Dispensationalism*
By William
Cox
Dispensationalism, as we know it
today, had its beginning with the
Brethren movement, which became prominent around 1830. This group came
to be known as "Plymouth Brethren," because their publications centered
in Plymouth, England. Ever since the days of John Nelson Darby,
dispensationalists have been prolific writers and their works are in
abundance today.
The Brethren movement constituted a radical change from the historic
teachings of Christianity. This group claimed to have "rediscovered
truths" which had been lost sight of since the days of the apostles.
Although the Plymouth Brethren are a very small sect their
"rediscovered truths" are to be found in nearly every Christian
denomination. This is mostly because of the great influence of the
Scofield Reference Bible, which was written to perpetuate these views
after Scofield had come under the influence of Darby. Over two million
copies of this "Bible" have been sold since its publication in 1909.
According to Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy and the Church), W. E.
Blackstone's book, Jesus is-Coming, also did much to spread the
Brethren views among Christians in America. Several hundred thousand
copies of this book were mailed out gratis to Christian, workers during
the early part of this century.
The Brethren boasted, from their very beginning in the nineteenth
century, that their teachings represented a wide departure from the
doctrines of their predecessors and contemporaries. According to them,
all the prominent commentaries, all the church fathers, and even the
Reformers, were deluded by "man-made doctrines," while only the
Brethren were subject to and submissive to the Bible as the Word of
God, That this superior attitude has not changed in our day is evident
from the following quotations from dispensationalists.
In a recent book (When the
King Comes Back, pp. 13, 14) Oswald J.
Smith, in one sweeping statement, attempts to discredit major
commentaries because these commentaries are not in agreement with his
views:
I know very few of the old commentaries
that are trustworthy when it
comes to prophecy. Nearly all of them spiritualize the predictions of
the Old Testament prophets and confuse the kingdom with the Church.
Hence their interpretations are worthless (italics mine).
Having quoted Isaiah 11:1-13; 12:1-6 (on page 63 of the same book).
Smith says of these passages:
None of it was fulfilled at the first
advent, and none of it can be
spiritualized, for it has no fulfilment in the Church, in spite of what
the great commentators say. God did not see fit to enlighten them
(italics mine).
The Scofield Bible also cautions its readers that its teachings are the
opposite of those of historic Christianity, those historic teachings
being untrustworthy. The reader is told that as he studies the Gospels
he must free his mind from the beliefs that the church is the true
Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled
in the church. Scofield admitted that this belief was "a legacy in
Protestant thought" (p. 989).
In speaking of the dispensational teaching that the church was not
prophesied in the Old Testament, Harry A. Ironside (Mysteries of God,
p. 50) boasts of the fact that this teaching was non-existent until
introduced by John Darby in the nineteenth century.
In fact, until brought to the fore,
through the writings and preaching
of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr. J. N. Darby, in the early part of
the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon
throughout a period of 1600 years! If any doubt this statement, let
them search, as the writer has in a measure done, the remarks of the
so-called Fathers, both pre and post-Nicene, the theological treatises
of the scholastic divines, Roman Catholic writers of all shades of
thought; the literature of the Reformation; the sermons and expositions
of the Puritans; and the general theological works of the day. He will
find the "mystery" conspicuous by its absence.
Writing in the introduction of a book by Lewis Sperry Chafer (The
Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 5), Scofield said:
Protestant theology has very generally
taught that all the kingdom
promises, and even the great Davidic covenant itself, are to be
fulfilled in and through the Church. The confusion thus created has
been still further darkened by the failure to distinguish the different
phases of the kingdom truth indicated by the expression "kingdom of
Heaven," and "kingdom of God."
John Walvoord, in an article in Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan.-Mar., 1951, p.
11) points up the fact that his millennial thinking is a departure from
that of the great Reformation theologians.
Reformed-eschatology has been
predominantly Amillennial. Most if not
all the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were Amillennial in their
eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine.
These quotations serve to prove at least two things concerning
dispensational theologians: (1) their actual contempt for the thinking
of historic Christian theologians, and (2) the fact that dispensational
doctrines (note especially their teaching that the church is separate
from Israel) are of comparatively recent origin.
Present-day dispensationalists are of necessity premillennialists. The
doctrine of premillennialism, however, is much older than the, doctrine
of dispensationalism. Historic premillennialism can be traced back to
the early post-apostolic history of the church, while, as stated
before, modern dispensationalism originated in the early nineteenth
century. Historic premillennialism had no teaching whatsoever of a
future hope for Israel outside the church; such a separate future hope
for Israel is the main teaching in modern dispensationalism. Oswald T.
