Jerusalem is built, Walvoord argues that: “Nothing is revealed concerning this in Scripture unless the expression of John 14:2, ‘I go to prepare a place for you,’ refers to this” (p. 312). Jesus certainly has had sufficient time to build this 1500 hundred mile high, wide, long city, for his ascension was 1,970 years, two months, and three days ago.

Now we must understand that on the literalistic assumptions of dispensationalism, this new Jerusalem is an actual, literal city; it is not a symbol of the church or the people. Walvoord comments: “Of major importance are the facts that John actually saw a city, that this city was inhabited by saints of all ages, and that God Himself was present in it. Until further light is given, it is probably a safe procedure to accept the description of this city as corresponding to the physical characteristics attributed to it” (p. 320).

Walvoord continues, noting that John “itemizes the specific details” so that the symbolic view of the new Jerusalem “is difficult to harmonize with the specific details given which are nowhere explained in other than the literal sense in the Bible” (p. 321). By this he is referring to the many OT references to literal cities built with wall-foundation stones made from jasper, sapphire, emerald, and so forth, which also contain streets of pure gold, and which have gates carved out of single pearls from enormous clams dredged up from the Mediterranean Sea (cp. Rev 21:19–21). (I am writing this at 5:30 am in the morning so I am unable to remember where in the OT these literal cities are; but I am sure you will recognize them once you have had your morning cup of coffee.)

So then, the new Jerusalem is an actual, literal, physical city, complete with a street (21:21; 22:2). We must carefully note, however, that it has only one street: John never mentions “streets” and he does twice mention the street (singular): “the street of the city was pure gold” (21:21) and “in the middle of its street” (22:2). Obviously traffic problems will be solved in the new Jerusalem, proving that Los Angeles (despite it being the “City of Angels”) is not the new Jerusalem. But more significantly, with a city 1500 miles high, elevators will probably be the main means of transport thereby removing the need for a city highway system.

On Walvoord’s (and dispensationalism’s) analysis we must conceive of a whole, fully-functioning, 1500 mile-dimensioned city “that descends from heaven” (p. 321). According to the clear teaching of Scripture, this literal city floats through the sky (Rev 21:2, 10). Obviously it floats with such ease that it does not break up the street, which street apparently rests on nothing but air (though it would be protected from air turbulence by some unknown mechanism as it enters into the lower earth atmosphere).

We surely must surmise that this literal city will have literal pipes, electrical fittings, duct work, tubes, couplings, flanges, traps, strainers, block-and-table, and such hanging beneath it. We know for certain that it has foundation stones (21:14, 19). But these foundation stones are suspended on air — at least throughout the millennium and until it arrives for its near-earth orbit in the eternal state.

Christians: dispensationalism is a bizarre, absurd, and embarrassing theological construct. The fact that so many evangelical Christian believe it is a sad testimony both to Christian naivete and to the dismal lack of solid biblical exegesis in the churches of our land. The new Jerusalem is a symbol of the redeemed people of God in whom God dwells (Rev 21:3), much like the “temple” in Paul’s writing often represents the people of God and not a physical building (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).

Print Friendly and PDF

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.


Ken is a Presbyterian pastor and the author or co-author of over thirty books, most on eschatology. He has been married since 1971, and has three children and several grandchildren. He is a graduate of Tennessee Temple University (B.A., 1973), Reformed Theological Seminary (M.Div., 1977), and Whitefield Theological Seminary (Th.M., 1986; Th.D., 1988). He currently pastors Living Hope Presbyterian Church (affiliated with the RPCGA) in Greer, SC. Much of his writing is in the field of eschatology, including his 600 page book, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology and his 400 page, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (his Th.D. dissertation). He contributed chapters to two Zondervan CounterPoints books on eschatological issues: Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (edited by Darrell L. Bock) and Four Views on the Book of Revelation (edited by C. Marvin Pate). He also debated Thomas D. Ice in Kregel's The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? His books have been published by American Vision, Baker, Zondervan, Kregel, P & R, Greenhaven Press, Nordskog, Wipf & Stock, and several other publishers. He has published scores of articles in such publications as Tabletalk, Westminster Theological Journal, Evangelical Theological Society Journal, Banner of Truth, Christianity Today, Antithesis, Contra Mundum, and others. He has spoken at over 100 conferences in America, the Caribbean, and Australia. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and a Church Council Committee member of Coalition on Revival.


  1. Your absolutly crazy. Dispensationalism is the ONLY correct theology. Your right God just had people write down in His Bible a bunch fables and symbols. Your right God said Watch I will fool these guys and write a Bible full of allegories. haha. Get a clue, the Bible is literal. You must now be reformed. You sound like a complete heritic. You probably agree with rob bell and his theology. You will someday say I should have stayed right and stayed a DISPENSATIONALIST. Don’t take this the wrong way, your just completly WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Blaine K. Newton February 13, 2012 at 6:30

      Ummm…. Matt, with all due respect, is any of what you said suppose to be an actual argument? If so, I must have missed it. Dispensationalists, despite their claim to “literalism”, are NOT consistently “literal” in the way they define the term. Ken Gentry, and all the other Reformed writers that I know of have discussed this subject of “literalism” more than adequately, in my opinion. You may not agree, and if not, it may require a little more discussion or clarification.

      And, finally, and I don’t mean this to be obnoxious, brother, but your writing might gain a bit more credibility if you would be careful to recognize the difference between “your” and “you’re”. The former is an adjective that shows possession, as in: my car; his car; their car; your car, our car, etc.”, while the latter is a contraction for “you are”. I think you probably meant to say “you’re” rather than “your” in your response.

    • Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. February 15, 2012 at 6:30

      The number of exclamation points you used is an insurmountable objection. I yield. You must hold to the maxim: “If you can’t pound the facts, pound the table.”

  2. Blaine K. Newton February 13, 2012 at 6:30

    Ken, I think those of us who are not dispensationalists should all be more cautious in how we use the word “literal”. In your own writings, the examples should be sufficient to recognize the distinction; however, sometimes it comes across that you are against being literal, that is, literal in the sense of interpreting according to the letter of the text (which you surely are not), when what you are really trying to attack is a consistent “physicalism, or physical literalism”. It seems to me that a bit of confusion arises from a subconscious equivocation of “literal” on the part of some dispensational readers. When a dispensationalist who is not familiar with your work sees that you are against literalism, or not “consistently literal”, he may well dismiss you as a liberal and not bother to read any further.

    Maybe we all need to adopt more descriptive terminology, maybe incorporating the distinction when we use the term “literal”: i.e. “textually literal” vs. “physically literal”, or something to that effect. Just a thought from an outside observer.

    • Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. February 15, 2012 at 6:30

      The “literal” to which we refer in debating dispensationalists (thus, the “literal” as THEY understand it) means “physical.” We are using this term in the way they use it.

Leave a Reply

Text formatting is available via select HTML.

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>