Dispensationalism – Darby and Scofield
“Dispensationalism,” a teaching on which we cannot afford to be uninformed.
The best known intellectual centers of Dispensationalism
include Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.
Any student of modern evangelical theology feels overwhelmed at times.
So many new trends are arising.
It is hard just to keep up with the rapid developments in evangelical thinking.
There are new winds blowing in the sometimes stuffy North American churches.
A real awareness by young intellectuals is shown for the all-embracing nature of Biblical Christianity.
Thousands are turning away from anti-intellectualism and are searching for in-depth
answers to the complex problems of our world.
Besides the burgeoning new Reformational movements,1 there is also a real popularization of traditional Dispensational theology.
Even in our Reformed circles this influence is being felt through the Back To The Bible Broadcast and its magazine Good News Broadcaster, Hal Lindsey’s phenomenal bestsellers, The Late Great Planet Earth, and its sequel Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth.
In these popular studies Lindsey presents a popularization of traditional Dispensational theology.
Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, now lives in fashionable Pacific Palisades,
California and “has recently moved his office to the equally prestigious Century City
district of Los Angeles,”2 as the result of the success of his books.
Scores of Bible institutes, especially in Canada, stress dispensational theology. The
best known intellectual centers of dispensationalism include Moody Bible Institute,
Chicago, Illinois and Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas. The latter seminary
seeks to maintain high academic standards and a respectability through its scholarly
journal Bibliotheca Sacra.
Dispensationalism is peculiarly North American though it has adherents all over the
world and originated in England. In Holland, dispensationalism became known specially
through the writings of J. N. and H. C. Voorhoeve, but it never made a real impact.
Definition
Dispensationalism is a complex theological system and there are numerous shades of
interpretation. The simplest definition of this view is given by Dr. George W. Dollar,
chairman of the department of church history at Bob Jones University, Greenville, South
Carolina:
“Dispensationalism – A system of Biblical interpretation adhering to literalism in
interpretation and distinguishing a series of periods in God’s dealings with man in which
God introduced a succession of tests of responsibilities. In each of these tests of
responsibilities man has proved an utter failure when left to himself and so has been
thrust upon the grace of God for salvation. The commonly taught dividing points of the
dispensations are the Fall, the flood, the call of Abraham, the giving of the Law at Sinai,
the Cross, the rapture of the Church, and the return of Christ.”3 Most dispensationalists
hold to seven dispensations. Not all agree on the number of dispensations. Some have
only four. Others have as many as eight, but most hold to seven.4
The watchword of the dispensationalists is Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. They
consider themselves to be the only true champions of orthodoxy. Departure from
dispensationalism will result in the loss of the evangelical faith.5
Why is this influence of dispensational theology so great? In view of the fact that we are
living in dramatic, apocalyptic, pessimistic and uncertain times, dispensational theology
becomes very attractive to those Christians who see no way out of a seemingly
hopeless situation apart from God’s direct intervention in history to take away (rapture)
His true church out of this wicked and very perverse world.
Dispensationalism is a comparatively recent development. Its distinctive views cannot
be understood unless we consider John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.
John Nelson Darby (1800-1892)
John Nelson Darby was born in London, though he grew up and spent much of his life
in Ireland. He was of a noble English family and was independently wealthy. His
godfather was Admiral Lord Nelson. Darby first studied the classics and later switched
to law and practiced for a short time in Ireland. After his conversion he felt led to go into
the ministry. He gave up his law practice and was ordained in 1825.
He served for two years and three months as curate in the Anglican Church. He broke
with his church and joined a small fellowship of believers that would grow later into the
worldwide Brethren movement. By this time he had come to distrust all organized
churches.
In breaking away from the organized church, Darby tried the experiment of throwing
away the accumulated tradition of eighteen centuries and began to “organize” anew
from scratch by forming fellowships built on his interpretation of Scriptures.6 Though he
left the established church, he did not repudiate infant baptism. He taught a Pelagian
view of infant baptism, considering it as introducing the one baptized into a circle where
he was capable of receiving the grace of God.7
Darby became a voluminous writer, though his writings were not always lucid. His best
known work is the Synopsis of the Books of the Bible (5 vols.). His Collected Writings
(32 vols.) deal with a wide range of subjects. Several volumes of his letters have also
been published. He made a new translation of the Bible and also wrote a number of
hymns.
