Founders of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

A disastrous tribulation is coming; the Bible says so in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6. It may be in the distant future—or it may be soon.  So we need to prepare.  The first thing in preparation is to set our minds on what will happen when.  There is, after all, a Second Coming of Jesus spoken in the verses above. Those verses also say that Christians will suffer under persecution in the tribulation. That Jesus comes for us afterwards. But people have a different theory:  Could Christians be raptured before those events (pre-tribulation rapture theory), or do they indeed have to suffer through it, and only get raptured at the end of it (post-tribulation rapture theory).  The two opposite theories are under hot debate, because of the importance of that issue on our lives, if we’re living in the last horrible days.  I have a way of analyzing one of the theories that you will find intriguing.

The pre-tribulation rapture theory of the end times requires a “two stage” Second Coming by the Lord; the first, in secret, to rapture Christians for heaven before the tribulation; then, 7 years later, the second “stage” would basically be His coming in Judgment on nations. So the “pre-trib” rapture position holds that Jesus raptures Christians before the tribulation, saving us a lot of suffering.  Looks to me that the Second Coming should be expanded to be the Second and Third Advent.  Anyway, that's their theory.

However, the early church fathers (we’re talking from 50 AD, so we’re not talking Catholics),many of them scholars and intense Scripture readers, believed His Second Coming would be one event, at the end of tribulation. So it is called a post-tribulation rapture. Christians would, under that theory, have to suffer through the tribulation.  Then Christ would come to save Christians from a separate disaster, God’s wrath poured out (that’s called the Day of the Lord). At the one-event Second Coming, then the Millennium, so goes the theory, all would be brought before the judgment seat, and Christ would separate sheep from goats, saved from unsaved.  So the two theories, “pre” and “post,” are opposite with respect to timing the rapture around the tribulation--and whether Christians suffer or not. Which theory has been the one followed through all the years since Christ was resurrected? The post-tribulation view.  It was the most widely taught for almost 1800 years.  (In fairness, there are large Christian groups that have taught that there are no future rapture events laid out in the Book of Revelation—maintaining that those Scriptures are just “spiritualizing.”)  But since the “pre-trib” theory says Christians are raptured before the tribulation, and will not suffer, it is a much more pleasant and popular conclusion. So it rules America’s Protestant belief system today.  But the only real question, folks, is, “which theory does Scripture say—or are the Scriptures clear on this at all?”  Scripture warns us repeatedly not to be deceived on this important subject, that Bible truths can be found in Revelation, and to dismiss the words of a false prophet who would tell you otherwise. Look at Jesus’ warnings to Christians about deception in the last days.  In Matthew 24:4:

Take heed that no one deceives you, for many will come in My name…

Next, I believe it is possible to ascertain the important chronology of events about rapture in Revelation, since in Rev. 1:3 it says:

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it…

How is it possible to “keep those things written in it” if the meaning is totally unclear and can’t be determined? Why would God urge us to read Revelation and promises a blessing if we do, if in fact it is incomprehensible?  I believe God has His truth in there, willing to be found. We just have to keep our emotions out of it—like making the mistake of choosing a theology that promises we won’t suffer in those days.  Truth is, though, Jesus promises that His people have to suffer.  See John 16:33:

…in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation (better translation is “affliction.”) But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

Finally, look at Matthew 7:15-16 about ignoring false prophets:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. 

Talking about fruits, they are in Galatians 5:22-23:

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control

Here’s what I would like to do: one way to find out which tribulation theory is correct, let’s see if a founder of that theory is a false prophet.  The way to do that, as the verse above indicates, it is necessary to look at their fruits—i.e, the outward manifestation of whether this kind of person was of godly behavior.   If a man’s life doesn’t bear fruit, that demeans the credibility for his tribulation theory. Therefore, to find truth, there is nothing wrong with looking up a serious biography of a theory’s founder.  God would not put His truth into the mind of a godless, worldly man.  So, this week and next week,  let’s “check the fruit” of the “pre-trib” theory’s founders.  Let’s see if the theory’s founders are godly men.  Those founders are John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield.  This week we check the fruit of Mr. Darby; next week, Mr. Scofield.  I dug into the past, as the acknowledgements below indicate.

