The article titled “A Historical Critique of Dispensationalism, Zionism, and Daniel's Prophecy of 70 Weeks,”By Mark Dankof,
Dispensationalism, begins with a long discussion of the allegation that a future fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week was unknown to the church before the 19th century.
Along the way Dankof quotes O. T. Allis as saying, "
The effect produced on the interpretation of prophecy by the “parenthesis” doctrine of the Church as set forth by Dispensationalists is one of the clearest proofs of the novelty of that doctrine as well as of its revolutionary nature. In 1835 an article appeared in the Christian Witness, the earliest organ of the Brethren, in which the claim was made that all of the prophecies of Daniel are still unfulfilled, that they do not relate to the Church age but are to be fulfilled in the future kingdom age." The footnote gives no documentatio for this remarkable statement other than where Allis supposedly said it. But I have devoted meny years to the study of Plymouth brethren writings, and this was not the position of even one Plymouth brethren writer I have ever read.
This line of argument is finally summarized in the words:
“What are the sources, in terms of individuals and historical epochs, which enable the Dispensational theories of a parenthesis Church, a pre or mid-Tribulational Rapture, a Great Tribulation corresponding to Daniel’s 70th week, and a two stage coming of Christ, to be traced to their provable origins? The absolute answers to these questions are a matter of debate, but ongoing historical research provides some clues, the meaning of which is in dispute between adherents of the Dispensational system and its opponents.
“At a bare minimum, it can be reliably asserted that the Dispensational distinctives aforementioned are 19th century developments, a developing system of Biblical interpretation that was unknown in earlier epochs and especially in the early Church. It is true that Dispensational adherents attempt to maintain that their system is a continuation of historic premillennialism, yet Ladd maintains that, ‘For all practical purposes, we may consider that this movement–for dispensationalism has had such wide influence that it must be called a movement–had its source with Darby and Kelly.’ Robert Cameron in 1896, had reacted with some others in the Niagara Bible Conference to some of the dispensational elements, blaming the movement completely on the Darbyists, saying that they had introduced ‘a theory absolutely without a single advocate in the history of the Church, from Polycarp down.’” A little further down he called it “the new, novel idea of the “parenthesis” or ‘gap’ theory based on Daniel 9.”
This is demonstrably incorrect, As I have repeatedly posted in this forum. For Hyppolytus said:
“For after sixty-two weeks was fulfilled and after Christ has come and the Gospel has been preached in every place, times having been spun out, the end remains one week away, in which Elijah and Enoch shall be present and in its half the abomination of desolation, the Antichrist, shall appear who threatens desolation of the world. After he comes, sacrifice and drink offering, which now in every way is offered by the nations to God, shall be taken away.” (Commentary on Daniel, by Hyppolytus, book 4, 35.3. From the translation by T. C. Schmidt, available online at
http://www.chronicon.net. This is believed to have been written between the years 202 and 211, and is the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that has survived to the present day.)
Again, some pages larer, Hippolytus added:
“Just as also he spoke to Daniel, “And he shall establish a covenant with many for one week and it will be that in the half of the week he shall take away my sacrifice and drink offering,” so that the one week may be shown as divided into two, after the two witnesses will have preached for three and a half years, the Antichrist will wage war against the saints the remainder of the week and will desolate all the world so that what was spoken may be fulfilled, “And they will give the abomination of desolation one thousand two hundred ninety days. Blessed is he who endures to Christ and reaches the one thousand three hundred thirty-five days!” (Commentary on Daniel, by Hyppolytus, book 4, 50.2)
Also, around fifteen years earlier, Irenaeus wrote:
“And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.” (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 4. From Volume 1 of “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,” edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition edited by A. Cleveland Coxe, and as found online at
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. This is believed to have been written between the years 186 and 188, and is the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length which has survived to the present day.)
In this section, it is important to notice that Irenaeus was saying that the coming of Antichrist is future, and that it will be in the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week.
So the opening allegation of the document, which is developed at considerable length, is incorrect. This error, however, is somewhat excusable, because it is widely reported, even though it is incorrect. But that is the basic error made all the way through this document. He reports the words of those that say what he wants to believe, without personal knowledge of the subject.
This has led to numerous errors of sloppy scholarship, such as the very darby-like quotation, “It is this conviction, that the Church is properly heavenly in its calling and relationship with Christ, forming no part of the course of events of the earth, which makes its rapture so simple and clear; and on the other hand, it shows how the denial of its rapture brings down the Church to an earthly position, and destroys its whole spiritual character and position. Prophecy does not relate to heaven. The Christian’s hope is not a prophetic subject at all.” My initial reaction was, “yes, I remember reading that in the writings of J. N. Darby.” But when I looked up the reference given in footnote 56, it gave the source as: “Weber quotes Darby in his Collected Works, XI, 156.”
There are two problems in this citation. First, there is no series of books titled “Collected Works,” (of J. N. Darby.) The series he was apparently referring to is “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby.” This series indeed has a volume XI, but I checked, and the alleged quotation is not on page 156 of volume XI in either edition of the Collected Writings of J. N. Darby.” There are two such editions. Individual volumes in the Moorish (original nineteenth century) edition are about 2" thick. Volumes in the Stow-Hill (twentieth century) edition are about 3/4" thick.
