John Nelson Darby: An Excursus

J. N. Darby's Life

It seems odd that evangelicalism has been so deeply influenced by John Nelson Darby's views and yet his name is hardly known. 

Consonant with that observation,  Sweetman and Gribben (2009) remark that few biographies of worth have been written about the Irishman even though he was an original thinker and later had great influence in several branches of theology.

Darby seemed destined for the law profession initially and although he qualified and practised for a year, he moved into the clerical ministry of the Church of Ireland (CofI) in Dublin (Anglican). This position seemed well below his past scholarly achievements at Trinity College, Dublin University where he graduated in 1819 having earned a Gold Medal in Classics. He lived an austere life along with his parishioners and followed a 'catholic' view of churchmanship that divine grace was given primarily through the sacraments (hence, a 'High' Churchman).

His Conversion and Gospel Preaching

After a bad riding accident, Darby was laid up in bed and spent time while convalescing in studies which led him to conversion; 'a release from bondage' as he put it. He immediately began to preach the gospel as he had now experienced it and many Roman Catholics in the Dublin area became devout Christ-followers.

Dublin's Archbishop at the time of these new conversions ordered that all those joining the CofI must swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown. Darby was flabbergasted.  

Can you imagine what effect such an insensitive decision had on Irishmen who resented everything to do with the English? It effectively stopped the flow of converts under Darby's ministry and left him angry and disillusioned with the CofI.

Church and Eschatology Changes Related

With this CofI barrier being placed across his pathway to the gaining of new converts, Darby began to question¹ his commitment to the CofI. He concluded that its being an arm of the State for one thing was unBiblical. 

Moreover, he said that its view of the Church itself was contrary to the Word of God. In his letter of resignation from his curacy in 1828 (but not yet from the CofI--that came later) to the archbishop, he stated that God's people were to be found in all churches, all denominations. The unity of the Church was not to be found in any temporal, institutional organisation but in each individual's spiritual connection to Christ. 

In this significant respect then, the Church was essentially different from cultural Israel he contended. The Church was a spiritual entity with a heavenly destination; Israel was an earthly entity with an earthly destiny. 

Furthermore, up to this point, Darby seems to have held some type of post-millennialism. He seems to have believed that the 'millennium' was a symbolic 1000-year period from Pentecost to the Final Coming of Christ wherein the gospel of Christ would be preached successfully to the nations. On this basis, Jesus was to return after the millennium.

Darby began to question his post-millennialism being led by his newly found belief in the radical distinction between the heavenly Church and the eathly Israel.

The Church's Secret Rapture

Darby began to fellowship with a small of 'Brethren' who 'broke bread' together. He gradually gave up his membership in the CofI and became the driving force in the Plymouth Brethren (as they were known) to his death at 82.

Of course, Darby did not create pre-millennialism which can even be found in some of the church fathers.

However, arguably he did help to develop a scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Coming of Christ in two stages: the first stage was to be a  'secret rapture' of the church from the earth, seven years before the Final Revelation of Christ as Judge of all the nations; after which the millennium would take place. The diagram I've included shows some of this detail.

Daniel's prophecy of the 70 'weeks'² can be found in Daniel 9.24-27. Futurists such as Darby who believed that a radical distinction must be made between the Church universal and Israel insert a 'gap' between the end of the 62 'weeks' and the last 'week' (7 years) which they believe is yet future.

This 7-year period is one of Great Tribulation for the world out of which the Church has already been 'raptured'. Antichrist will arise during this time and dominate the world harassing the Jews mercilessly.  The Jews will have rebuilt the Temple and will be sacrificing offerings to God as they set out in the book of Leviticus.

Then Jesus will return as victorious Lord, chain up Satan and rule for a 1,000 years from physical Mt Zion in Jerusalem.  

