1
Collected
Writings of J.N.
Darby
Prophetic 3
By John Nelson Darby
B&P
Bibles & Publications
5706 Monkland, Montréal, Québec H4A 1E6
BTP #nnnn
BibleTruthPublishers.com
59 Industrial Road, Addison, IL 60101, U.S.A.
BTP# 15233
3
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
4
Contents
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse” .........5
And an Enquiry How Far ey Accord With Scripture ...............5
Preface ..........................................................................................5
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for
Communion in Ebrington Street” ......................446
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for
Communion in Ebrington Street” ......................477
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel” ....
526
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
5
62447
An Examination of “oughts
on the Apocalypse”
And an Enquiry How Far ey Accord
With Scripture
Preface
A book which professes to examine another is
suciently denite in its object not to need much preface. I
shall add, therefore, but few words. My judgment distinctly
is, that the whole system maintained in the “ oughts “
is untenable and worthless as a system. I do not expect
to persuade everybody of this, nor that everybody will be
suciently willing to be persuaded to read the examination.
But such is the testimony I feel bound to give about it.
e reader will be surprised to learn that since the year
1833 or 1834 I have been inclined to believe in the renewed
existence of Babylon. Nay, I believe, though this is of very
little importance, that I was the rst person who thought
so. e result, however, of the examination to which I have
been led by my present occupation, has left me much more
doubtful of it than before. But however this may be, I judge
the use made of it here to be wholly without foundation,
and most mischievous-the more mischievous because of
the plausibility of some points at rst sight. e reader,
with the Spirit’s help, will judge when he has read. at
which I think evil in the book, and of which I am the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
6
more convinced by all the discussion there has been, is the
setting aside the proper standing, position, and blessing of
the church of God. Of this, after the fullest examination, I
have not the least doubt. It is possible the author of the “
oughts “ may be quite unconscious of it; but the saints of
God are to be thought of in such a case; and therefore the
teaching fully judged.
As to the mass of statements, and that of the most
extraordinary kind, with which the “ oughts “ abound,
without any scripture to warrant them, the “ Examination
“ itself must satisfy the reader.
I will add here in a few words, because it will assist
in judging the whole system, that, on a comparison with
Matt. 13, the author’s system subverts itself. ere the
wheat is taken up in the end of the then existing age-”
this age.” According to Mr. Newton’s system, the moment
Christ rises up from the Father’s throne the new age begins
and this dispensation ends. It is therefore clear that the
wheat is caught up before Christ rises from the throne at
all to receive them. But this no one can believe. e whole
system therefore is a fallacy. It is in vain to say that it closes
in heaven and not on earth. First, it is giving up the whole
principle of its closure by the act of Christ’s rising up from
the throne. Secondly, the whole principle of government
in heaven and earth is changed at once on the author’s
system. Till Christ rises up, God is acting for Him; when
He is risen up, He acts in His own immediate government.
So that in heaven and earth at once, in an instant, the age
and the nature of the government is changed. But, further,
the distinction is wholly inapplicable here; because the
rst result is on earth, or in hades (the wheat being in one
or other, though it be taken up to heaven). So that the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
7
distinction of its ending in heaven, not on earth, is a mere
attempt to get out of the palpable confusion. e rst act
that takes place on Christ’s rising is on earth:-the wheat is
changed and caught up. e system is confusion-that is the
truth. But a very important point is brought into relief by
the discussion of this subject:-the rapture of the church is
in this age. e new age will not begin till after this is done.
is Matt. 13 positively teaches.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
In reprinting this “ Examination,” I have been comforted
at the thought of the earnest opposition made to the views
contained in the “ oughts on the Apocalypse.” After
more than twenty years, when of course one can judge more
coolly than in the warmth of controversy, my judgment of
the evil of Mr. N.’s book is far more deep than it was then.
And I am surprised that what I believe now to be the truth
was so fully matured in my mind then. In some points my
mind has naturally made progress. I accepted then, with all
students of prophecy, the beast being Antichrist, which now
I rather take the second beast to be. But the former being
the Roman empire in general is justly insisted on. I have
drawn attention to this question in the notes when needed.
Further, it is to me more than doubtful that there are two
half-weeks referred to in the Apocalypse. But this does not
aect the general argument. e question is nothing less
than, What is the Christian’s place? Is it a heavenly one?
And is there, as a distinctive thing, a church of God? In
these days especially no question can be more important
for Christians. I believe Mr. N.’s views to be antagonistic
to all that is vital in this respect.
INTRODUCTION
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
8
I do not as yet make any general remarks as to the
system contained in the book here examined. It is a very
elaborate one, and extends to many points. It is not stated
connectedly in the book itself, though every occasion
is seized to make good all that appears to sustain it, and
undermine all that may have been advanced by any one
elsewhere that might overthrow it. But I have felt that
the best thing to do was, not to give my judgment on the
system, but rst to examine the statements here made,
which are used to support it, and to inquire how far they
are borne out by Scripture consistently with it, or with
each other. Various circumstances, and above all my own
occupations, induce me to do it in parts, of which this rst
will be proportionably by far the longest, on account of
the many important general topics which the introductory
chapters suggested. It will be really an “Examination of the
oughts,” etc., etc. It will be seen that, even when there
are contradictions which I have shown to exist, I have
done no more than state them; I have not reasoned as a
controversialist thereupon; I leave that to the reader. He will
judge the contradiction itself, and its bearing on a system
maintained with so much condemnation of everything
else. I do not expect that partisans of that system will be
content with my statements, or convinced by them: but I
do believe that many unprejudiced brethren will be enabled
to judge a great many of the assertions made, which they
have not the leisure to examine (perhaps not the habit of
examining), as they are examined here. In the long run,
under the Lord’s mercy, the sentiments of such persons
have their weight, and it is such that it is really of value to
convince, and to whom investigation is due. eir minds,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
9
at any rate, arrested by what may be said, will be free to
examine the whole for themselves.
EXAMINATION
“ e Revelation treats mainly of the present
dispensation.”
e subjects involved in this book are quite as serious
as those of which it directly treats: the true meaning of the
heavenly calling; the earthly, or unearthly character of the
church’s position and associations; the true character and
form of evil, against which we have to be on our guard;
but above all, what the portion and calling of the church is.
ese are questions that give importance to its statements,
and demand that their accuracy should be examined, and
their proofs inquired into.
e title of this chapter is of importance. No explanation
is given in the chapter itself of what is meant by the present
dispensation; but from the previous chapter it seems very
evident that it means the church, or, as there expressed,
the church dispensation, or Christianity. (See page 8.)
e statement in page 13, is merely the writer’s view of
what characterizes the dispensation, the justice of which
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
10
is exactly the point in question.
1
is statement will come
before us in its place. For the present I inquire merely
what “ the present dispensation “ means: and, I repeat,
it seems clear from the preceding chapter that it is “ the
church dispensation.” e other expressions employed are,
“ the dispensation to which the New Testament belongs
“-a very ambiguous expression, but one which is meant,
I apprehend, to convey a good deal more to the reader
than he is aware of at the time he adopts it, and to involve
him in most important conclusions before he is aware of
what they are. e third expression is “ the present period.”
ese, taken together, clearly designate the present church
dispensation, of which we form part as Christians. I am
thus particular, because, with the very great pretensions to
accuracy which this book sets up, it behooves us to know
of what we are treating, especially as at bottom much turns
on the question contained in this chapter, which the writer
has thus very naturally put as a sort of frontispiece to the
whole book.
It may be remarked that the writer denes very distinctly
his idea of the limits and character of the two dispensations
1 By means of the vague expression “ the present dispensation,”
and calling it “ the church dispensation,” in the previous chapter,
and giving it the limits and character which are found in page
13, the church, and the kingdom, and the period of government
itself, closed by Christ’s coming to earth, are identied without
any argument, and the reader is involved in the conclusion
before it is stated. Hence the need of unraveling these points.
is is really the whole point in question: whether the scripture
does identify these things. But here they are identied by
expressions adapted to the popular state of thought, and the
mind shut up in the conclusion, before it is aware of what it is.
I believe this identication of the church and the kingdom to
be of the very worst moral eect to the saint.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
11
which he has in his mind;
2
“ that in which Christ is seated
at the right hand of God, secretly exercising the power of
God’s throne “; and, “ that in which He will come forth in
the exercise of the power of His own peculiar kingdom.”
e rst of these two is to him identical with “ the church
dispensation.”
I must beg the reader’s pardon, if I often take notice of
statements which appear to me inaccurate, even when they
are not very important, because in the questions to which
these statements have given rise accuracy of statement and
the maintenance of the integrity of scripture are much
2 We have here, again, an absolute abstract statement which may
be true, or may be false; but which, if once admitted, decides by
the statement itself the whole question, without anyone’s being
aware of it. It supposes that the whole period in question is
divided into two parts- the time during which Christ is seated
at the right hand of God; and the time during which He will
come forth in the exercise of the power of His own peculiar
kingdom. Now, suppose there was an interval between these
two. Supposing I were to speak of the time Napoleon was on
the throne, and the time he was a prisoner at St. Helena, as
all his history from the time he became emperor. All the time
at Elba and all the hundred days would be left out. Now the
statement made by the writer here supposes the whole period
to be exclusively taken up by His being on the Father’s throne
or in the exercise of the power of His own peculiar kingdom.
I repeat, it supposes-it assumes that. Now that is exactly the
point in question which has to be proved. If Christ rises up
from His Father’s throne and comes and receives the church
to Himself, before He enters on the exercise of the power
of His own peculiar kingdom-then this statement is false as
pretending to embrace the whole matter in this division of the
period into these two parts. is is a very common sophism-
to involve the conclusion of the matter in question in the
statement, before any proof is given.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
12
relied on- we shall see, as we proceed, whether on good
ground.
We are told that when the Lord Jesus returned to the
Father, “ Jehovah said unto him, Sit thou at my right hand,
until I shall have set thy foes a footstool for thy feet.” Here
we have the ordinary translation changed, without, as it
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
13
seems to me, any reason;
3
but from the way the verse is
introduced here, and the importance attached to it, with
some object or other, though neither the reasons for
3 I have spoken thus moderately in the text, because it seems to me, that
changing the translation without notice and without reasons given, and then
building a great deal upon it, is itself a very objectionable proceeding. But I
add here, that it seems to me that the translation given is a wrong one. I am
not a good Hebraist-far from it; but, as far as I have been able to examine the
books and statements of those who are, I judge the Hebrew will not bear this.
e English reader should be aware that there is no such tense in Hebrew as
“ shall have.” It is an interpretation which must rest on the word translated “
until,” having the force, as it has sometimes, of “ while.” But this supposes the
verb used to have the force of some continuous action, until the termination
of which the “ while “ lasts. us, “ sit until I shall have prepared “ means “
while I am preparing.” Hence the author has given the sense of “ forming “ and
“ preparing “ to what is done with the footstool. But, I think I may say that
the word translated “ make “ has no such meaning, and has not a continuous
force. It signies the act of setting something actually, or morally, in a certain
position; and if so, the Hebrew would not even bear the sense attributed.
