John Nelson Darby came to America around the time of the Civil War and brought the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology to our nation.
The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.
After that time, the doctrine spread like a virus through the modern evangelical Church.
Some people sitting in modern Southern Baptist churches have never heard anything else.
Dispensational preachers like John Hagee and Dr. David Jeremiah dominate much of Christian television in the United States.
The doctrine claims that at some future point in time modern descendants of Jacob will come to salvation outside of the Church.
Today millions of Christians all over the world support the cause of "Zionism".
Thousands of American soldiers have been killed in the Middle East during my lifetime.
Recently the present Lord Rothschild admitted the role that his family of money-changers played in the creation of the modern State of Israel.
Some American Christians have given financially to rebuild a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, whose goal is to renew animal sacrifices.
Is the modern Zionist movement really "Christian", based on 1 John 2:22-23?
.
I applaud your attempt to be more precise in your language concerning John Nelson Darby. But you still do not have it even close to correct. Among other things, you are still using your deceptive language that Dispensationalism "claims that at some future point in time modern descendants of Jacob will come to salvation outside of the Church." I continue to denounce this as a willful attempt to misrepresent our doctrine. But that is not the subject of this post.
The false claims about the history of the doctrine of Dispensationalism came to the attention of a University level professor of seventeenth and eighteenth century English literature a few years ago. Knowing this was completely and totally incorrect, he obtained a grant to take time off from his duties, and devote several years to researching this subject. All of the following quotations are from his book, titled "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by William C. Watson, Silverton, 2015, ISBN # 978-1-942614-03-6,
First, he found very clear statement of the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture, and of a restoration of Israel after that rapture, in a work published 147 years before Darby was born, and 82 years before the birth ofManuel Lacunza, who is falsely claimed to be the ultimate source of Darby's ideas. In this document, we read:
“And now we come to declare what he (the vile Person or Beast) will doe after the Saints are taken up; that is, he and his Army, after a short space, will recover their Spirits again, and being impowred by the devil he takes Jerusalem…And then he will set himself in the Temple of God, and exalt him self above all that is called God, 2Thess.2.4. and Dan.11.36…now persuaded, by the Dragon and the vile Person, to joyn with him, in utterly rooting out this people of the Jews out of that plentifull Country… And now we apprehend will be the time, when all the world will wonder after the Beast, whose deadly wound by a Sword was healed…set up the abomination which makes desolate,,,then would be the time that they [Jews] would have most need to fly [to the wilderness], in regard to the great tribulation that would immediately follow, such as was not from the beginning of the world to that time. …the holy City shall they tread under foot two and fourty months [3½ years]…in the midst of the week [in the middle of seven years] he shall cause the Sacrifice…to cease…and they [Jews] shall be given into his hands until a time, and times, and the dividing of time [3½ years]… So that from the time of the Saints being taken up…to the time that the Beast and the false Prophet will be taken alive and cast into the lake of fire, and the said Devill or Dragon bound up with a chain, will be a short time… So that the longest time of the Prophecies concerning him, for the said time of the Saints being taken up, to his end, will not be four years. A short time in respect of eternity, but a long time in respect of the miseries and plagues that will fall upon the Inhabitants of the Earth.” (“A Brief Survey of the Prophetical and Evangelical Events of the Last Times,” John Browne, London, 1653, 45-47.)
But as to the claim you are now making that Darby is the one who brought to America the idea of of Israel still being the people of God, Watson found all of the following:
Ephraim Huit (also called Hewitt) founded one of the first churches in Connecticut. He insisted that God’s love for the physical descendants was unconditional, saying, “The Lord having chosen the posterity of Abraham to be a particular Inheritance established with them a covenant of holiness, of happinesse, which though they did often violate...yet did their Remainder continue the beloved of the Lord, at least for the fathers sake, and their faithlessnesse made not the faith of God of none effect: still the Lord had them in his thoughts of peace.” (“The Whole Prophecie of Daniel Explained, by a Paraphrase, Analysis, and brief Comment,” by Ephraim Huit, London, 1643, 1.)