Darby was a strong-willed man. “Some have called him a saint, but if he was he belongs
to the hermit saints like Saint Anthony. In many ways he resembled John Wesley,
though in his condemnation of the established church he stands in stark contrast. But
like Wesley he was an itinerant man of few domestic pleasures, a man with magnetic,
electric personal qualities combined with a tyrant’s will to lead and intolerance of
criticism. Perhaps he should be described as a petty tyrant, for he was most tyrannical
about petty things. Unlike Wesley he often demonstrated as much zeal in destroying a
work of his own building as he did in its first construction. The will of God seldom blurred
before his vision. Also unlike Wesley and most unfortunately for his historical reputation,
the clarity with which he perceived the will of God was never matched by his ability to
write it down. He left a massive set of Collected Writings which are almost uniformly
unintelligible.”8
Darby found it very difficult to tolerate those differing with him. All who did not agree with
his interpretations of the Bible were characterized as “not having the truth,” or as “not
understanding the divine plan of the ages,” and therefore as somewhat “apostate..”9
Darby’s overbearing personality caused much friction. The early history of the Plymouth
Brethren movement was dominated by rivalry and strife. Even within Darbys’ lifetime
several divisions within the Brethren movement took place. The first deep cleavage was
the result of the bitter tract war between Benjamin W, Newton and John Darby. Newton
rejected Darby’s doctrine of the “any-moment” return of Christ, and his dispensational
interpretation of the Scriptures. Newton characterized this as “grasshopper
exegesis.”10 Darby also accused Newton of trying to dominate the Plymouth Brethren
and to create a separate sect. A few months later he added the charge of heresy.
Newton left Plymouth, the place where the first congregation of the Brethren was
established in 1831, and ultimately formed an independent, ultra-Calvinist church in
London. Darby’s followers formed a closely knit federation of churches and became
known as the Exclusive Brethren.
Darby’s interest in prophecy did not develop until after his break with the Anglican
church. He first wrote on the subject in 1836.11 He never indicated any source of his
ideas other than the Bible. Indeed, he consistently affirmed that his only theological
task was explaining the text of Scripture. Though Darby did not refer to any sources,
dispensationalism in some form or another was known. Joachim of Fiore, abbot of
Cosenza in Calabria and later founder of his own monastry at Floris, who lived from
about 1130/ 45-1201/02 taught that there were three dispensations. Of these three
dispensations, “the first commenced with Adam, the second with John the Baptist; the
preparation for the third began with St. Benedict, its development began with the order
of the Cistercians, and about 1260 the final development will take place . . . . But there
must still take place a last fight against the power of evil, which appears in the person
of the last and worst antichrist, in Gog. After this will follow the final judgment and the
great Sabbath of the consummation will be ushered in.”12 Pierre Poirret (1646-1719)
was a French mystic and philosopher who had an outline of seven dispensations.”
These are but two examples to demonstrate that Darby’s views were not so novel.
Darby’s greatest influence has been through his unique interpretation of Scripture. He
made a clear distinction between the portions of Scripture which should be considered
Christian. The prophetic books, indeed most of the Old Testament and also much of
the New has relevance for Israel only. This view must be kept in mind, if we want to
understand present popularized dispensationalism.
Darby taught that Israel and the church are separate entities. He rejected the idea that
the church inherits the promises God made to Israel. There is no spiritual Israel that
can inherit God’s promises. God governs his relationship to Israel and the church
according to quite distinct principles. Israel and the church belong to different
dispensations, that of law and that of grace. God’s promise to Israel is to set up a
literal kingdom on earth. The church was not in God’s original redemptive plan. There
wasn’t even a church in the lifetime of Jesus. Our Lord preached a gospel of the
Kingdom; Paul preached a gospel of grace. The church came because Israel rejected
the gospel of the Kingdom. Since every dispensation has been a total failure, this
church age won’t be any different. Darby taught that, right from the beginning, the
church was in ruins. Even in the lifetime of the apostles “apostasy,” “departure from
the faith,” and so forth were already present. The apostles failed when they did not
carry out the Lord’s Great Commission to go out into all the world to preach the
Gospel. The apostle Paul was raised up to supplement their lack. “Thus,” writes
Darby, “. . . this dispensation as well as any other failed and broke off in the very
outset . . it broke down in the commencement – no sooner fully established than it
proved a failure.”14 The church is beyond hope. Reformation is impossible. Darby
writes, “the Scripture never recognizes a recovery from such a state” (i.e., the state of
ruin).15
What is in store for the church and for Israel? The hope of the church is the rapture,
the “first” second coming of Christ. Before the great tribulation, which will last for
seven years, the true church is to be taken from the earth secretly and then, at a later
time, Christ will return in a public “second” second coming. As Darby put it, “The
church’s joining Christ has nothing to do with Christ’s appearing or coming to earth.”16
Christ at the second public coming will establish together with the saints, the millennial
kingdom on earth and Christ will offer the Kingdom to Israel again, David’s throne will
again be occupied, the temple restored, and sacrifices reinstituted. Judaism will be
completely restored and there will be a division between Jew and Gentile.