Moreover, I think that when it is so used, it is habitually (I am disposed to
believe, from all the passages I have been able to nd and examine for myself,
always) the perfect, and not the (present or) future that is used; sometimes,
perhaps, the participle. I do not allude to negative phrases. Moreover, no
translation, English or other, with which I am acquainted, so translates, or
supposes such a translation of it-neither Horsley, nor the Lyra Davidis, nor
the new interlinear translation, nor the German, nor French, nor Gesenius;
but on the contrary exclude it. In conclusion, I do not think the Hebrew could
be justly translated so; at all events, I have no doubt it is a wrong translation.
And, as every translation, critical or other, with which most of us are familiar,
translates it as the English, it is surely an unwarrantable thing to impose a new
one, and build up a system on it, without any reason given; and silently convert
“ make “ into “ preparing “ or “ forming,” a sense which the Hebrew word, I
think I may safely venture to say, will not possibly bear. e reader conversant
with such things will nd Gesenius (under the Hebrew word gad, 2.) using
the passage in the sense of present spiritual subjection, as those ignorant of the
millennium do, a long column of reasoning connected with the assertion of
its being the “ term assigned to a period,” and not the “ period during which.”
e truth is, it rests in the nature of the act. “ Have,” “ shall have,” or “ do “
are immaterial if the act be one act which closes the period. “ You shall stay in
prison till you have,’ or shall have,’ paid, or till ‘ you pay,” is all the same thing in
English. On the other hand, “ you shall stay in the house till your wounds are
healed,’ or shall be healed,’ or whilst they are healing,’ “ would be substantially
the same thing; because the “ till “ here is the close of a continuous act, with
whose close the period closes. Now I appeal to any one cognizant of Hebrew
if sheeth has this force.At any rate, giving a changed translation, contrary to
everyone commonly known, and building a vast system upon it, without the
least proof that it is correct, is itself sucient to render the whole suspected.)
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
14
the change, nor the interpretation in view, which give it
importance, are stated.
Still it is pretty clear that one object is to make it
appear that Jehovah is acting meanwhile for Christ, and
it is expressly stated that the fact is so (“ it speaks of the
power of the throne as acting in His behalf “). And when
this is coupled with the fact, admitted on all hands, that
Revelation up to chapter 19, does represent God acting for
Christ before His appearing; and that Psalm ‘To is stated to
be characteristic of this dispensation, and the Revelation is
declared to treat mainly of this dispensation-I say, putting all
these statements together, it is clear that the changed version
is given with a view of presenting God in it as so acting for
Christ during this dispensation, and characteristically of
it. But then, so important an interpretation of the psalm
ought to have been plainly stated and proved. at is, that
what verse i of that psalm means is, that God was acting for
Christ, in setting His foes to be His footstool during this
dispensation, and that such acting was characteristic of this
dispensation. is is what the statements amount to: for it
is stated that this verse speaks of the power of the throne
acting on Christ’s behalf, and that it is characteristic of this
dispensation. Now the only acting in the verse is setting
foes for a footstool. Hence, the setting of foes for Christ’s
footstool by God the Father is what characterizes all this
dispensation; Psa. 110 is the acting of God all through to
this eect, not His sovereign word and power putting them
at a given time under Christ’s feet for Him to subdue; and
the Revelation treats mainly of this dispensation, because
it speaks of God’s so acting.
But I apprehend, if it had been fairly and plainly stated
that this verse describes God’s actually putting down the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
15
foes of Christ all through this dispensation, the church
dispensation, such an interpretation would at once have
been rejected by every intelligent Christian, who knows
well that the foes of Christ only rise up more and more to
a head of rebellion until God gives them up, when patience
can no longer have any hope, to be trampled upon by
Christ.
And this becomes the more important because,
according to the author, instead of seeing Christ the royal
man, exalted and hid there until a certain period, it is Christ
Himself, as God, that thus exercises power-” the power of
the throne of God which He exercises.”
And it is stated (page 15) that the book of Revelation
“ especially refers to the period during which Christ is
hidden with God “: and these things are spoken of as His
present relation to, and as we have seen, exercise of power
upon the nations, hidden in the throne. And yet we are
told with strange inconsistency that, while (page 37) “ our
dispensation is still, as it then was, under the throne as it
was then seen by John,” yet (page 37) “ the sixth chapter and
all that follows [that is, all that is stated of God’s actings in
it] are altogether future, even at this present hour.”
So that while we are introduced to the Revelation as
treating mainly of the present dispensation, of a period
during which Christ is sitting in God’s throne according
to Psalm 110, His present relation to the nations, not
one word of the actings which are spoken of have taken
place during the eighteen hundred years of the present
dispensation. e Revelation treats of no part of the
present dispensation which is yet fullled, though the
things spoken of be distinctively characteristic of it; and
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
16
that which thus distinctively characterizes it is altogether
future.
But after all, the truth is, the psalm does not speak of
God’s actings during this period, but of Christ’s position,
until God does set His foes to be His footstool; and this,
though in very strange language-language which just
betrays the intellectual road traveled-is admitted by Mr.
N. himself.
Pages 12, 13: “ e footstool has not yet been formed
“consequently not set under Christ’s feet, which is the,
only acting of the throne spoken of in the psalm; and the
Revelation “ treats of events which precede the mission of
Christ, and the setting of the footstool.” “ It leads on “ to that:
that “ forms the conclusion, not the subject, of the book.”
How then, since this is the only act of God spoken of in
Psalm 110, can Psalm 110 be so distinctly characteristic
of the dispensation of which the Revelation mainly treats?
ere is no characteristic of the present period so especially
distinctive as this acting of Jehovah’s throne spoken of in
Psalm 110, and yet the Revelation, which treats of the
present dispensation, of the present period, treats of events
which precede this acting, which is not the subject of the
book! For this setting of the footstool is the only acting of
the throne spoken of in Psalm 110. e simple fact is, it
was settled that the Revelation should apply to the present
dispensation. It was settled that any statements declaring
its applying to the government of the earth merely should
not aect its application to “ the church dispensation “;
and therefore Psalm 110 is treated as God’s acting’s on
the throne while Christ was sitting there, and thus the
Revelation and the psalm are brought in together, and the
contradictions which aect the whole substance of the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
17
statements are left to be found out by those that have the
patience to investigate the soundness of what is stated.
ere is another and yet more important object in this
translation which is not avowed neither. Christ’s sitting
till God shall have made His foes His footstool involves
the church’s remaining here till Antichrist be set to be the
footstool of Christ’s feet. If Christ’s foes are to be made the
footstool of Christ before He leaves the throne, and that
He leaves God’s throne before He receives up the church,
it is clear that the church is not received up till His foes are
made His footstool, and this by God’s actings-of course,
eectual actings. is goes too far, indeed, for it would
suppose Antichrist, for example, made by the actings of
God’s power the footstool of Christ before His rising up
from the throne to receive the church.
is may go to prove the unsoundness of the whole
system. But I only ask, Is it legitimate, in reasoning on
Scripture, to give a translation which silently involves the
whole principle which is attempted to be taught, without
giving the least proof that the new translation is correct?
I do not agree with the sense given to “ setting.” e
contradictions in which it involves the writer have been
shown; but I take it on his own ground now.
e verse states no actings of God’s power for Christ
at all, much less Christ’s own actings as God. He is called
to sit on Jehovah’s right hand till Jehovah set His enemies
for His footstool. It is not secret providential actings which
form the subject of the psalm, but ruling in the midst of
His enemies, when Jehovah has placed them under His
feet. It is receiving the rejected One there, and not acting
while He is there, but telling Him to sit there till a given
epoch when His enemies shall be put under Him, and He
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
18
will act upon them. And this is so much the case, that,
when the apostle comments on it, he states, not that God
is acting, much less that Christ is acting as God, but that
He is expecting till something be done (to wit, His enemies
be made His footstool).
And indeed setting as a footstool supposes the placing
them simply in a certain position under Him, and that
He should exercise power over them-not the prolonged
actings of power in His behalf, for Him during a whole
dispensation. During that time we have seen He was to sit
till this particular act was done. And see the extraordinary
statements into which the system of the writer throws him
on this point.
“ e footstool has not yet been formed.”
4
… “ But
everything is tending thereunto. e preparation of the
footstool is the end to which all the superintending power
of the throne of God is directed.” It is true, it may be said,
that God hath made all things for Himself-the wicked
for the day of evil. But is all the superintending power of
God’s throne directed to the preparing of the wicked to
be the footstool of Christ, to forming and preparing these
enemies for His power to trample on? Is this the meaning of
setting them for a footstool? at it is a regular preparation
of this kind, which is meant in these statements, is clear;
for it is said “ as soon as it is prepared, Christ will quit
the throne of the majesty in the heavens, and will return
in glory.” So that it is not the fact of placing them under
His feet, to be judged as an act of authority, but of positive
previous preparation of them for this position, in order that
He may rise up, and come and take it. is verse is always
4 ere is not a word about forming or preparing in Hebrew nor
in Greek.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
19
interpreted in Scripture, not as the divine power in Jesus,
but as His exaltation by God.
“ erefore,” says Peter, commenting on this verse, “
let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucied, both Lord
and Christ.” And Christ puts it Himself as the puzzling
question to the Jews who rejected Him, that David’s Son
was David’s Lord, whom Jehovah called to sit on His
throne. So, in Heb. 1:13, it is said, “ unto which of the
angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I
make thine enemies thy footstool? “ And, as He is here
addressed as one whom another was setting in a glorious
place, so, in Heb. 10:13, He is presented as expecting till
another does a certain act. He is made Lord and Christ,
and He is expecting till the next thing is done (to wit, His
enemies made His footstool). We may know, and we do,
blessed be God, what qualies that blessed One for such a
place, where none but He could sit. Still it is not this that
is spoken of in the passage: and it is as important to see the
title to exaltation which He has acquired down here, as the
nature which could alone capacitate Him for acquiring the
title, or holding the place itself.
It presents Messiah exalted to the right hand of the
majesty in the heavens, when He had accomplished
redemption and the purging of sins, until Jehovah should
give His enemies into His hand to be trampled upon.
It is an interval during which Messiah is quiescent and
expecting, not an acting of power.
And indeed God’s actings in the Revelation are either
the patience of chastisement, if so be the wicked should
not have to be given up, or an execution of judgment which
left no foe to be trampled upon, as Babylon. It has no
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
20
connection with the Psalm, save the fact that it is only at
the end that Christ tramples on His earthly enemies. But
there are other most serious objections to the statements
of this chapter.
is verse is quoted so often, “ because so distinctively
characteristic of the dispensation to which the New
Testament belongs.” I have two remarks to make on this.
First, what is the meaning of the “ New Testament belongs
“? If merely that it has been given to this dispensation, to
the church, that is clear. ey had it not before. But, if it
be meant to involve (silently, yet again), that all in the New
Testament applies to this dispensation, then it is positively
false. Witness the title of the chapter we are writing on. “
e Revelation treats mainly of the present dispensation.”
e New Testament does not then (save as given to the
saints, and all things are theirs) belong entirely to this
dispensation. “ Mainly,” no doubt, it does.” e writer may
put his limits, others theirs; but he cannot assert it qualiedly
in the title to the chapter, and unqualiedly in the body of
it, and expect the assertion to be received of any reasonable
man. I should put another most decided limitation to it.