The next major error n the work comes in the statement, “Kraus notes the significance as well, of the early division in the Plymouth Brethren movement over Darby’s Dispensational distinctives, coming chiefly from Benjamin Wills Newton (1805-1898) and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), who became increasingly marginalized in Darby’s takeover of the mainstream of the movement, and in the latter’s exportation of the distinctives to a waiting American audience:”
The division he refers to had absolutely nothing to do with Dispensational distinctives. It was initially based on ecclesiastical differences. But at that time, the division, though distinct, was not absolute. But about two years or so later, Darby’s group discovered that Newton was teaching doctrine they considered blasphemy against Christ. After that was publicized, darby, and all those who stood with him, broke completely and absolutely, not only with Newton, but with any and all who tolerated his doctrines. This is a simple matter of history, and many volumes of the group’s writings are devoted to it.
Further, Darby never “took over” the mainstream group. He indeed was a leading teacher in their midst. But as a matter of doctrine, the entire group rejected the concept of anyone having the power to “control” the group. That was, in point of fact, the ecclesiastical point of doctrine which caused Darby and his associated to separate from Newton.
Then the writer of this article begins to rely heavily on statements from Dave MacPherson, a writer who had much earlier totally discredited himself by claiming, in his book, “The incredible Cover-Up,” That Darby visited Margaret Macdonald’s church, and had covered up this fact. To prove this wholly false accusation, he documented many facts all around his central thesis, but not a single fact that directly proved it. Such documentation was simply unavailable, for it was not true. Darby did not “cover up” his visit there at all, but published an article openly writing about it, and giving his opinion that it was Satanic.
But his quotations from macPherson reveal an amazing admission, for he quotes Macpherson as saying, "
Her revelation was first published in Robert Norton’s Memoirs of James and George Macdonald, of Port Glasgow (1840), pp. 171-176. Norton published it again in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861), pp. 15-18. [70]" If the first publication of the alleged "revelation" was long after Darby was writing on the subject, Darby could not even possibly have gotten the idea from that, unless, as Macpherson alleges but cannot prove, he got it personally from her.
If the second-hand quotations of MacPherson quoted in this article are correct, he eventually admitted this was not correct, but he replaced this false accusation with a new series of accusations that are, like the first one, wholly lacking in documentation.
The first of these was reported in this article as, “It is a remarkable circumstance, that a dear young lady, who was instrumental in setting them afloat for me, and at several members of whose family they were held–who had been only called about a year by the Lord, but was very decided ever since–was suddenly called away the other day in the midst of it all. The people in Limerick felt it a good deal, and I trust it may be the instrument of good to many. The whole family, which was a principal one here, had been all thoroughly worldly a year ago, and herself and her sister at the head of all idleness. [MacPherson quoting Darby in Letters, vol. 1, p. 15) [73]” (I included the footnote number to help in locating the statement.)
Darby indeed said this, in the place indicated. But there is absolutely zero evidence that this is a reference to the MacDonald family.
He then quotes MacPhearson as saying, “Why did Darby admit such things about a young Irish lady (written three years after Margaret’s revelation) and not give Margaret any credit for her prior Rapture? Surely he must have known that sooner or later someone could discover the real Pre-Trib origin. The answer, as I see it, is that Darby was a well-read, knowledgeable opportunist, one who had studied to be a lawyer. He had been in Margaret’s home in mid-1830 and knew that her distinctive views had been picked up quickly by The Morning Watch and also by other Irvingites and his own Plymouth Brethren. He knew that, in time, memories and personalities would fade away and that he could well be regarded as the Pre-Trib Rapture’s great systematizer and promoter, if not immediately its originator. [74]” This amounts to nothing short of libel.
Next, he quotes Macpherson as saying, “Note also the reference to “twenty years ago”–which brings us back to 1830. But was he figuring precisely or only approximately? Where, in his 1830 writings, did he give evidence of such a doctrinal change-over? In the Dec 1830 Christian Herald Darby’s article entitled, “On ‘Days’ Signifying ‘Years’ in Prophetic Language,” was a defense of historicism and the year-day theory, with not even a hint of a two-stage coming.”
But “The Christian Herald newspaper was the brainchild of the Rev Michael Paget Baxter, born in Doncaster on 7 December 1834... (who) became a Christian at the age of 20... (and) In 1873-4, having attended the meetings of the famed contemporary preachers Moody and Sankey, he decided “immense good could be done by publishing in my magazine full reports of the services thus enabling multitudes to read the evangelist’s sermons”. This idea resulted in the weekly launch of Christian Herald and Signs of our Times, the first surviving issue of which was published on 7 July 1876.”
Christian Herald - Features
It is curious how in 1830 a man could have published an article in a magazine that was not even founded before 1874!
Then he quotes MacPherson going on to say, “the earliest moment he could have derived it from anyone else (and I’m taking all available documentation into consideration) was when he visited Margaret in her home in Scotland in the middle of 1830. [76]”
Again, this allegation is wholly lacking in documentation. No evidence of any kind is given to back up the claim that Darby visited Margaret MacDonald in her home.
(continued)
