Have you ever wondered what life would have been like had the Jews not rejected Jesus? For example, would there be a need for a Second Coming? Would Christ, today, be reigning out of Jerusalem, and would the world be at peace? This seems to be the position taken by the dispensationalists, because they expect Christ to return sometime in the future and do exactly that. In fact, according to the father of modern Dispensationalism, John Darby, the Cross was the work of Satan.
“It is Satan, and not Christ, who is now the prince and god of this world… The cross was the one grand demonstration – and there never was such a demonstration before that – that Satan is the prince and god of this world. Until Christ had been rejected, Satan was never called the prince of this world. Before that, Jesus was on earth, and in the temple was the Shekinah glory. But when at last he came into this world in the person of Christ, and the world rejected him, the from that time Satan is the prince of this world.” (emphasis mine) 
There, we have the paradigm of Dispensationalism in black and white, as told by its father, John Darby, and preached today in the churches of Christ that preach Darby’s false doctrine. However, has anyone who believes Darby’s teaching ever really investigated if it is really Biblical? I have to wonder, because I doubt so many disciples of Christ would advocate Darby’s teachings, if they really understood their consequences. For example, would any real Christian believe that Satan could defeat God? Yet, this is exactly what Darby claims above. He says outright, “The cross was the one grand demonstration …that Satan is the prince and god of this world.” In other words, the Cross was Satan’s work, and is a demonstration of God’s defeat, because, if the Cross were Satan’s work, it couldn’t be God’s. So, if God never intended that Jesus be crucified, Satan defeated God.
According to Revelation 13:8, the Cross was in the plan of God from the foundation of the world. How would the Cross be a demonstration of Satan’s authority, when it was God’s plan from the foundation of the world? The Cross was what God wanted, not Satan. Only through the Cross could mankind be redeemed. Why would Satan want that? Certainly, Jesus was crucified by men who were guilty of an evil work, but their evil is powerless to undo God’s intended grace and purpose. Men are not more powerful than God. The weakness of God is more powerful than men (1Corinthians 1:25).
Far from it being God’s defeat, God sent his Son into the world to save mankind, and the Cross was the vehicle through which he would not only accomplish his purpose, but was the means he would gain victory over all authority that exalted itself above the authority of God (Colossians 2:13-15). How could the Cross be a demonstration of Satan’s power, when it was a demonstration of Satan’s defeat? Darby’s logic, while certainly exemplifying worldly wisdom, has no support in the Bible. In fact, it is a demonstration that it is just another doctrine of men that hides the grace and purposes of God.
If this is true, and I believe the Bible demonstrates it is true, then shouldn’t we reevaluate the rest of Darby’s doctrines, such as the future coming of Christ, which denies that Jesus kept his promise to us in the first century AD. After all, if Darby was so obviously wrong in his “Lectures on the Second Coming”, perhaps the rest of his understanding of the “Second Coming” is wrong as well. It seems obvious to me that, since both Jesus and all the New Testament writers point to an early return of Christ (Matthew 16:28; 26:64; 2Timothy 4:1, 8; 1Peter 4:5, 7, 17; Revelation 22:7, 12, 20), believer should at least consider the possibility they knew what they were talking about. Just a thought.
 J. N. Darby, Lectures on the Second Coming, (London; Paternoster Row, 1868), 31.