As far as calling him a “founder,” John Darby was the first to broadcast the “pre-trib” theory, around 1833, and he spoke positively of it through the rest of his life, almost 50 years.  His theory is really claiming a lot: he is really saying that the church, despite many Scriptures and many scholars on this important subject, was in the dark for 1800 years.  And Mr. Darby gave us the light.  Seems presumptuous, especially since he never took a theology class. You can tell I’m not a believer in the theory, and I have several blogs elsewhere that show other theories.

Mr. Darby lived from 1800-1882.  Despite being bright and an outstanding orator, many of his religious ideas were originated from someone else. He was outwardly holy, even as a young man in his 20s; he met with other Christians frequently to discuss principles and ideas and for prayer.  Fate turned in his direction when, in a prayer meeting, he met Edward Irving. Irving has been called “the father of modern pentecostalism.” He led or was involved with many charismatic revivals that were breaking out in England, Scotland, and Ireland—and these included tongues and prophesying.  He was kicked out of his Presbyterian bishopric, so He ended up founding a group, and called it the Catholic Apostolic Church. His strong arm of leadership caused it to also be called the “Irvingite” church.  (Darby repeated his approach a few years later).  Most of Irving’s small groups would try to get “in the Spirit” and worship and prophesy.  People would rush and travel the country when they would hear that “the Lord is speaking” somewhere, or people are laying forth new prophecy.  The End of Times was a big subject.  As it turned out, in one group there were many followers of Mary MacDonald, a 15-year old waif who was often sick (she died in her mid-30s). She spent much of her life seemingly in an altered state of consciousness, speaking, sometimes in tongues, sometimes loudly, about visions that she saw, or about what the future holds. In a fateful March 30, 1830 session, a writer who kept a journal about everything she said, wrote about one of her visions, and said this in summary:  “here we first see the distinction between that final stage of the Lord’s coming, when every eye shall see him, and His prior appearing in glory to them that look for Him.”  Thus the two-stage second advent was born.  Placing the first stage, the “prior appearing,” before the tribulation was a brilliant choice, as it was popular. So then was formed the pre-tribulation theory—from the mouth of a 15-year old charismatic.  So, was this based on Scripture?  Nowhere does it suggest that. It was created from her vision.

Mr. Darby was also at that session, and didn’t take to the theory at first, but grew to like it, and was busy by 1833 spreading the idea around in his speeches, which grew to many.  Britain liked it.  He also visited America at least five times, and got the friendship of Dwight L. Moody. Mr. C.I. Scofield later took the ball on this one (next week).  

Darby was also the leader of several prayer groups, and named them the “Brethren,” or “Plymouth Brethren.”  But while he got a lot of followers, he had trouble within his group.  It seems that he was a bit of a tyrant, wanting the group to accept his doctrines, and not consider anything else.  For many, the problem was the “pre-trib” doctrine, which had a lot of holes when he would try to explain.  But they could also see that Darby chafed under authority or accountability.  One of his 24-page papers has the title of Episcopacy (this means church structure and leadership): What Ground is there in Scripture or History for Calling it an Institution of God?  He obviously concludes there weren’t any, despite Scripture which confirmed otherwise (I Timothy 3 and elsewhere). Here’s a quote of his from Wikipedia: the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit. But this is an effort to throw out Scripture.  This is heretical. In this, as in many others, he is disagreeing with the Bible.  Who is correct?  The inspired Word of God, of course.  Mr. Darby often thought himself above the Bible’s commandments, as we shall see.