Christ died for the nation, as well as to gather the church.
is, being God’s counsel, followed up by Christ’s act, I
apprehend is (might not I say, must be?) the subject of the
Spirit’s testimony. is testimony does not belong properly
to the church dispensation, even when synchronic in its
presentation. Besides, there is the testimony which preceded
in the midst of the nation, which is given historically. ese
limitations cannot be denied, for I naturally leave out the
disputed ground of certain prophetic parts as being in
question. But it is not legitimate to state ambiguously that
the New Testament belongs to this dispensation, in order
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
21
to prove that these disputed parts do, where it is necessarily
admitted that very important parts do not. And while no
one denies that the great body of it applies to us (belongs, if
you please, to us), we cannot forget that two very important
subjects indeed are treated, and others mentioned, which
do not belong to our dispensation-to wit, the testimony to
the Jews, and the millennium which comes after it, besides
the judgment of the dead, and the post-millennial state. It
should be remembered that we may be given to know many
things which do not belong to the dispensation to which
we belong. is is silently confounded here. Compare
Abraham and Lot, and Eph. 1:9.
But my second remark is yet more important. is verse
of Psalm 110 characterizes distinctively the dispensation.
“ ere is no characteristic of the present period so
essentially distinctive as this.” Is then the throne, acting
on the wicked to prepare them for Christ’s judgment,
the essentially distinctive characteristic of the “ church
dispensation “? It is this statement that is at the root of the
questions raised on this subject. All that is most blessed to
the church-her relationship to the Father, the Holy Ghost
sent down from heaven so that she should be the tabernacle
of God through the Spirit, her union with Christ actually
exalted as her Head-none of these things enter even into
the eld of view when what characterizes the dispensation
is spoken of by the writer. What essentially characterizes it
has nothing to do with the church, with the Holy Ghost,
with the Father, with union or joy of communion, no, not
even with Christ, save so far as governing the earth on the
throne as God, or Jehovah’s acting for Him on it. Would
this be believed, if another had stated of the writer or his
book, that not one spiritual thought or privilege, not the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
22
presence of the Comforter, nor anything that regards the
church, is distinctively characteristic of the present church
dispensation? But I may be told that this is said “ in contrast
with the period when Christ will assume the exercise of the
authority of His own kingdom.” It is stated absolutely that
no characteristic is so essentially distinctive. But, admitting
what is replied, it is this that is so strong, that nothing but
a dierence of governmental order is essentially distinctive
of the present period.
We have seen that it is not Jehovah’s throne acting
for Christ, but Christ sitting on it till He does. Were it
otherwise, surely a dierence in the manner of governing
the world is not what distinguishes to a saint this
dispensation. is is so clearly the writer’s mind, that it
is only as a consequence which we might naturally expect
that, during this period, Christ’s relation to the church,
as a kingdom He immediately governs, is brought in;
and after all, only in relation to the churches, not to the
church. A very serious consequence is connected with this,
that Christianity, or the church dispensation, is treated as
an age, and the new age as beginning when it ends. “ As
soon as this verse ceases to apply, i.e., whenever the Lord
Jesus quits His present place on the throne of God, our
dispensation ends, and the new age begins.” (Page 11.)
Moreover, this is only assuming again quietly the whole
point in question. First, a new translation is given without
proof; then, an interpretation quite contrary to the plain
statement of the verse; and then, every spiritual privilege
being entirely and totally forgotten, our dispensation is
declared to end when that ends, of which the verse does
not speak at all, namely, Jehovah acting for Christ on His
throne.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
23
e other part of the statement is an assertion, without
any attempt at proof; namely, when Christ quits God’s
throne, the new age begins. An assertion moreover which
is clearly not true, because the new age cannot begin while
Antichrist is here in power-in a word, until he is judged.
Now, however short the interval may be, this shows that
it is not Christ’s quitting God’s throne which begins the
new age. e end of the age is not an instant; it applies
moreover to the world here below. And, further, the saints of
Christendom are gathered up in the harvest, at the end of the
age, by the Son of man’s sending forth His angels. So thus
our dispensation is ended before ever the new age begins,
or that He has quitted the throne; or He has quitted it, and
the harvest goes on, which harvest is the end of that age,
which consequently has not closed by His quitting it. e
length of the interval is not here the question: but the fact
of His quitting the throne does not close the age, called our
dispensation, and begin the new age (unless the saints are
up
5
before He quits it), because the harvest which gathers
them is the end of the (former) age. But, besides, the truth
5 is is clearly not the case, because He comes to receive them.
e putting of the two statements of scripture together, indeed
(namely, that Christ comes to receive His saints; and, that the
harvest in which the wheat is gathered in is at the end of the
age), demonstrates that Christ’s leaving the Father’s throne
and receiving the saints precedes the close of the age. It is not
nished when He comes to receive the church. e only other
way of taking this is, to say that the harvest applies to earthly
saints, and not to the church. But that would only make the
case stronger still, namely, that even the earthly judgments are
before the end of the age, and would put the receiving of the
saints as quite a separate thing, clean out of the question of the
age. In any case the system of the author is demonstrated to be
altogether untrue.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
24
is that Christianity is not properly an age at all. “ is age “
belongs to this world, not to the church. e Lord and the
disciples were in the age-” this age “-when on earth, before
even Christ was on the throne at all. And there is a clear
earthly period running on, which it is admitted is not yet
accomplished, and in which a gap takes place, to let in the
event spoken of in this psalm-that is, the seventy weeks of
Daniel. It is admitted that, at any rate, half a week is yet
unfullled, which must close before the new age comes in.
e present age subsisted, in a word, before the state of
things spoken of in this psalm, and, moreover, must subsist
after the rapture of the church: because, rst, the harvest in
which they are taken up belongs to the old age; and secondly,
the new age cannot begin until after the destruction of
Antichrist, since, to give no other reason, Daniel’s weeks
(which clearly do not belong to the new age) are not closed
till he be destroyed. So that neither Christianity, nor the
church dispensation, nor Psalm 11o, gives any date for the
beginning or ending of the age at all. e age, or this age,
very clearly relates, in the passages which thus speak of
it, to an earthly state of things closed, and another begun.
Christianity may nd its epoch in the prolonging of the
age; but it is not by it that it is begun, nor ended, as a
precise date of time: so that “ our dispensation ends and
the new age begins “ is in the face of it a confusion of terms
and things too; for it assumes that our dispensation is the
old age, which it clearly is not. Nor can this be escaped
from by alleging that spiritually the disciples, who spoke of
the age, belonged to this dispensation; because the psalm
we are treating of species the actual sitting of Christ at
God’s right hand.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
25
It may be asked, How do you take then Psalm 110? Does
not, even in the old translation, the psalm suppose that
Christ rests on the throne, and consequently the church
down here till the enemies are prepared for the trampling
of Christ? I answer, No. e question supposes that God is
acting through the course of the period: but the psalm has
no such sense. Were it indeed so, God would have subdued
all Christ’s foes before Christ Himself took the kingdom.
He would have none left to subdue or trample upon. But
Jehovah does nothing in the psalm at all. He places the
enemies of Christ under His feet-gives them up to Him
to trample on. ereon Christ begins to act in power; but
what the process is, or how soon He gets to earth to begin
a new age in the judgments (or rather after the judgments
at Jerusalem), this psalm says nothing of.
Indeed the psalm seems to go to prove that the new
age does not begin till after Christ has quitted the Father’s
throne. e Lord is to send the rod of His power out of
Zion. He is to rule among His enemies, so that all things
that oend are not cleared out of His kingdom. But that is
the end of the former age. He has not the rod of His power
in Zion while Antichrist is there, and therefore it is not yet
the new age. e truth is, all this is transitional, whether
in the heavens or in the earth, just as was Christ’s life on
earth. It was not the law, yet the law subsisted, and He was
under it. It was not the gospel, as we have it; for His death
could not be preached. It was a transitional period from
John Baptist till the nal rejection of Christ by the Jews.
So will this be. We can speak of Christ’s leaving the throne,
then rst gathering together the tares; then, the wheat; and
after all this, on the writer’s own statement, Antichrist is
not yet destroyed: so that the end of the age is not yet fully
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
26
come. In a word, the precise order, and the principle on
which it is founded in this chapter, are entirely wrong.
I have said, Christ’s leaving the throne, then rst
gathering the tares, etc.; because, if this be not so, the
gathering up of the saints is altogether before the end of
the age, according to the writer himself, and, moreover,
before Christ’s coming to receive them at all. I take it
now on his own interpretation of His sitting on Jehovah’s
throne, and quitting it to begin the new age. Still there
is a transitional period. On any ground, his statements
cannot hang together, because he has got o Scripture, and
formed a system; and Scripture (and blessed be God for
it!) will not suer itself to be so molded. It is drawn from a
system deeper than our thoughts, and we must believe and
understand what is given to us “ in part,” and not frame a
whole after our wisdom. It will always be false, and put to
the rout by Scripture-by some single text that will not bend
(I repeat, blessed be God!) to it.
e last paragraph of this chapter rst states, as already
noticed, without any proof at all, that there are just exactly
the two things: Christ secretly exercising the power of God’s
throne; or coming forth in the exercise of the power of His
own peculiar kingdom, without any transitional state or
other condition of things, the one beginning in the instant
the other ends. Whereas it is certain that the immensely
important fact of the rapture of the church takes place
between the two, whatever the interval, and that Christ
cannot receive the power of His own peculiar kingdom
below, till this has taken place. Nor can this rapture take
place till after He has left the throne, from whence it is
evident the harvest cannot either (at any rate an important
part of it). en he applies the Revelation exclusively to
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
27
the rst (omitting the chapters at the end which the book
conducts to, but which are not its subject), and arms the
characteristics of the Revelation to be the characteristics
of our dispensation. is is natural, and necessary to the
writer’s point of view. But is it the fact? ese are the
characteristics: “ Christ hidden with God, Israel blinded,
the Gentiles supreme and glorious, the Church suering.”
e rst expression is simply a mistake. Our life is hidden
with Christ in God. is is clearly another thing than the
mere fact of Christ’s absence, and His being hidden with
God. It expresses a condition, not an outward fact. And
where do we nd Christ in the Revelation? As the Son of
man walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks. I do
not believe this is at all contradictory to His being hidden
in God. It is another point of view altogether. And this is
what is often overlooked in this book, that one statement
(complete to man’s mind, and by which he would shut out
consequently everything else) opens in God’s mind to let
in a multitude of things. Christ, according to Scripture, is
absent, and hid in God. Yet He is present, and manifests
Himself to His people. Both these are true at the same time.
As an outward worldly fact, Christ is absent; spiritually,
He is present. e littleness of man’s mind, occupied about
material things, and judging from them, negatives readily
one thing from the existence of another, as if all were
material; while divine power makes true together what to
us is impossible. How can a spiritual body eat, and have
esh and bones? or how can esh and bones go through a
shut door? How then can we close the door on the wildest
imaginations and all kinds of notions? Not by drawing
conclusions by man’s reasoning. We have no door to close
or open, but to believe all God has said, and nothing else.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
28
But in the prophetic part of the book is Christ thus hid
in God? Is it in this way He is presented? He is seen as a
Lamb slain in the throne. He comes forth and receives the
book-is celebrated as worthy to take it; He opens the seals.