Huit taught that the passage in Daniel 7:18 “the Saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom” referred not to Christians, but to Jews in a future earthly kingdom, saying, “God’s Church as a Bride royally attired descends from Heaven...yet the holy Jews well knew, that none but they called of the Lord were these Saints. ...for Saints and Jewes are confounded everywhere in this Prophecie, and Saints never otherwise taken.” (“The Whole Prophecie of Daniel Explained, by a Paraphrase, Analysis, and brief Comment,” by Ephraim Huit, London, 1643, 204-207)
Peter Bulkeley immigrated to New England after being ejected by Archbishop Laud in 1634, founding Concord in 1637, he served as their first pastor until his death in 1659. He said:
“seeke the peace of Jerusalem, the prosperitie of Sion… By virtue of the Covenant made with their fathers, they shall be delivered out of the bondage in which they are now holden… The promise is made here [Ezekiel 37] to Judah and Israel…it is not to be shewed…that the ten Tribes of Israel…were ever restored since their captivie, or united to Judah againe…both Judah and Israel shall be called againe. …In Rom. 11 the whole Chapter, the Apostle purposely speaketh of the rejection of the Jews, but withal shewes that it was neither total nor final… then he comes to speak of their calling again.” (The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened. Wherein are explained; 1. The differences betwixt the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of works. 2. The different administration of the Covenant before and after Christ…,” by Peter Bulkeley, London, 1646, preface, 3-4, 17-18.)
Bulkeley’s Reasons for Rejecting Preterism
1) “The promise is made here to Judah and Israel…it is not to be shewed by any History in Scripture, that the ten Tribes of Israel were ever restored since their Captivitie, or united to Judah againe. …both of them shall be called againe, and united together…to what time is this prophecy to be referred? I suppose to these last times, wherein both Judah and Israel whall be called again:
2) “And it cannot be meant of the time of their returne out of Babylon…there should be a change in worship [but] after they came out of Babylon the ceremoniall worship still lasted: the timeof Reformation is not yet come; therefore this prophecie speaks not of this time
3) “Because in the time of this Prophecies accomplishment, all Nations must be gathered to Jerusalem, to joyne the Church of the Jewes in the worship of God. But all Nations were not gathered to them at their coming out of Babylon.”
4) “there shall be a more full degree of calling home the Jewes, then was in either of the times mentioned before, and they shall come in, in more abundance, Rom 11.12.” (The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened. Wherein are explained; 1. The differences betwixt the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of works. 2. The different administration of the Covenant before and after Christ…,” by Peter Bulkeley, London, 1646, 4-6)
“the promise here in my Text, being made to Judah and Israel both, therefore this prophecy
belongs to the times yet to come, when both of them shall be turned to the Lord. … So in Zech.
12.10.They shall looke upon him whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for him. This
prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, because this mourning for him was never seene in that Nation to
this day. … There is remaining in that people, a strange affection unto their own Land, many
aged persons…take wearisome journeys…that they may dye at Jerusalem. … In Rom 11. The
whole Chapter, the Apostle purposely speaketh of the rejection of the Jewes, but withal shews
that it was neither total nor final…then he comes to speake of their calling againe.” (The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened. Wherein are explained; 1. The differences betwixt the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of works. 2. The different administration of the Covenant before and after Christ…,” by Peter Bulkeley, London, 1646, 8, 15-18.)
Bulkeley then made it clear that the Abrahamic Covenant to the Jews is eternal and unconditional, saying, “…his people, they may be assured, that the virtue, the blessing, and efficacy of the Covenant hall never be disannulled, but it shall goe on to you and your children forever; by your Covenant, you have such hold of God, that you may be assured, he will be a God, not to you onely, but to a thousand generations after you: not that there may be an interruption for a time, but the strength of the Covenant will take hold againe, so as there shall not faile…the Covenant will bring them in againe…” (The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened. Wherein are explained; 1. The differences betwixt the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of works. 2. The different administration of the Covenant before and after Christ…,” by Peter Bulkeley, London, 1646, 21-22.)
Remember that 1643, when Huit published his book, was 157 years before Darby was born and 88 years before Lacunza was born, and Burkeley published his only three years later, that is 154 years before Darby was born and 85 years before Lacunnza was born. But both of these books were actually written in America, by Christian leaders in American churches.
So Darby neither originated the doctrine nor introduced it to America. Thus the entire foundation of your system of accusation about the origins of this doctrine, is fatally flawed.
And incidentally, Thomas Ice has now realized his earlier errors on this subject, and has published Watson's papers about all of this, and much more, on his website.