He didn’t accept the concept that teachings of church leaders are binding on those in fellowship (unfortunately, that would take church discipline, commanded in Matthew 18, and throw it out the window.)  Finally, here is a rebuke from a letter he got from his friend, Anthony Norris: “they (ie, some people in the groups) felt that though only a brother in a Father’s house, you exercised more than a Father’s power, without a Father’s heart of mercy.” Thus, he seemed to lack the compassion that we would expect from a godly leader.  Jesus taught leaders to be servants at heart (Luke 22:25-26). Darby wasn’t.  He liked to rule over men.

He also had some issues with the humanity of Christ. He taught that when Christ became incarnate, He fully assumed sinful human nature so that His sinless life depended on the power of the Holy Spirit.  This was considered heretical, since orthodoxy taught that Christ had an innately sinless human nature (PS: He got his idea from Irving). He also got in trouble, in that doctrine, from a tract he wrote called “Remarks on a tract, circulated by the Irvingites.” In it Darby is quoted as saying: “if they taught that God was not manifest in the flesh at all, a Christian ought' not to look to the scriptures to see if it was right, and that if he did, he would get no good out of it.” I totally disagree; one can get a lot of good out of reading the Bible on this.  Scripture clearly teaches Christ was in the flesh, even after the resurrection.  Finally, here are his words from a paper he wrote on the topic of Jesus’ humanity:  “Jesus is the Son of Man, Adam was not. But at the same time, Jesus was born by divine power, so that that Holy Thing which was born of Mary was called the Son of God; which is not true of any other. He is Christ, Son of Man, but as Man even born of God.”  Some of the words are spooky and vague in meaning, and could be misinterpreted: “born by divine power” and “as Man even born of God.”  It would be helpful if he asserted in the paper that Jesus was God, part of the Trinity, and His life was Eternal. 

He taught an ultra-dispensationalism.  This was about God’s covenants with different groups of Jews over different periods of time. There were problems with his taking it to extremes—namely, his doctrine had no Scriptural basis, it just came out of his head; and it forced him, when backed into a corner, to chase things into many odd rabbit-holes.  For instance, he believed the Book of James does not belong in the New Testament. Here’s his original Introduction to the Book (not in later editions):  “The Epistle of James is not addressed to the “assembly” (or churches), and does not take the ground of apostolic authority over the persons to whom it is sent. It is a practical exhortation which still recognizes the twelve tribes and the connection of the christian Jews with them.”  He first makes the outlandish statement that James is not addressed to the church. Then he outlandishes that by saying the Book does not have “apostolic authority.”  That’s saying it’s not inspired.  Such a statement is heretical, and it tries to throw out II Timothy 3:16:

ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 

Darby has this thing about separating Jews from Gentiles when it’s convenient.  His notes from his book include the following for Matthew 5‑7, the Sermon on the Mount:  “The multitudes (ed. Note, including Gentiles) were present, but the discourse (i.e, the Sermon on the Mount) was addressed to His disciples (who were only Jewish).”  I’ve always felt that all the Word was for everyone. All of us get a benefit from every word.  Jesus’ New Testament (or New Covenant) was for all who wanted to follow Him.  There is One Gospel, One faith.    

His comment says, basically, that most of Matthew is critical reading for everyone, but we Gentiles should just skip the Sermon on the Mount, they only apply to Jews.  He does the same thing in Matthew 24-25, about the end times, claiming that those particular verses only apply to Jews.  But there is no Scripture that backs that kind of division. He created it out of speculation.