Allis (Prophecy and the Church, pp. 8, 9) lists nine features of
dispensationalism and goes on to state correctly that not more than two
of these were held by historic premillennialism.
Historic premillennialism could be defined simply as the belief, based
on an interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10, that there will be an
earthly reign of Christ following his second coming. This was believed
to be a perfect peaceful reign, during which time perfect laws,
justice, and tranquillity were to prevail because Satan would be bound
and therefore unable to lead people into sinful pursuits. This school
of thought held that there would be two resurrections, which were to be
separated by a period of one thousand years. At the first resurrection
all saints would be rewarded; at the second all the unsaved would be
judged and punished. Every believer of every age was to be resurrected
at the first resurrection, and every believer (having been made a part
of the church) would take part in the earthly reign of Christ.
So it is unfair and untrue for modern dispensationalists to claim to be
the champions of premillennialism. While all dispensationalists are of
necessity premillennialists and futurists, it does not follow that all
premillennialists, nor even all futurists, are dispensationalists. Both
dispensationalism and futurism are merely recent additions (and foreign
elements at that) to historic premillennialism. Both new theories seem
to have originated during the nineteenth century.
Before examining the beliefs of the dispensationalists, which differ so
radically from the historic Christian teachings, let us satisfy our
curiosity as to how these radical changes in doctrine could gain such
wide influence, even breaking across denominational lines and flying in
the face of accepted creeds. I believe the answer to this dilemma can
be gained by taking the spiritual pulse of Darby's generation.
A study of the early nineteenth century reveals that doctrinal
preaching was all but unheard of, and any emphasis on the second coming
of our Lord was held up to ridicule by the clergy. Liberalism was in
vogue, and lethargy had crept into the churches. The pulpits were
filled by "professional" clergymen, and the people were "like sheep
without a shepherd." Lay-people were being spiritually starved. They
longed for some sure word of prophecy, but heard only horns with
uncertain sounds from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday. In a climate such
as this a natural by-product would be almost total ignorance with
reference to things taught in the Bible. It was into such an incubator
as this that Brethrenism was born.
It is not surprising that into such a spiritual vacuum there should
arise, not only Darbyism, but all sorts of innovations. The Mormons
were teaching chiliasm (millennialism) about the time of John Darby.
Joseph Smith put out a book (Book of Mormon) in 1830 - the same year
which is recognized as marking the recognition of Darby as a leader
among the Brethren. Smith, like Darby, taught a regathering of Israel.
In 1831 William Miller (the founder of Adventism) began proclaiming his
"findings." Miller set 1843 as the time the world would come to an end.
Many of his followers sold their possessions and put on their robes to
await the Lord's return. Judge Rutherford wrote a book entitled Comfort
for the Jews. Rutherford was the successor to Charles Taze Russell, who
founded Millennial Dawnism around 1880. Russell published his works
beginning in 1881, the year before Darby's death. Rutherford's group
has been known as "International Bible Students," "Russellites," and
are best known to us today as- "Jehovah's Witnesses." Their fantastic
millennial theories are well-known and need no elaboration here.
This spiritual climate not only accounts for the ready acceptance of
Darbyism, but it also lends insight into the direction taken by these
"rediscovered truths." The Brethren teachings, with their emphasis on
prophecy and the second coming of Christ, met a need in the lives of
the spiritually-starved people of that generation. It is not difficult
to replace a vacuum! If we should not be surprised that Darbyism met
with a ready response in such surroundings, neither should we be
surprised if the people of that generation - with their lack of
biblical
teachings - passed all of Darby's spiritual "legislation" even though
many of the bills in his legislation contained "riders" (strange
innovations). Darby not only returned to the faith once delivered to
the saints - which admittedly had been discarded and needed to be
recovered - but he went far beyond that faith, bringing in many
teachings
of his own, which were never heard of until he brought them forth. The
words of Lewis Sperry Chafer, himself an outstanding dispensationalist,
would seem to be very appropriate at this point (The Kingdom in History
and Prophecy, p. 14): "Satan's lies are always garnished with
truth and
how much more attractive they seem to be when that garnishing is a
neglected truth!"
* From: Chapter 1, Dispensationalism Examined
by William Cox, originally published by Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co. Philipsburg, NJ, 1963.