Personal

I didn't plan to be writing this post on J N Darby but found his life and beliefs to be compulsive reading. So although I've taken a sidetrack on aspects regarding his life, I trust it will provide readers with valuable background. My sisters and I attended both a local 'Brethren'³ Sunday School and an Assemblies of God⁴ Sunday School and look back to both as places where we learned Bible verses and passages by heart; and also learned to take the holy Scriptures to our hearts.

1. Darby questioned the close association between the State (England) and the CofI in that the latter carried out the dictates of the former and also looked to the State for protection. In this regard Darby was concerned that it was becoming just like the Church of Rome. (This form of connection between State and Church is known as 'Erastianism'.)
2. I've placed 'weeks' in quotation marks to show that the weeks are not normal weeks = 7 days but weeks = 7 years. Hence, 70 weeks equals 490 years.
3. Our Brethren Chapel was first a 'closed' Brethren but then a split occurred and the Chapel continued as an 'open' Brethren group. We knew something big had happened because the main leaders (much loved) departed and then suddenly musical instruments such as a piano accordion appeared!! The former leaders did not allow instruments because they believed that Bible did not sanction their use in their meetings.
4. Ironically, our Pentecostal family and our Church differed over a Brethren doctrine which only goes to show the inroads that Darby's views had made into the various forms of Pentecostalism! Our family followed Darby (without knowing it) and his teaching of a pre-tribulation 'rapture' while the Church adopted a 'mid-tribulation' rapture view.

Progressive Dispensationalism

The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a third form of dispensationalism which began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD). 

One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.

At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational¹ theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.

The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations. 

However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.

Interpretation

This subject is a large one and highly vexed with strong differences of opinion. 

But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.20²). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-12³). 

But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.

Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical⁴ dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.

1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.

Dispensationalism Revised

Before we outline a development in the classical dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and others, I invite readers to look at Charles C Ryrie (b.1925) in a 7-minute You Tube interview explaining dispensationalism. 

Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form.

Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism¹ in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially¹, the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation). 

But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in traditional dispensationalism, a sharp dualism was believed to exist between the Church ('heavenly' destination and rewards) and Israel ('earthly', land of Palestine, ruling on earth, material prosperity), in 'revised' dispensationalism, this radical difference became an 'earthly' difference.

That is to say, the differences between the Church and Israel though still marked and basic were not as radical and far-reaching as they had been in traditional dispensationalism.

1. I should repeat a good point that Ryrie makes on You Tube that: all Bible students acknowledge various 'dispensations' to some extent. Just to recognise that living under the Mosaic Law for Israel is different from living in New Testament times is to do that. Hence, dispensationalism is greatly focussed on change and variety in God's administration across history while those opposed focus more on the continuity and unity found across the whole of scriptural revelation.

2. My reason for saying that this criterion is more controversial is that surely Ryrie was clearly misinformed to have thought that only dispensationalists hold firmly to such a belief. Famed Calvinist Jonathan Edwards taught this understanding which, in our time, has been taken over by John Piper.

Understanding Classical Dispensationalism And Its Attraction

Dispensationalism¹ began at the time of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) in the 1820s into the 1830s, a well-educated Anglican clergyman who became its chief systematiser. Darby had a life-changing experience in which he realised profoundly the importance of the scripture's teaching of being in union with Christ in 'heavenly places'. He concluded that the true Church was 'heavenly' in character.



On the other hand, based on his studies of Isaiah 33 he came to believe that Israel, at a future time, would enjoy earthly blessings separate from those enjoyed by the Church in heaven. In this belief lay his conviction of the radical difference between Church and Israel.

Of course, other Bible readers, students and scholars had read the same verses over the centuries. But the reason Darby came to such a different conclusion was that he took it as axiomatic that the Bible's language should be interpreted² 'literally' for Israel. For example, he averred that passages referring to 'Israel' always meant just that: the physical descendants of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).