Getting back to Matthew 5-7, here is another note he made: “… moral principles and precepts, not redemption, are the subject of the discourse.” But, I argue, what about Matthew 5:22?  It emphasizes that hate is like murder, and says “whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” And what about 5:29?  It emphasizes that we need to control our sin (if we don’t, we love sin more than God, and that’s idolatry).  The verse, a hyperbole (exaggeration to prove a point) says: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and. not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. In the same vein, see 6:14-15 and 6:19-21.  The point is, to dismiss the Sermon on the Mount as not having redemptive power is a serious mistake.  If we get saved, and repent, we must live a holy life.  But to “get saved” and live like the world, we lose redemptive power.  By that I mean we can lose salvation, or it would show that we never had it to begin with.  These verses are telling us what a holy life consists of, with an eye to keeping us holy. They emphasize that thought should be holy as well as action.  They therefore have redemption as their goal. Darby cannot dismiss these verses’ impact on what they say about our eternal destination.
Mr. Darby got so high-minded that he said, and wrote, that all the Christian churches of his day were apostate (ie, fell away from the truth).  This is from his written papers:  "The actings of Satan...in corrupting the church, must be familiar to anyone acquainted with the word of God."  Mr. Darby must school us with the Truth--as he sees it.

Well, all this was too much for scholars like George Muller (a godly man who later built orphanages and Christian schooling for over 100,000 children), who refused to accept many of his ideas or his questionable Scriptural backing.  Muller, who originally was a follower, split and formed a separate group, called the “Open Brethren.”  Darby was miffed at that, since he was losing complete control, and he was angered enough to not allow ANY of his groups (now called the Exclusive Brethren) to take communion with ANYone from the Open groups. But these are saved men!  These are your Brethren!  This punitiveness became an ongoing trait of his: for instance, he also made a rule where if one of their branches had excluded a person from Christian fellowship, that person remained excluded from all other branches, who must then treat the excluded person as a leper (a violation of Matthew 18). He also took the liberty of attacking his “enemies” in public.  It should have been dealt with in private, as Matthew 18 commands.  These behaviors of divisiveness and punishment are totally anti-Spiritual.  Christ counseled us in His last prayer to be one, not divided by argumentation (John 17:21). Granted, with the denominations, we’re not in unity, but he carries divisiveness to new lengths. Paul definitely calls Darby “controlled by his sinful nature” when he says in 1 Corinthians 3:3: 

You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world? 

In fact, he took his exclusivism so far as to also ban any member of a group called the Bethesda Brethren as well, since they harbored a man named Newton, who, he felt, tried to take over his group while he was gone.  All this was way past petty--it was plain mean-spirited, and grudging as well, not something a Christian person would do. Darby’s childish tyranny of always wanting HIS ecclesiology and HIS eschatology was coming forth too loud and strong.  Paul in the book of Romans urges us to avoid people like Darby:

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. ¹⁸ For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ

Jude tells us in verse 19 that people like Darby are people of the world, “devoid of the Spirit.”  Note that that means Darby might not be saved:

It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

While he was leader of his groups, many other splits occurred.  The whole Plymouth Brethren’s growth was stunted by these rules. The Gospel didn’t go out like it should have. Even after his death, some of the Exclusive groups of Plymouth Brethren divided more, and some groups delved into even more strange behaviors, and were even considered cults.  They had many people deriding their doctrines as heretical.  One of the best Christian orators and scholars of that day, Charles H. Spurgeon, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, actually was so concerned that he published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism.  And again in Darby’s weakness of Christology, he accused them that they “rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness.” Spurgeon viewed these heresies of such importance and so central to the Gospel that it led him to publish a statement about the rest of their belief in his magazine, the Sword and Trowel.  This kind of direct criticism was seldom seen in that day.

There can be no final word about Mr. Darby better than a prophetic word to him spoken by a German group that he conferenced with.  It was written rather early in 1836, but spot on:

your union (is) daily becoming one of doctrine and opinion more than life and love, your government will become – unseen, perhaps, and unexpressed, yet – one wherein, overwhelmingly, is felt the authority of men; you will be known more by what you witness against than what you witness for…

Acknowledgements:  Wikipedia, Stem Publishing, Bible Truth Publishers, Plymouth Brethren Archives, and a book:  The Incredible Cover-Up, by Dave MacPherson.  Thank God for the internet