In a word, whatever the eect may be, He is presented as
acting; not, perhaps, as visible on earth, but as a Person
worshipped and acting in heaven, and yet previously to His
mission and kingdom; for He is opening the seals, which
reveal what precedes it, before He comes forth. It is then a
misquotation to say hid with God, which entirely alters the
sense; and He is not presented as hid in God, but as coming
forth from the throne, the object of special attention, to
receive the book from God’s hand.
6
Next we have, “ e Gentiles supreme and glorious.” Are
wars, famines, death, crying out to the rocks to cover them,
“ the Gentiles supreme and glorious? “ ey may have been
so; but it is not what is characteristic of the book. Nor is there
6 I say nothing about Israel blinded, because I see nothing
particularly about it in the Revelation, save the sealing the
one hundred and forty four thousand. at blindness in part
happens to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles be come
in, the apostle teaches us; Rom. 11. What is done with the
believing remnant after that, or how they are made a great
nation, the Revelation does not teach us. According to the
author, after the withdrawal of Christians, a work goes on,
amongst that part of Israel to which the Revelation alludes,
independent of Christianity, which does not bring them into
the church, but secures the deliverance of those who receive the
testimony when Jesus appears. And this is all that is material
to observe; because it proves that, supposing the blindness
to remain on the mass till Christ executes judgment (which,
I suppose, nobody denies), this does not hinder an eectual
work, not wrought by the church amongst that people (beloved
of God, though enemies in respect of the gospel) of which the
Revelation treats, as indeed of no other work amongst them.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
29
anything in the book which shows it to be characteristic
of the period of which it treats. “ Woe, woe, woe, to the
inhabiters of the earth “ is not a presentation of Gentiles
supreme and glorious, that I can see-a time, too, when
men are seeking death and cannot nd it. e Revelation
treats of certain judicial actings of God. e Gentiles, till
then supreme and glorious, may be their object. But it can
hardly be said that the execution of judgments on any one
is characteristic of their supremacy and glory. We are told
that they are characteristic of the period. But how are they
so? It may be proved, perhaps from elsewhere, that they are
so in spite of these chastening judgments; but the period
of which the Revelation treats cannot be characterized by
things contrary to what is found in the Revelation. e
statement is made to prove that our dispensation and the
period of which the Revelation treats are the same, not
perhaps in limits of time, but in nature. But the proofs of
this, as to the period of which the Revelation treats, must
be drawn from the Revelation itself. But the fact is, that
the Revelation speaks of quite other things, namely, the
judgment of God on the Gentiles. is may suppose them
supreme and glorious, when the judgment overtakes them,
and that the abuse of their supremacy may have been the
occasion of these chastisements and their nal judgment:
but then these chastisements and this judgment can hardly
be called the period of their supremacy and glory.
It may be alleged that the time of the beast’s reign is
clearly a time of supremacy and glory, for power is given
him over all nations, etc. But then this cannot be said to
be characteristic of our dispensation; because, according
to the writer, Christianity and Christians, unless a few
inattentive ones, are beyond the limits of his power, and a
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
30
new testimony is set up, namely, the two witnesses. So that
this can hardly, I suppose, be called our dispensation; unless
the government of the world be so exclusively the subject
of it, that our dispensation, the church dispensation, has
nothing to do with Christianity at all, but that it is just
as much ours when a new testimony is raised up on its
withdrawal.
And here I would add a remark as to this nal power
of Antichrist. It is by no means properly a continuation
of the Gentile imperial power. at this imperial power
is extraordinarily in his hands, I admit; but it is not
a continuance of it. It is a resurrection of it. And the
dierence is very great indeed-nothing less than this, that
the throne of the Gentiles was set up by God (however
abused); whereas it is Satan gives this last power, his
throne, and great authority. at the kings of the earth give
him their authority is quite true, but it is the dragon that
has given him his throne. e statement of the chapter
thus seems altogether unsustainable and objectionable-the
most objectionable thing of all, to my mind, being, that
everything spiritual is totally excluded from what is said to
be essentially distinctive as a characteristic of the present
period. Nothing properly belonging to the church enters
into this at all. It is entirely dropped from the statement
of the writer. e government of the world is all that is in
his mind.
But I feel that a godly mind may say, though sensible of
this, and rejecting the statement of the writer as spiritually
evil, Well, but what is this Psalm 110? how do you explain
it?
First, I recall the remark that the new translation is
unproved, and, as it seems to me, unwarranted. If it were
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
31
so, it would alter the whole meaning of the passage in the
most important way; because God would have subjugated
all Christ’s foes, in order that they should be His footstool.
If God were making them such by the actings of the power
of His throne, they would be subdued by the actings of
power, before Christ began to act at all. e whole judicial
reign of Christ, and the millennial scheme would be false.
But making His enemies His footstool is merely by the
authority of His power giving them up to be trampled
upon by Him. Next, it is connected with the rejection of
Messiah on earth, whereon Jehovah calls Him up to sit at
the right hand of power, until His enemies should be given
up to Him. e chief enemies actually in view in the psalm
are His enemies, amongst whom He will rule down here-”
rule thou in the midst of thine enemies “earthly enemies,
when the rod of His power will be sent out of Zion. is is
all that is actually spoken of in this psalm.
But, as in the analogous Psa. 8, where though the
subjection of earthly creatures is mentioned, yet from
a general (there a universal) term, the apostle applies it
to everything but God the Father; so here, I apprehend,
anything that takes the place of adversary or enemy will
be given into His hand. us, in a passage which I do
not doubt to be an allusion to this, the apostle makes it
universal: “ He [Christ] must reign, till he hath put all
his enemies under his feet “: and thus the apostle makes
it universal, although the psalm speaks specically only
of His rod of power sent out of Zion. e time at which
God puts His enemies thus generally under the hand of
Christ, or what passes until He actually takes the rod of
His power in Zion, the psalm is totally silent upon. It is
not (save the broad general fact, that He is to be at the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
32
right hand of power, expecting till that time, and seated
as having nothing more to do for His friends
7
) occupied
with what passes until the rod of power is in Zion. We
know that all that regards the church will have happened
before that moment, so that we are sure the silence of the
psalm must leave space for it. How much, the psalm will
say nothing about; but the statement that there is none is
clearly false; for the church is caught up, the marriage of
the Lamb takes place, before Antichrist is destroyed; and
Antichrist must be destroyed before the rod of His power
goes out of Zion. e heavenly part of Christ’s actings is
omitted in the psalm. ese must be sought elsewhere. But
there are such actings: and thus the interpretation which
connes to the instant of His rising up from the throne the
closing of the age, and His assuming His power in the new
age, is altogether untenable. It is clear, for example, that the
whole of the harvest is before the new age, yet it is the Son
of man that sends forth His angels.
If it be alleged that all this happens before He leaves His
throne, then the whole reasoning and system of the author
fails; because the church would be taken away before He
left the throne and before Christ came to receive it. Yet it is
to meet Him in the air; and, if this be not inconsistent with
His sitting on His throne at that time, it is quite clear that
the reasoning from the psalm comes to nothing; because its
force lies in this, that He is on that throne till His enemies
are put under Him, and consequently the church is here,
and our dispensation continues: whereas in the other case,
the church would be gone before what the writer calls the
end of our dispensation on His rising up. If He has risen
up before He receives the church, there is some interval
7 See the comparison, Heb. 10:11-12.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
33
passed over in the psalm: so that the argument as to the
instantaneous closing is false in that case also. In either
case the using it as a proof of exact synchronism is good
for nothing.
No: the psalm speaks at length of the Jewish part of the
subject, to wit, the rod of power in Zion-the Messiah part.
It states in general terms Messiah’s place till Jehovah
does a certain act of authority, but leaves all open as to
interval of time, and manner of accomplishment, by which
Christ enters upon the earthly part of this power spoken
of in the psalm. We know that, whatever be the manner of
it, an immensely important fact takes place at least three
years and a half before the establishment of Christ’s power
in Zion, namely, the destruction of Satan’s heavenly power,
or his casting out of heaven. I know that the writer seeks
elsewhere to distinguish between his power in the air and his
being in the presence of God: the former continuing after
his casting out from the latter. But this is mere gratuitous
statement: for in the passage which is interpreted in the
latter way, he is cast down to the earth, and his place found
no more in heaven.
If this be so, it is clear the Revelation treats of this
peculiar time, a time yet future, when God is occupied with
bringing in the Firstbegotten into the world (the habitable
world), but before He is so brought in, up to chapter 19
where He is introduced.”
8
If it be future, as the author
states, and an acting of God which He has not yet begun
at all, it cannot be our dispensation; because, otherwise, our
8 Hence, perhaps, the resurrection is not spoken of in it, save
as a recognized fact to enumerate those who have part in it,
when the thrones are set, and judgment given to those on
them. But, as the act of life-giving power, it is never historically
mentioned.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
34
dispensation would exist without what characterizes it. It is
not the world to come till after chapter 19, nor Psalm 110
after verse 2 of that psalm. It embraces a peculiar period,
then, occupied with transitional events, from the time
God is introducing the Firstbegotten till the time of His
giving up the kingdom, including (but only in description,
not historically) the time of the reign of the Son. It is the
history of judgment, not of grace, though saints may be
preserved in it and their security and joy celebrated. e
church properly belongs to the time of patient grace, the
acceptable time, the day of salvation.
“ CHRIST IN HIS RELATION TO THE
CHURCHES “
We are here arrived at a most important subject, where,
if ever, we may nd something of the spiritual and heavenly
character of the church of God during this dispensation.
But I would draw at once attention to the title-Christ’s
relation to the churches. Is that all? Has He no relation to
the church? Is there nothing during this dispensation of
what is special in Christ’s relationship to the church? is
book “ especially refers to the period during which Christ
is hidden with God “-” the church being a body chosen out
of the nations and separated to God.” e church, then, is
spoken of as regards this period. “ We might expect in a
book treating of this period [though all the actings of God
spoken of in it are, according to the author, future] that
His excellent relation to such a body would be distinctly
marked.” Now let the reader examine this chapter, and
say what this excellent relation is, or see whether he nds
nothing about it at all. e very title betrays the fact, and
what is in the writer’s mind. It is, “ Christ in His relation
to the churches,” not to the church.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
35
“ Accordingly “ (page 15), “ the very rst chapter reveals
Christ in His relation to the churches.” His excellent relation
to the church during the period He is hidden with God
is His walking in judgment in the midst of the churches.
ere it is His excellent relation is “ distinctly marked.”
Nor can there be any doubt of its being the full object of
the writer’s contemplation; for it is said, “ It is a kingdom
set to confess Him thus-to own union with Him in glory,
and seek likeness to Him in suering obedience here.” And
all His excellent relation to such a body (a kingdom) is that
He is walking in the midst of the candlesticks of gold. In
respect to “ union with Him in glory,” this is all which “
His excellent relation to such a body “ amounts to-that by
which it is “ distinctly marked.”