Although the source of dispensationalism is Darby, it has had its greatest success in
North America. Darby’s views became widespread through the Plymouth Brethren
missionaries and the travels of Darby himself. Darby spent much time abroad, living
for considerable periods in Switzerland, Italy, France, Germany, Holland, Canada, the
U.S., the British West Indies, New Zealand, and Australia. Darby visited Canada as
early as 1859. His activities here began in 1862. Except for visits to Montreal and
Ottawa, and one short trip to Halifax, Darby restricted his ministry to the area between
London and Toronto, Ontario. He also frequently visited the U.S. Plymouth Brethren
missionaries also travelled extensively in North America. “In the 70’s many of these
preachers from Scotland and the north of Ireland came to America and labored with
great blessing, particularly in the province of Ontario and in nearby eastern states.
Later the movement extended all over the two countries.”17
In Canada, the Brethren gained the greatest support in areas settled predominantly by
Baptists. Although `Brethrenism’ in Canada never assumed the proportion of a major
religious movement, it grew to such a strength as to constitute a serious challenge to
the established churches. The Brethren proselytized among the membership of the
regular churches more than they evangelized among the “unchurched masses.”
The editor of the Christian Guardian wrote (in 1887) with specific reference to the work
of the Plymouth Brethren evangelists: “Their whole manner of work is stealthy and
uncandid. They open their mission . . . and generally conceal their most objectionable
teaching at first. They live by proselyting from the protestant churches instead of going
out into the unconverted world and gathering souls for Christ. In many places they have
brought about dissension and strife, where brotherly relations had formerly prevailed.”18
Since Darby’s dispensationalism had anti-denominationalism as its point of departure, it
was adapted by church leaders to a non or inter-denominational philosophy. As a result,
we find many nondenominational chapels, tabernacles and churches in North America.
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1834-1921)
Probably no other one man in North America has been more influential in spreading
Darby’s dispensationalism than Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. Scofield studied law in St.
Louis, Missouri and was admitted to the Kansas bar in 1869. Being a lawyer, be served
for two years as the United States Attorney for Kansas. After his conversion in 1879
Scofield became strongly influenced by the dispensationalist J. H. Brookes. Though he
never had formal theological training, he served as pastor of Moody Church, Northfield,
Massachusetts, 1895-1902, and First Congregational, Dallas, Texas (now Scofield
Memorial). He was a writer, a popular speaker, and much in demand as a Bible
conference teacher. In 1903, Scofield started his work, as editor, on the now-famous
Reference Bible. This work was completed in 1909. This year became in a sense a
turning point in the history of contemporary dispensationalism as the Reference Bible
made an immediate impact among evangelical believers. This Bible is now practically a
textbook in many Bible colleges.
Scofield never accepted Darby’s view of the church, but did promote his view on the last
things in its totality. About 1900, he published a book entitled Rightly Dividing the
Word of Truth, in which he set forth the scheme he would use in his Reference Bible.
His Addresses on Prophecy, published in 1902, also clearly present Darby’s views.
The Scofield Bible creates a false sense of authority by continually referring to its
explanatory notes, based on Darby’s interpretation of Scripture. Its popularity is also
attributed to its attractive format of typography, paragraphing, notes, and cross
references.
1. Cf. Richard Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals. The story of the emergence of a
new generation of evangelicals.
2. Ibid., p. 27.
3. George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, pp. 379f.
6
4. Lorain, Bocttner, The Millennium, p. 150.
5. Ernest Pickering, The Importance of Premillennialism, p. 25.
6. Bryan Wilson (ed.), Patterns of Sectarianism, p. 214. 7. E. H Broadbent, The PilgrimChurch, p. 372.
8. Emest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentadism. British and American
Millenarianism 1800-1930, p. 31.
9. Qucbcdcaux, p. 80. 10. Bryan Wilson, p. 228. 11. Arnold 1). Elert, A Bibliographic
History of Disrensationalism, p. 47.
12. Ehlert, p. 31. 13. Ibid., p. 36.
14. E. 11. Broadbent, p. 374.
15. Ibid., p. 374.
16. Sandeen, p. 63.
17. C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalisrn in Annerica. Its Rise awl Development, p. 46.
18. S. D. Clark, Church and Sect in Canada, pp. 360f.
Johan D. Tangelder
March, 1975
————————————————————-
What Is Dispensationalism? (Keith Mathison)
Dispensationalism is a popular and widespread way of reading the Bible.
It originated in the nineteenth century in the teaching of John Nelson Darby and was popularized in the United States through the Bible Conference movement.
Its growth was spurred on even more through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible,
which was published in 1909.