Darby also believed that the Church would be secretly 'raptured' in the future before a 7-year period of Tribulation preceding the Coming of Christ to the earth to set up the 1000-year, Millennial Kingdom. This 7-year period of Tribulation Darby took from Daniel 9.24 with its famous declaration about 'seventy weeks ["of years" -RSV] being determined for your people and for your holy city' (see Dan 9.24-27).

During the Tribulation the Jews would suffer badly for their hardness of heart and infidelity but that 'those who endured to the end would be saved'. The accompanying diagram sets out the end-time events as understood by the classical position.

Acknowledgement for the attached diagram is given to Conservapedia's article,  'Eschatology' at www.conservapedia.com

According to Darby, a time-line related to Israel and the Church began with Abram (later Abraham) and what is known as the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12.1-3; 15.13-20; 17.9-14; 22.15-19), with Isaac (Gen 26.2-5) and with Jacob (Gen 27.29; 28.12-17; 35.9-15). 

This covenant had the provision of God's blessing: many descendants ('stars' and 'sand' metaphors in the scriptures cited above); a place to live (Canaan); the blessing³ of those blessing Abram and the cursing³ of those who cursed him; and his being a blessing to all nations (e.g., Gen 12.2-3).

Attractions

Many Bible-believers undeniably felt attracted to classical dispensationalism (as I once did). It had what appeared to be commonsense principles of Bible interpretation. It appeared to have a comprehensive system with everything worked out so that the Bible's grand scheme of how history will play out was laid bare. 

One could also purchase a Bible that mapped this prophetic viewpoint, for example, the Scofield Reference Bible (1907, rev. 1917). This most well-known Christian publication of the 20th century taught dispensationalism through its extensive notes and made it easy to learn and be taught the viewpoint.  

However, even within classical dispensationalism shortcomings became evident leading to changes so that two more recent new forms have emerged. First, modified dispensationalism (1950s) and second, progressive dispensationalism (1980s). We will study these different frameworks in coming posts. 

1. Of course, all Bible readers in one way or another acknowledge the presence of 'dispensations' because even to recognise the two Testaments or Covenants of the Old and the New is to do this. However, dispensationalism takes the idea of dispensations to the point of making it an 'ism'.
2. The question of Biblical interpretation is very important and constitutes a major reason why various differences have emerged and created different eschatological schools. We can't deal with the issue now but I want to highlight both its importance and my wish to deal with it in coming posts.
3. Some dispute exists as to whether the blessing is to be attached to all Abraham's physical descendants or to his spiritual descendants alone. (Others even contend that the blessing/cursing provision is meant for only Abraham as an individual but that seems difficult to support.)

Different Eschatological Schools

Eschatology, What Is That?

Eschatology¹ is a branch of theology that investigates how 'end' time events will occur.

Why Is It Relevant To This Subject?

To examine the question of The One People of God, we have to look at a number of competing schools of eschatology which hold different views about 'end' events. This activity on our part is necessary because views about the Church, cultural Israel, their relationship and their present status before God tend to be correlated with different views about end-time events (eschatologies).

What Different Eschatological Schools Exist?

To simplify matters we could say three main groupings exist: Preterism, Historicism, and Futurism (with variations within each).

Preterism claims that most of the book of The Revelation has already been fulfilled. Some within this group would even claim that Jesus returned in the judgement upon Jerusalem in AD 70. Doubtless, many will find Preterism to be an odd² view because most evangelicals at least, are steeped in some form of Futurism (see below).

Historicism, as the name might suggest, believes that much of Revelation was fulfilled over the centuries until the present time. Jesus is yet to come (as in Rev 21). Many of these folk are post-millennialists, that is, they believe that Jesus will come after the millennium (Rev 20.2, 4, 5, 6).

Futurism is probably better known than the other two and more popular (IMO). Futurists believe (as the name suggests) that most of The Revelation is yet to happen in a time future to our own. Jesus will return before  the millennium (hence, premillennialists) to set up a millennial kingdom.

Futurism is important for our study because it contains a strong faction within the tradition who can be called classical dispensationalists.