Let us come• to some particulars, and we shall see the
entire confusion of the statements in detail. e Revelation
treats, we are told, of the period during which Christ is
hidden with God. Hence His relation to the church would
be marked. Its chief subject is the relation of the throne of
God to the nations, but it has another object in relation
to the churches; it reveals the present relation of Christ
to them, but the Gentiles supreme and glorious, and the
church suering. is characterizes our dispensation, and
the period of which the Revelation treats.
But is it merely another object during this period? Why
is it concealed that the period is distinguished, as well as
the object? And therefore if this account of the churches
reveals the present relation of Christ to them-the prophetic
part, which treats of the Gentiles, is after the close of the
present relation of Christ to the churches. e apostle is
directed to write “ the things which he had seen,” “ the
things which are,” and “ the things which are after these.”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
36
Now “ the things which are “ are the seven churches; and
then the apostle is caught up to see the things which are “
after these.” So that “ the things that are “ are closed before
the prophetic part begins; or else the things which come
after certain others, whose history has been ended, are
at the same time with them. Yet this is what the chapter
leaves us to suppose.
Next, it is stated that “ He hath made it a kingdom,
even a priestly kingdom.” It is never said, He has made
“ it “ a kingdom. He has made us a kingdom, supposing
the new reading right. And this makes all the dierence;
because it is then, not a sphere of government, but a term of
personal dignity, just as priest is. And though this is sought
to be eked out by the terms “ a kingdom of priests, and a
kingdom of kings,” yet it is clearly a sphere of government;
for it is added “ His, and His only, to govern.” And if so,
there is no warrant to say “ of kings “; because kingdom
means a thing governed, not governing, according to the
author himself. is is merely saving appearances, in order
to avoid the idea of taking away the glory of the saints. In
chapter 5 the term kings is applied to Israel. If the church
be a kingdom in the midst of kingdoms, and that this is
its present relation, surely we do not reign now, even if we
be reigned over by Christ. And it is a mere delusion to
confound Christ’s reigning over us now (and therefore our
being a kingdom), and our reigning with Him hereafter,
as being expressed by the same word kingdom. It is when
Christ’s present relation to the churches will have quite
closed, that we shall be kings in that sense, as reigning with
Him.
Next, to make the church merely a kingdom lowers it
altogether from the proper scriptural idea of His excellent
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
37
relation to such a body. And what is meant here by such
a body? “ It is a kingdom in the midst of kingdoms.” It is
not, though the word body is used, His-Christ’s-body. It
is a kingdom which He governs which He orders by His
own peculiar laws. It is true the author speaks of giving it
life, but this only increases the confusion, and reduces life-
giving union to the idea of a governed body. Accordingly
(as we have seen) it is accomplished in relation to the
churches among which He walks, which churches, we
may further remark, exist no longer. “ We cannot hear “ the
Lord’s addresses “ as churches, for churches have ceased to
be.” (Page 31.) All idea of the unity of the body of Christ
as the state and portion of the church, as sitting in heavenly
places in Him, is altogether lost. His excellent relation to
such a body is to a kingdom governed upon earth, and that
is all. Indeed more than all: for that which is addressed in
the Revelation directly exists no more. It is in vain to say,
that this is the way it is treated in the Revelation; because
what is sought to be proved is, that the Revelation treats
of our dispensation-the church dispensation. If it does not,
and that the Revelation does not speak of our dispensation,
of the church in its proper relation to Christ, but merely of
churches as once existing, but which exist no longer, and
of certain prophetic subjects which come after churches
have ceased to exist, then the whole system falls which
makes it treat of the church dispensation, and places us in
its prophetic statements. If it do treat of it, then, I repeat,
the writer lowers the distinct marking of Christ’s excellent
relation to such a body, to churches, and to the government
of a kingdom in the midst of kingdoms, setting aside the
proper relation of the church to Christ.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
38
But to proceed. It is alleged that candlesticks of gold
lead to the candlestick of the tabernacle, and then, that “
everything that typied the person or attributes of Christ,
as seen in heaven, was of gold.” at the gold may show
that the candlesticks or churches are viewed in a divine or
heavenly character, may be very true. But it is not Christ’s
Person, or attributes, which are seen here, nor is He seen in
heaven. e Spirit speaks of churches, and of Christ upon
earth walking amongst them. Lights in the holy place was
not the proper place of churches, but lights in the world,
holding forth the word of life, presenting divine excellency
among men. But John turned, and saw seven golden
candlesticks. He did not see the sanctuary, nor candlesticks
in it. To say he was for a season withdrawn from the sphere
of mere human thought and action is merely confounding
with words. Of course he was, when he had a vision; but
he was in the isle called Patmos, and turned, and saw the
candlesticks. Afterward, “ after these things,” he is taken
out of the sphere of earth, and it is said to him “ Come up
hither “; but this he saw on earth-a vision no doubt; but
John was not yet for a season out of earthly connection,
unless the isle called Patmos be so. ere was no hidden
and separated sanctuary, no secret holy place. All this
statement is merely added and contrary to the statements
of the chapter. at he saw them in vision, according to
the abstract or divine idea, of what they should be, or were,
according to that idea, and not in the ordinary exercise of
apostolic care, is quite true; but the vision was not what it
is represented here to be. Moreover, Christ is seen with a
golden girdle, it is true; but His feet were like ne brass,
not of gold, which is stated to be His heavenly character.
e author states that He walked among the candlesticks,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
39
not the churches; but it is explained by the word itself, that
the candlesticks were the churches.
And if He was walking among the candlesticks judging,
it was clear it was not the candlesticks as the divine type
of what they were in God’s mind that He would judge.
e candlesticks were God’s idea of them. e report is
of things that are-what man had actually made of them
here below. Christ judicially brought what the Spirit saw
to bear on what man had produced. I would only add
that, while the judgment was priestly as well as divine,
yet I do not (whatever His capacity to give) nd grace in
anything characterize His dealings here-i.e., His activity
in priestly grace: for patience in judgment is grace. But the
next chapter will give us further matter on what is most
important in this.
“ SEVEN CANDLESTICKS Of GOLD.”
ey instruct us “ respecting the order of the Gentile
churches.” “ When the Lord Jesus was personally on earth,
the church was not yet ordered,” etc.-nor (I apprehend)
built, nor the foundation laid. at in the purpose of God
the disciples were to be of it is true. at they had life as
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
40
all saints have it true too.
9
But to say that the church was
not ordered according to the form which He intended it to
assume among men-that He was collecting, not arranging
the materials, preparing the living stones, not building them
together; is not a scriptural representation of the matter.
It puts Christ’s death, Christ’s resurrection, the breaking
down of the middle wall of partition, the presence of the
Holy Ghost as the power of unity, the assertion that if He
did not die He would abide alone, that He was not sent but
9 ere is a very deeply and fundamentally false principle running through all the author’s reasonings on this point. I mean
this, that, if life be there, inasmuch as it is always of God, or divine life, it is always essentially the same, whatever ocial
distinctions there may be as to dispensation. Now, as to the possession of life by man, it must be holy in the principle of its
nature, obedient, and have God for its object. So far, it must be fundamentally the same. But this makes man the end and
essential object of all this. en these things, man having life, may be termed “ ocial “ distinctions (though, even so, it is
most sad to say that those things by which God acts peculiarly on His saints are mere ocial dierences). I do not think
a spiritual holy mind that loves Christ can help being shocked at being told that that possession of the Comforter, which
made it expedient that Christ should go away-which guides him into all truth-gives him communion with the Father and
the Son-which is an unction by which he knows all things, the things freely given to him of God, yea, the deep things of
God-which enables him to cry, Abba, Father-by which the love of God is shed abroad in his heart, and by which he knows
that he is one with Christ, in Him, and He in him-that all this is a mere ocial distinction.But the truth is, this principle
shuts God out of the matter, in making the dierence as to man the end. ese dierences of dispensation are the displays
of God’s glory; and therefore of all importance, and most essential, because a positive part of His glory. e law maintained
His majesty, and title to claim obedience, as the gospel displayed His grace, and gave the obedience of a child. To say that the
breaking down the middle wall of partition, and the accomplishment of the glorious work by which it was eected produced
only an ocial dierence, because man had life, and man was forgiven, or forborne with in view of it, is to say that the display
of God’s glory was an unessential thing: the display of all His glorious wisdom, power, and love, in that mighty work which
stands alone in heaven and earth, the object of angels’ research. Was it unessential to them, who found scarce even an ocial
dierence, though doubtless it aected their position, to see Him who had created them, nailed to the tree in that mighty and
solitary hour which stands aloof from all before and after? Let us only remember that dispensations are the necessary displays
of God’s glory, and we shall soon feel where we are brought by what makes mere ocial dierence out of them.Besides, the
dierence is very great indeed as to man. It is everything as to his present aections, as to his life. Because God puts forth
power, power too which works in man through faith, according to the display He makes of Himself. And therefore the whole
life, in its working, in its recognition of God, is formed on this dispensational display. And this is the eld of responsibility too.
us, if God reveals Himself to Abraham as Almighty, Abraham is to live and walk in the power of that name. And so of the
promises given to him. Israel is to dwell in the land as the redeemed people of the Lord-their aections, ways, responsibility,
and happiness owing from what God was to them as having placed them there. So to us-the presence of the Holy Ghost
Himself being the great distinguishing fact, with the knowledge He aords. Because all this is what faith ought to act upon,
and the life which we live in the esh we live by faith, for the just shall live by faith. Hence the Lord does not hesitate to say,
is is life eternal, to know ee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom ou hast sent. at could not have been the life
of those before. Had they then not life? Nay, but it could not be stated in that way-their life was not that; and to undo these
dierences is to make a life without aections, character, responsibility, in a word, without faith. You cannot do it; for to us to
believe is to live. e more you succeed in leveling them to one thing, the more you succeed in stiing divine aections, and
active human responsibility (destroying, as far as may be, divine communion, and frustrating divine grace), the more the glory
and energy of faith is null, and hence God’s glory in us.ere is another point connected with this, that I would not leave
untouched:-namely, that making a dierence of position in glory is setting aside the value of Christ’s blood, and making our
place on high depend on something else. Now I meet this diculty in the face. And I say there is a dierence in glory; and that
dierence does not depend on the precious blood of Christ; and that to say that it does, takes away its value from that blood.
Dierence there is. e Savior recognizes the setting on His right hand and on His left; and many other passages prove it.