Scofield’s Bible contributed to the spread of dispensationalism because it included study notes written from a distinctively dispensationalist perspective.
The founding of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer provided an academic institution for the training of pastors and missionaries in the dispensationalist tradition.
Some of the most notable dispensationalist authors of the twentieth century, including John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost, taught at Dallas Seminary.
Dispensationalist theology is perhaps best known for its distinctive eschatological doctrines,
particularly the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church.
According to this doctrine, this present church age will be followed by a seven-year period of tribulation.
Before the tribulation begins (thus “pre-tribulation”),
the church will be caught up to heaven where believers will be with Christ until the second coming,
which occurs at the end of the tribulation.
At that time, they will return with Christ,
who will then inaugurate His millennial kingdom (dispensationalists are thus also premillennialists).
Although dispensationalism is best known for its eschatological doctrines,
at its heart is the distinction between Israel and the church.
Every other distinctively dispensationalist doctrine rests on this idea.
What this distinction means for dispensationalists is that there are two peoples of God.
Israel is one of these and consists of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The church is the other, and it consists of all those and only those (whether Jew or gentile) who are saved between the Day of Pentecost and the rapture.
Part of the reason for the pre-tribulation rapture is to remove the church from earth so that God can begin dealing with national Israel again.
Dispensationalism differs from Reformed covenant theology in a number of ways, but the most significant is this idea of two peoples of God. Covenant theology affirms that there is one people of God and thus continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament. Covenant theology is not, as some dispensationalists assert, “replacement theology” because in covenant theology, the church is not technically replacing Israel. The church is the organic continuation of the Old Testament people of God. (For a helpful introduction to covenant theology, see Stephen Myers’ God to Us.) The oneness of the people of God is evident by an examination of several New Testament texts.
Consider first the olive tree analogy in Romans 11. In this passage, Paul is addressing gentile believers and urging them not to be arrogant toward Jewish believers. He uses the illustration of an olive tree to explain. Note that in the illustration there is one good olive tree. Paul explains that branches were broken off this olive tree and gentile “wild shoots” were grafted into it. The one olive tree represents the people of God that has long existed. Unbelieving Jewish branches (e.g., Pharisees) have been broken off this tree by God, leaving only believing branches (e.g., Jesus’ Apostles). Believing gentiles have been grafted into this one tree so that it now consists of believing Jews and gentiles. This tree is the church. If Paul were illustrating the dispensationalist doctrine, we would have numerous gentile trees and one Jewish tree (Israel). God would then plant a new tree (the church). He would take believing Jews from the Israel tree and believing gentiles from the gentile trees and graft them into this one new tree. Paul says nothing like this. The one tree that existed in the Old Testament continues, but now God has removed unbelieving Jews and grafted believing gentiles into it.
Although dispensationalism is best known for its eschatological doctrines, at its heart is the distinction between Israel and the church.
In this light, consider what Paul says to gentile believers in Ephesians 2:11–22. Paul first tells these gentile believers what they used to be: “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (v. 12). If that’s what they used to be, the implication is that the opposite of each is true of these gentile believers now. They are now part of the commonwealth of Israel and partakers of the covenants precisely because they’ve been grafted into the one tree representing the one people of God. But there’s more than implication. Paul goes on to say explicitly in verses 19 and following that these gentiles are “no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”
Dispensationalists have a difficult time grasping this because of their idea that the seed of Abraham is only the physical offspring of Abraham. Again, Paul begs to differ. In Galatians 3:16, he explains that “the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.” He then explicitly identifies the offspring as Jesus Christ. But note what he then adds a few sentences later in verse 29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Paul defines Abraham’s seed in terms of Jesus Christ. Christ is a literal physical descendant of Abraham. However, because believers, whether Jew or gentile, are united to Christ, we too are Abraham’s offspring if we belong to Christ.
Does Paul continue to use the terms Israel, church, and gentile in the New Testament? Of course. But not in the way that these terms are used by dispensationalists. He continues to speak of ethnic Jews and ethnic gentiles, both inside and outside the church. But he does not do so in a way that results in two peoples of God. There is one tree in the Old Testament that consists primarily of ethnic Jews, although some gentiles (e.g., Ruth) are brought in. This is the one tree that exists when Christ comes. He doesn’t chop it down, and He doesn’t plant a new tree. He prunes the unbelieving Jewish branches off, leaving only the believing Jewish branches. He then begins to graft believing gentiles into this one tree. This tree with ingrafted gentile branches does not “replace” the old tree. These gentiles are now part of the old tree by faith in Jesus Christ.
If the biblical teaching regarding the one people of God is allowed to stand, all of the distinctive dispensationalist doctrines that rest on the doctrine of two peoples of God are left without any foundation.