Classical Dispensationalism

Classical³ dispensationalism gets its name from its characteristic dividing of redemptive history into seven⁴ divine administrations (or 'dispensations'). 

Within dispensationalism is the conviction that a clear, demarcation line exists between the Church and ethnic Israel, and that God is pursuing two different agendas with each of these two distinct peoples.


That God in Christ came to redeem Israel but He was rejected at the national level by the people of Israel (Acts 2.22-23; 3.12-15; 4.10-11; 7.51-53; etc).

That God then put his plans for Israel 'on hold' and took up a new redemptive undertaking with any who would receive his Son, the Lord Jesus as King. Hence, a 'church age' ensued and continues to this day. 

However, most importantly, this 'church age' does not suggest that God has finished with national Israel: He has made unconditional promises to Abram/Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12.1-3; 15. 5-6, 7-11, 12-16, 17-21) and as surely as God is true to His Word He will keep these promises. Most importantly for us, classical dispensationalism is going to occupy our attention because it has a specific eschatology that drives a wedge between the Church and Israel while calling both of them 'the people of God'. We will have to examine whether classical dispensationalism can maintain this position in the face of the biblical evidence.

1. Eschatology is defined as 'the study of the end'. Eschaton in Greek means 'end' or 'last things'.
2. To gain a better understanding of Preterism we have to imagine being disciples of Christ before the overthrown and sacking of Jerusalem and see how many scriptures we now take to be yet future might have been understood by those then living.
3. More recent types of dispensationalism include: modified, and progressive dispensationalism which are to be distinguished from the classical dispensationalism which began in the 19th century.
4. Typically listed as: Innocence (pre-Fall), Conscience (Fall to Flood), Human Government (Flood to Abraham), Promise (Abram's call to Exodus), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (the Church era), and the Kingdom (the Millennial period of 1,000 years).

Genius, Grief and Grace

I have been perusing a book lent to me with the above intriguing title (2008). It has been authored by an English senior psychiatrist, Dr Gaius Davies.

He has done detailed studies on Christians well-known to most who although highly gifted in certain areas suffered from moderate to more extreme cases of what we would call mental-emotional disorders. 


To carry out this task Davies examines the lives of Martin Luther (Protestant Reformer), John Bunyan (prolific writer), William Cowper (hymn writer), Lord Shaftesbury (social reformer), Christina Rossetti (poet), Frances R. Havergal (hymn writer), Gerard Manley Hopkins (poet), Amy Carmichael (missionary to India), C.S. Lewis (literary academic, apologist, extraordinary writer and poet), J.B. Philips (New Testament paraphraser), and Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (preacher).

 The treatment of Lewis' life by Davies is enlightening but I was particularly struck by the description given of Lewis in arguing against Naturalism opposed to Elizabeth Anscombe in 1948 at Oxford University at the Socratic Club of which Lewis was then President.

After this debate in which Anscombe (a Roman Catholic) appeared¹ to show a significant defect in Lewis' argument against naturalism as presented in his book Miracles (1947, 1960), Lewis wrote an instructive poem.

The Apologist’s Evening Prayer
From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

C.S. Lewis, Poems (1964).

Years ago I was in a Christian denomination that did not favour intellectual pursuits, particularly in respect to the Faith. Its watchwords were the Holy Spirit's power along with an unquestioning acceptance of signs of 'divine healing'.

One person warned me that 'thinking too much' would 'get me into trouble'. Now looking back I think that was good advice in the same respect that Lewis implies above. 

Anything² that we produce including our thoughts, arguments and ideas can so easily become the 'coins' we trust in rather than than the God who stands behind all that has been created.

1. It is still highly contested to this day whether Anscombe plausibly showed a weakness in Lewis' original argument. In any case, he revised his work and a new 1960 revision of Miracles was published.
2. Of course, it should be noted that even our feelings, and other 'experiences' are often in the same class as our thinking so let us not be fooled into believing that trusting our experiences means that we are trusting God.