Now, if this depend on the blood of Christ, this would attribute a various value to it, making it uncertain and imperfect in the
extent of its ecacy. e blood of the Lamb gives to all their sole title to be in the glory, and gives to all an equal and perfect
justication from sin; and therefore in its eect, there can be no dierence. To suppose a dierence is to call in question the
completeness of its ecacy. But there is a dierence. And this (while the title to be in the glory is for all in the blood) depends
therefore on something else. It is, in the accomplishment of the counsels of God the Father, given to those for whom it is
prepared; and given (though man is not in the least the judge of that labor, and there are rst that shall be last, and last rst)
according to the working and energy of the Spirit of God, and faithfulness through grace in service. God does what He will
with His own. Still we know that in doing so He displays what He is, and is consistent with Himself; and position and reward
answer to the sovereignty of God, which has given us a position, and the operation of the Spirit by which we have walked in
it. It is the sovereignty of God we know from the Lord’s answer to the sons of Zebedee, and the parable in Matt. 20 It is the
fruit of labor, as we know from 1Cor. 3:8; the parables (Luke 19 and Matt. 25); 1ess. 2:19, 20; 2John 8. I suppose it will
not be questioned that this work is through the ecacious operation of the Spirit of God. Suppose, now, the Lord chose to
put the Old Testament saints in the position of the four living creatures, and the New Testament saints in that of the crowned
elders, both of whom are said to sing the song of the redeemed together; what is there contrary to principle in this? I am not
here at all arming it is so; but inquiring whether there is anything a priori to condemn it. I see nothing at all. It is quite clear
that the saints on earth during the millennium are redeemed by blood, and yet as to glory much farther o than the crowned
elders. Why in this administration of glory may there not be intermediate positions?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
41
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel-all that is stated in
Scripture of the church-entirely aside. He died to gather
together into one the children of God which were scattered
abroad. Without His death, and the presence of the Holy
Ghost, this could not be. Till His death He would have set
aside without warrant God’s order in abandoning Israel for
another body. e rst husband, the law, was not dead, and
Christ came in His innite grace under it. Its curse was
not borne yet. Nothing that could set aside Israel, or set up
the church, was done- not the rst foundation stone laid.
It was not mere ordering. He had not done the work on
which it was to be built. Nor was He collecting materials
for it, though they were formed into it afterward. In God’s
counsels so it was to be; but He could not act publicly
about it, till He was rejected and crucied. On what should
the church be based? Nor could He teach His death even
to His disciples, but as His rejection by His own nation
and delivery to the Gentiles.
Nor is it ever said that they were quickened with
heavenly life: unless we use it in the vague sense, that
everything that is from above is heavenly. But it is never
said, unless we cite the passage, “ Born again,” as from
above (Greek, anothen), which I do not believe. at the
divine life came from above, I do not doubt. at it was
properly heavenly is never said in Scripture. Further, it is
entirely unscriptural and very evilly ambiguous to speak of
“ everlasting union with Him who was ‘ the new thing ‘ in
the earth “; because Christ says, “ except a corn of wheat
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.” Scripture
never speaks of union with Christ while on earth. Never. It
always speaks of union with an exalted Head.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
42
And it is evident to me, that when Christ breathed on
them after His resurrection, He conveyed an accession of
living power. e second Adam is a life-giving Spirit; and as
God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, so here
Christ breathes upon them-does not send down the Holy
Ghost from heaven so that they should be the habitation
of God through the Spirit; but He does what He never did
before His resurrection. But I have no doubt that this was
life more abundantly. e Spirit of life in Christ Jesus it is
that has made us free from the law of sin and death. He
quickened Lazarus, but it was not a question of his soul,
but victory over death by power, in answer to His cry to the
Father, though He was in living power then the resurrection
and the life. But His resurrection was another thing. It was
according to the power of an endless life; and this was not
Lazarus’s case. We are quickened together with Him; and
this is so true, that, notwithstanding Lazarus and other
persons raised to life during the period recorded in the
Old Testament, He is the rst-fruits of them that slept. All
these cases belonged to, and were brought to pass in, the
old thing, through the power of God in it.
If man had not been in the state he really was, totally and
fundamentally corrupt, so that atonement was absolutely
necessary, there was power, living power in Him (the Father
had given Him to have life in Himself-in Him was life) to
restore all. But as Adam was not in fact the head of the race
till fallen and in sin; so Christ is not a corporate Head till
He has wrought out righteousness, and we can be made it
in Him, and then we belong to the new creation. Whereas,
divine and perfect as He was, He, supposing He was the
new thing, was come into, and dealing with, the old-God’s
last dealing, we may say with it (save a peculiar special
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
43
intervention with Israel), and therefore abode alone till the
foundation was laid of the new thing, the new creation,
in His death, by which He passed out of and closed the
old, and His resurrection, by which He began in power the
new, breaking the bands of Satan who had conquered in
the old, in his last stronghold-strong by God’s judgment.
And hence when, in instructing us what the church is,
the apostle speaks of the new creation, He speaks of our
being risen and quickened together with Christ, and set
in heavenly places in Him, the middle wall of partition
being broken down to make both one, making peace, and
to present both in one body by the cross: that is, He speaks
exactly in the opposite way to the writer of the “ oughts.”
Accordingly, it is a serious thing to make the death of
Christ necessary only to the ordering of the church, and
not to its founding and existence; and to make Christ, alive
in the earth before that solemn, and in the literal sense
of the word, all-important act, the center of union, when
the apostle says it could not be till after-nay, when Christ
says that He abode alone till then. It has been urged, and
rightly urged, that incarnation was not union. But the Lord
arms further, there could not be union without death.
He was to die to gather. We are baptized into one body.
at life was communicated I fully recognize; but I do not
see that this is necessarily union in the sense of forming
the body, which is everything as regards the church. I
nd it distinguished from heavenly things, in Christ’s
conversation with Nicodemus.
He had spoken of earthly things, when speaking of
regeneration. For the Jews, taking earthly things of God,
must be regenerate. But with this He contrasts the heavenly
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
44
things, and, when He mentions these, states to Nicodemus,
that the Son of man must be lifted up.
at God forgave from Adam’s sin downward in respect
of the cross is plain, and stated in Rom. 3:25; and that He
communicated life to the old saints I do not doubt-eternal
life. It is too clear to me to reason on it here, for without it
none shall see nor enter the kingdom of God. But Christ
is never spoken of as the Head of the body, the church
united to Him, until He was Himself exalted to the right
hand of God, and had accomplished the work which made
the church’s whole place before God. It was not therefore
merely arranging the church’s form that was in question;
it was doing the work which could give it a place before
God, lay the foundation for its existence, and make the
peace, reconciling Jew and Gentile into one body unto God
by the cross. Is this rightly treated in this passage of the
writer? Does he speak of it as the Scriptures speak of it in
any one single place? He has quoted none-not one. It is
pure assertion, and assertion entirely dierent from, and
opposite to, Paul’s statements in the Ephesians, and indeed
in all his epistles.
e next paragraph (page 22) introduces fresh
confusion. e union of the church with Christ as sitting
in heavenly places is totally shut out. We have it gathered,
but not ordered, during Christ’s life; and visible on earth
from Pentecost. But all Paul’s statements in his epistles
are passed over altogether, and what is spoken of as the
church constituted turns out only to be a particular church
on earth, with a dierence of metropolitan power, but
all the churches of God are essentially alike. us the
church is silently dropped into churches, and the whole
idea of union and unity entirely set aside, and the church
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
45
and churches confounded (the church being after all the
church at Jerusalem, which had essential resemblance to all
the churches of God-only that at Jerusalem had singular
dignity pertaining to it alone). I know not how Christians
will estimate this dealing with the existence and privileges
of “ the church,” the pillar and ground of the truth, the
body and fullness of Him who lleth all in all. But they will
do well to consider, if they have ever received any comfort
or spiritual blessing and power from Paul’s epistles on this
subject, what becomes of it in these statements. It is very
clear that what lled the mind of the apostle, what the
Spirit there expatiates on, has no place in them at all. e
church may be a visible body on earth, gathered though
not ordered before Christ’s death, equivalent to churches;
but in heavenly places one body, it is not known here. I will
add elsewhere a word as to its standing, hopes, and laws;
for the present, briey as to its order. It was metropolitan-
all that could be called the church, for it was constituted
at Jerusalem; but “ the church at Jerusalem was … the
center of light and control.” And what makes this more
remarkable is, that we are told that one candlestick would
have tly represented it, as it actually does in Scripture
“ represent Jerusalem when she shall nationally assume
her metropolitan position in the millennial earth,” thus
bringing down the church, as far as possibly can be, to
the position of Jerusalem on earth in the latter day. “ e
appropriate emblem “ for the one “ is the character of the
symbol employed to represent “ the other.
We are told, accordingly, that “ when the church
at Antioch was in diculty, it sends to Jerusalem for
direction, and receives an authoritative reply.” “ is then
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
46
was a relation that could not be tly symbolized by two
candlesticks unconnected, equal and alike.”
“ But when Jerusalem had rejected the testimony of the
church, Paul was raised up to carry the truth among the
Gentiles-he established a new order among the churches
which he gathered. is order was not metropolitan.”
Would it be believed, from this statement, that the
diculty at Antioch arose from teachers come from
Judea years after the raising up of Paul; and that it was
Paul and Barnabas that went up from Antioch, after the
metropolitan order had been dropped accordingly in
extensive regions; and, moreover, that they went up to the
apostles and elders about this question -that the apostles
and elders came together to consider it, though the letter is
written in the name of all; and that Paul moreover delivers
the decrees in those churches which were not in this
metropolitan order at all, but independent one of another?
at there was a blessed eort to maintain unity between
the scenes of Paul’s labors and the Jewish churches, when
trouble had broken out at Antioch (where the church had
been planted by the scattering of the Jerusalem church, and
the starting point of the independent ministry of Paul), is
most true. But the facts and the dates show that, however
strictly it may have been a mother church, this aair, and
the distinction of Paul, is all mis-stated. Furthermore, the
presence of the apostles was metropolitan, and, so long as
earth remained something, Jerusalem did too. But all this
was after the scattering of the Jewish church, except the
apostles, on Jerusalem’s rejecting the testimony. e order
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
47
was, in a certain sense, metropolitan,
10
because of Jerusalem
and because of the apostles.
But a more serious question connects itself with this-
the new order of the apostle Paul. e evident object
here is, to show that the teaching of Paul was the same;
his order not unity, but independency; that unity was
the metropolitan system, which ended with Jerusalem’s
rejection of the testimony of the church there-only there
was a moral unity preserved by Christ Himself walking
amongst them, so that “ the saint journeying found the
same thing in each place, and the world could then take
notice of it. ey knew that in the several Gentile cities
there were those gathered together who, in faith, and
doctrine, and manners, were emphatically one. e whole
of the Gentile churches, though locally separated, together
constituted the one church of the living God, and as such
were known and recognized among men.” I pray the reader
to read this statement over again, and to say, is this really
so? Is it Paul’s statement of the unity of the church? And
the writer is speaking of Paul’s work and teaching. It is
just nothing more nor less than modern independency
setting aside all Paul’s doctrine on the whole subject. We
will compare them.
Paul “ preached the same gospel; but He established a
new order among the churches which he gathered. is
order was not metropolitan. Seven Gentiles churches are
represented by seven candlesticks of gold, separate one
from another-all equal-all alike; connected by no visible
10 at is, Jewish in form, having an earthly center in Jerusalem-
just the statement which has been so animadverted upon as
applied to the Pentecostal Church.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
48
bond, neither revolving round any common center. ey
were independent one of another,” etc.
It is very evident that this is to meet the statement
made by other brethren, that while Paul preached the same
gospel as to salvation-of which no one of course entertains
any doubt -he was at the same time specially employed of
the Lord to bring out the unity of the church as sitting
in heavenly places in Christ, the seven churches having
been considered as the history rather of the decline of the
churches, the actual historical state in which John found
them, but selected by the Holy Ghost as aording morally
a sample of Christ’s dealings with “ the churches,” and by
many as an outline of the church’s history in general, the
prophetic part of the book coming “after these things.”
In opposition to the idea of Paul’s peculiarly bringing
out the heavenly unity of the church, he is stated (the italics
are the writer’s of the “ oughts “) to have preached the
same gospel; and while metropolitan unity existed before
on earth, Paul set up independent churches. I have already
remarked that heavenly unity is entirely left out here.
e seven churches of the Apocalypse are adduced as
proofs of Paul’s work. Doubtless he had been the means
of founding many of them, though not all; but their then
state was no part of Paul’s preaching. It is not Paul who
presents to us seven distinct churches, all equal, all alike,
or any other churches whatever in this state; it is John, and
that when they had ceased to be under Paul’s care. at
local churches existed no one doubts (i.e., local assemblies
of God); but there is no teaching of the apostle Paul on the
subject. e fact of their existence is on record.
is is his teaching.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
49
“ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between
us; having abolished in his esh the enmity, even the law
of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make
in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and
that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the
cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” etc.
“ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household
of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone; in whom all the building, tly framed together,
groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also
are builded together for an habitation of God through the
Spirit.”
Again, “ How that by revelation he made known unto
me the mystery … which in other ages was not made
known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles
should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers
of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” “ And to make all
men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from
the beginning of the world hath been hid in God … to
the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in
heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold
wisdom of God, according _to the eternal purpose which
he purposed in Christ Jesus.” Having prayed then to Him
that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we
ask or think, according to His power that worketh in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus, we have, “
ere is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in
one hope of your calling.” “ He ascended up on high, and
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
50
gave gifts unto men.” “ And he gave some, apostles, etc.;
till we all come in the unity of the faith, etc … but speaking
the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which
is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body tly
joined together and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the eectual working in the measure
of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying
of itself in love.” And again, “ Christ also loved the church
and gave himself for it … for we are members of his body,
of his esh, and of his bones.”
Again, 1Cor. 12:12, “ For as the body is one and hath
many members, and all the members of that one body,
being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, bond or free,” etc.
Rom. 12:4, “ For as we have many members in one body,
and all members have not the same oce: so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one
of another.” Now, I would ask, after these quotations, is
not the statement made by the author of Paul’s teaching
a concealment of that which is peculiarly his, all being
reduced to earth-Jewish metropolitanism, and a new
order of independent churches, established by Paul? at
Samaria, and afterward Antioch, and all the Gentile
churches planted by Paul, were maintained in unity by the
circumstances which occurred we have seen. But is not the
object of his special teaching unity, and not independency?
at there were assemblies of God in each town is admitted
on all hands. at they acted locally, according to need, no
one denies. But where is this doctrine of independency
alluded to by the apostle? Is not in fact the unity of the
whole body, acting by joints and bands, and its several
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
51
members, the peculiar topic of the apostle’s teaching on
this subject? Is there no unity but metropolitan unity, or
is it a mere unity, as “ in faith, and doctrine, and manners,
emphatically one “? Does this truly represent what Paul’s
teaching was? And now note the character of this unity. It
was founded on Christ’s death; by this the middle wall of
partition was broken down, that He should make both one,
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
52
making in Himself of twain one new man. e existence of
the unity of which the apostle speaks was based on this.
11
It was now that to the principalities and powers in
heavenly places was to be known by the church the manifold
wisdom of God; other things had shown other wisdom,
11 Note also, in this contrast of Jews and Gentiles, the patriarchal
and antediluvian saints do not come into contemplation at all-
only the twain, Jews and Gentiles. It is not an introduction
into some old thing (this is treated of in Rom. 11; the church
condition being nished, chapter 8, and the Jews taken up); it
is to make of twain one new man.I take the opportunity here
of remarking, what might have been introduced earlier, that
the writer much insists on Christ being the new thing in the
earth while alive down here. at it was a new thing to have a
man without sin in His nature is true, and equally so for the
blessed God to be manifest in the esh. But, as regards us, He
was still taking His place with the old thing, made of a woman,
made under the law, made like to His brethren in all things;
Heb. 2 As far as man’s connection with it went, it was His
coming into the midst of the old thing, and not associating
man with Him as the head of the new. I suppose that the
author refers to the expression in Jeremiah, “ For the Lord
shall create a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass
a man.” But supposing this applied to Christ’s birth, Christ
would not be the new thing, but His birth of a virgin, which
was a new thing. It was the woman’s compassing a man which
was the new thing created in the earth, not what Christ was; to
which the words could not apply. But further, I have never seen
the least satisfactory proof that the words apply even to the
miraculous birth of Christ: and I doubt if compassing a man
has any such a sense, or could have it. At any rate, He is not the
new thing here spoken of. Nor is Christ incarnate ever called
the new thing. Nor is Christ ever said to be the new creature.
I doubt much that it is scriptural, either as an expression, or an
idea. Upon this expression of “ the new thing “ a vast edice
of doctrine is built by the author. He should rst show some
scripture for it.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
53
this a new kind. But this wisdom, now made known to
principalities and powers by the church was the subject of
the eternal purpose of God- this church now based on the
death of Christ, and formed by the Holy Ghost.
is unity, as it was based on the death of Christ, so also
was formed by the Holy Ghost. ere was one body, and
one Spirit. By one Spirit they were baptized into one body-
so much so that from Christ the Head by various joints and
bands the whole body tly joined together, according to
the eectual working in the measure of every part, maketh
increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love.” For
even as the many members of the human body make one
body, so was Christ. So that we, being many, are one body
in Christ, having gifts according as God has dealt to every
man the measure of faith.
“ But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit,
dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body
is one, etc., so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body.” Is this the doctrine conveyed
by the statement that, on the cessation of the unity of
metropolitan order because of the rejection of the church
by Jerusalem, Paul established churches independent one
of another? Or is the unity of the church based on Christ’s
death and formed by the Spirit (so as to be a witness even
to principalities and powers in heavenly places of the
manifold wisdom of God, by what now took place) that
which the apostle most peculiarly sets forth?
Nor even did union of faith, doctrine, and manners,
however emphatic, make this. It was corporate unity, a
body. It had its joints and bands and members by the one
power of the Holy Ghost working in a whole. To what, or
to which of these independent churches, did Paul belong?
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
54
Or were the other twelve who were in none of Paul’s
establishing, not of the body? and the prophets-were they
set in a church, or in the church? Or any other gifts? See
1Cor. 12:28-30.
No one who has taken the pains to examine Scripture
can doubt that the whole statement of the author, whether
we refer to the facts he mentions or to the doctrine he
omits, is quite dierent from Scripture. According to the
author, the case of Antioch is a proof of metropolitan
order: which passing away, Paul is raised up to establish
independent churches. Whereas it is Paul himself who goes
up to Jerusalem about the case at Antioch and carries the
decrees to all the churches, which he had then established.
On the other hand, the great point on which the apostle
insists as to this is the unity of the body, formed by the
Holy Ghost on the breaking down of the middle wall of
partition by the death of Christ, so that principalities and
powers might learn a new kind of wisdom of God. e
Lord give us at least whom it so much concerns, who are
the objects of it, to learn and value this new kind of wisdom!
ere are yet a few remarks to make on this part of the
subject. In page 26 the author, in insisting on the unity
of the church of God, presents the unity of the saints in
each city as that of which he has to treat. “ is is the only
pattern for the Gentile churches. at they have long
since ceased to answer to it is plain.” And this he holds so
strongly that he says, page 31, “ I scarcely need repeat that
it is idle, and indeed sinful, to pretend to a church standing
when unity has ceased to exist; and unity has ceased to
exist, for it is neither found locally nor generally.” Now
if this be so, then has Christ’s relationship to the church
ceased to exist: for that with which He was in relationship,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
55
according to this system, does not exist at all: individuals
may hear the message but that is all. Nor is this mere
inference. We read (pages 14, 15), “ But the church, being
a body chosen out of the nations, and separated to God,
was placed under the immediate government of Christ.”
“ He hath made it a kingdom,” etc. “ It is set to our union
with Him in glory,” etc. “ We might expect therefore in
such a book as the Revelation, which especially refers to
the period during which Christ is hidden with God, that
His excellent relation to such a body would be distinctly
marked. Accordingly the very rst chapter reveals Christ
in His relation to the churches.”
But then His excellent relation to such a body, to the
church separated to God out of the nations, is entirely gone,
for there are no churches to be in relation to. Just see where
this system leads; and that because the very idea given of
the church by the apostle is wholly rejected. Paul has set up
independent churches; the churches have ceased to exist;
and therefore the relationship of Christ to the church, in
which it is set to own union with Him, is gone. And yet this
is the relationship which belonged to the whole period of
Psa. 110, and the body He was able to maintain in its right
relation to God. It would be a sin to suppose the existence
of that with which the relationship was established: for the
relation to the churches is the amount of His relationship
to the body. I feel it useless to pursue the consequences
of thus rejecting Paul’s statements as to the church, as in
pages 28, 29. e true church position, the test of true
church-ship, has no kind of connection with the unity of
the body and its members.
I have only to observe as to the church of Ephesus
that the remark in the note, and given even in notes of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
56
quotation, “ among the seven, where it is now standing in
my secret sanctuary,” is just the imagination of the author.
It is an address to the angel of the church at Ephesus (to
be sent as a written epistle to that church), threatening to
come to it-a word which certainly does not give the idea of
referring to what was in His secret sanctuary. Was it there
He was to come? And when He says “thee “ to the church,
was it addressed at Ephesus or in the sanctuary? e reader
may refer to the note (page 3o), and see if I have in any
way overstated the author’s view in this important point.
Catholic unity is thus described. “ ey [the churches]
were together separated, had a common calling and service,
were alike one to another, were nourished and ordered
by the same hand. is was catholic unity.” Let this be
compared with Ephesians 4; 1Cor. 12, or Rom. 12, where,
note, the apostle is speaking of one body by the operations
of the Holy Ghost on earth acting in these members,
and increasing and edifying itself in love thereby. It will
then soon be seen where, and what, is the fundamental
dierence between the author and the apostle. I do not
inquire as to the consequences of this. e perusal of these
chapters will soon lead the reader to see its bearing on gifts,
the exercise of them in dierent localities as by members
of the body of Christ, the ministry, and other accessory
questions. I inquire into the scriptural justness here, not
the consequences.
Some remarks are called for on the notes. I shall be
forgiven for expressing here how painful a task I feel it,
to pursue the unceasing rashness and recklessness of
assertion which characterizes this work. But all of these
assertions have an object, and bear on some part of the
system maintained, or seek to discredit silently what has
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
57
been advanced by others. us the character of servants
has been adduced, as showing that this book stands on a
dierent ground of communication from the Holy Ghost’s
communications in the church, as to those things which
are received and understood by that unction from the Holy
One, by which the infants in Christ knew all things-the
Father’s communications to the children. is is admitted:
indeed the fact cannot be denied. But still the eect must be
done away; and we are told that “ it is important to observe
how continually the name Jesus ‘ is used throughout this
book. No Jewish confession of Messiah, as about to come;
nothing, in short, but the Spirit, giving communion with
the Father and His Son, would entitle any to be regarded as
servants of Jesus. e place and character of John marks that
of those who are considered witnesses to Jesus throughout
this book.” e object of this is to show that the testimony
throughout this book is a Christian testimony, such as
John’s own testimony was in his own place and character.
is is a pure assumption, and an assertion without any
proof whatever. “ e place and character of John marks
that of those who are considered witnesses to Jesus
throughout this book.” To this statement we may assent or
not according to our own judgment; for no proof is given
but one, namely, that the author says so. It would be unwise
to reject it for this reason, but equally unwise to receive it.
And when he says “ considered witnesses “-considered by
whom?
First, no one is called a servant of Jesus in this book but
John himself, in the church of yatira the saints in general,
and the angel who declares himself John’s fellow-servant.
So that this book would prove nothing, save so far as the
angel being called a fellow-servant goes, if it be of Jesus (as
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
58
is to be supposed, as he is speaking to John, who is called
Jesus’s servant here); and in that case the author’s assertion
would be unfounded, for an angel does not answer the
description which, according to him, alone entitles any one
to be so designated. But, leaving this aside, which would
contradict his statement, the statement itself thus becomes
immaterial, though so carefully stated in italics. For an
apostle and the saints in a church are stated to be Christ’s
servants, which I suppose no one doubts, who has read
the New Testament. But this proves nothing as to no one
else being called so. e angel’s account of himself goes to
disprove it. e aim is to prove that the witnesses must be
all of them such, and that therefore the Revelation speaks
of the church. But the angel (fellow-servant of John) is sent
by Jesus to witness or testify these things in the churches;
so that it does not seem an exclusive idea.
But there is a further diculty. “ e Angel,” in chapter
II, who will not be denied, I suppose, to be the Lord Jesus
(in chapter io, indeed, the author treats it so, and very
justly)- the Angel endows His two witnesses. But at this
time, according to the author (page 124), Christianity
is withdrawn from Jerusalem; and a new and dierent
testimony is raised up, which speaks of Jesus as Son of God
rejected, and declares it too late for present acceptance, and
the joy of faith by the Holy Ghost. So that we see witnesses
to Jesus and His witnesses, and those the most fully and
prominently spoken of in the book, who are not, according
to the author in his remarks in page 124 and elsewhere,
what, for general purposes, he says they must be, in page
33.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
59
In result, no one is called in the prophetic part of the
book
12
(and that is the question) servant of Jesus but an
“ angel “; and “ His [Christ’s] witnesses “ is applied to
those who bear testimony to Him when Christianity is
not there at all. By the statement of these facts we nd
that the assertions of the author are not only un-sustained,
but totally unfounded. e fallacy of his argument (and
I beg the reader to remember that no scriptural proof is
attempted; it is a mere abstract assertion)-the fallacy, I say,
is this that, because one placed in a blessed and heavenly
situation acts, and is addressed in a lower place, therefore
all addressed in that lower place must be in the higher. e
same fallacy as if I should say, Every man is an animal;
therefore every animal must be a man. Let no one say that
servants of Jesus
13
must be sons of God. e statement is
not true. And none are called servants of Jesus who are
subjects of the prophecy. But John is said to bear witness:
therefore every witness must be in the same place as John.
Why so? We have seen, on the author’s own showing, that
they are not. My son becomes my servant: is therefore,
necessarily, every one of my servants a son? Christ is the
faithful Witness. Is therefore every witness to Christ in
the same position, or spoken of on the ground of Christ’s
position in the throne? ere is no scripture statement,
and the argument is good for nothing; and it supposes,
moreover, a fact (i.e., that some are called servants of Jesus)
which is not the case.
12 None at all but the then Christians (Rev. 1:1) twice (and chap.
2: 20); though I see no reason whatever to conne it to them.
13 In the close of Psa. 102 the millennial Jewish saints are called
His servants-those who are clearly not the church in its present
standing.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
60
But let us inquire what Scripture does aord us on this
point. First: Were the disciples during the life-time of
Jesus servants of Jesus? It is to be supposed they were, since
He says, “ Henceforth I call you not servants, I have called
you friends.” Yet they were not in the condition the author
supposes necessary. Remark the things contrasted. Jewish
confession of Messiah as about to come-nothing in short
but the Spirit giving communion with the Father and the
Son. Now the disciples of Jesus during His life were in
neither of these conditions. ey had not the Spirit giving
communion with the Father and the Son; and they went
much farther than a Jewish confession of a Messiah about
to come. e same may be applied to the two witnesses.
On the author’s own showing they have not the Spirit in
this way (page 124); and yet they go far beyond a Jewish
confession of Messiah, as about to come. “ ey will be
able to speak of … the Son of God slain and hanged upon
a tree-of the message of forgiveness through His blood
despised, and now withdrawn- of the day of His glory with
all its judgments being nigh, even at the doors.” So that
the author’s division is altogether a false one. He leaves out
exactly the point in question. It is contradicted by himself;
for he introduces elsewhere a class of confession which is
neither one nor other of those he gives here; and hence
the argument drawn from it as to the character of the
witnesses of or to Jesus in the Revelation is disproved by
his own statements.
Further: “ e place and character of John marks that
of those who are considered witnesses to Jesus throughout
this book.” In what place and character?-an apostle? No.
He is not considered in this character here. e vessel of
the Holy Ghost was to know things in the way of gift by
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
61
his union with the Head. “ It may seem strange,” says the
author, “ We should be instructed through an angel.” “ If the
truth communicated had pertained to the family, as such,
it would not so have been.” What place and character does
John then hold here? “ Paul and John were not instructed
through angels in feeding and ordering the churches. But,
since the subject of the Revelation is God on the throne
of His government in His relation to the nations, John,
and the church as represented by him, are placed in a
comparative distance.” Now, how is the church represented
by him? He has the place of a prophet. How can he thus
represent the church? Where is a word or a thought about
his representing the church? or how does one addressing
the church represent the church? is is a mere unfounded
statement of the author to bring in the church into this
condition, in order to prove that the church is found in
it in the Revelation. But it is, as all these statements are,
absolutely without proof, or an appearance of reason for
the statement. When the church is seen or speaks in this
book, it is always quite in another position. But let that
pass. John is not in the apostolic place or character, and the
truth communicated does not pertain to the family as such.
Which, let the reader remark. “ At present the Holy Spirit
does not give the power of fellowship with God in the
glory of His government.” John is placed in a comparative
distance.
is then is the place and character of the witnesses in
the book: not the proper Christian or church place at all;
not with the communion of the Holy Ghost sent down
from heaven. Indeed, as I have stated, the church is always
seen elsewhere when it is seen in this book. And so we
shall nd it stated. Not that Christians were not witnesses
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
62
to Jesus- clearly they are, or ought to be; but that is not
the character of the witness or testimony here. And the
book clearly asserts that there is another kind of witness
or testimony to Jesus- the testimony found in this book;
which is not by the Holy Ghost sent down for fellowship
and communion, or “ communications pertaining to
the family,” but which nevertheless constitutes persons
servants. “ I am thy [John’s] fellow servant,” and John was
the servant of Jesus, and a witness,
14
“ and of thy brethren the
prophets: for the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.”
is latter is what is called a reciprocal proposition, each
member having the article; and therefore we are justied
in reading it inversely: e Spirit of prophecy is the
testimony of Jesus. Now here we get the declaration that
this comparatively distant position, which is not for the
communication of truth pertaining to the family as such, is
nevertheless a testimony of Jesus. In Peter I get the Spirit
of prophecy, while, of course, of just as much authority,
contrasted with the gospel or church testimony which
pertained to the family. e Spirit of Christ in the prophets
was testifying, i.e., witnessing beforehand, and ministered
things which are reported by them who have preached
the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven. Into these things the angels desire to look; of these
they are themselves the messengers, because they are not
properly of the family, though everything belongs to it. A
steward is for the estate: with the family concerns he has
14 is view of the character of testimony, i.e., not of the Holy
Ghost in the church as such, but of the Spirit of prophecy,
is much conrmed if we adopt (as all critical editions do,
on, it would appear, the amplest evidence) the reading, “ the
testimony of Jesus Christ [concerning, or even] all things that
he saw-that is, omitting “ and “ before “ all things.” Rev. 1:2.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
63
nothing to do, though the family have with the estate too.
In a word, it is the Spirit of prophecy which characterizes
the witnesses in this book, and not John’s own proper
place as an apostle in the family; and therefore he speaks
of himself only as in the kingdom and patience of Jesus
Christ, and not as an apostle in the church. Christ Himself
takes no character beyond what He was, or will be on
earth, in His title in the address; namely, faithful Witness,
Firstbegotten from the dead, and Prince of the kings of the
earth. And the celebration of the church’s association with
Christ in heavenly places is in the mouth of others, and
that in heaven. e opening response of the saints (chap.
i: 5, 6) and the closing desire of the bride (chap. 22: 17)
associate the church down here with it. e character of
the witnesses then throughout this book is not a church
character, but a prophetic angelic character, which we nd
(in Peter) contrasted in its nature with the testimony of the
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.
at all this was suited to a state of things when all was
out, of course, is most sure. at it has served in a measure
of application, so far as it could be said there were no
churches on earth and that apostasy had come in, and that
it will suit a time of more decided manifestation of their
principles, is most true; and so far blessed is he that keeps
the sayings of this book in all this period. But it applies to
no church condition, not to the family as such.
When the author says, “ e church has not yet the
seven Spirits of God “-where is it ever said it will?
When the author remarks how continually the name
of Jesus is used throughout this book, the answer is, It is
never used in the prophetic part of it, but in the expression
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
64
of testimony, or witnesses of Jesus.
15
Chapter 12: 17: the
dragon makes war with them. Babylon (chap. 17: 6) is drunk
with the blood of the martyrs or witnesses of Jesus. Chapter
19: 10: “ y brethren which have the testimony of Jesus;
for the testimony of Jesus,” etc. And it is remarkable that,
in the introduction and close of the book, before and after
the prophetic part, where the name of Jesus is mentioned,
it is always associated with this testimony; chap. 1: 2, 5,
9. Christ Himself even becomes, so to speak, a prophet
revealing what God gave to Him.
As to witness to Jesus, it is clear that it does not in itself
suppose a church state, or the Holy Ghost as sent down
from heaven as the power of the church’s unity: because
John the baptist is spoken of expressly as bearing witness
to Jesus. See John 5:30-39, in particular verse 36.
As to the assertion that this book “ has the character and
authority of other prophetic and apostolic writings,” the
authority is admitted clearly; but how the same character,
if “ the truth communicated did not pertain to the family
as such “? Is that the character of the apostolic writings?
Or is the character of the prophetic and apostolic writings
the same? When the author says, “ e command given
to the churches
16
to observe the things written herein “; the
answer is, ere is no command given to the churches. I do
not doubt that any one that reads and observes the things
15
We have seen the prophetic character of this, and hence the
assertion (in that otherwise it might have been supposed
unconnected with Him and His glory, and serve mere earthly
and Jewish manifestation of divine power), “ the Spirit of
prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.” Without this, the church
testimony might have been quite separated from the subsequent
prophetic testimony, as if the latter were not of Jesus at all.
16 e italics are the author’s.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
65
that are written therein will be blessed. I do not doubt
that it is for the church. e whole word is for the church.
Everything that was written aforetime was written for our
learning. e question is, not whether we are to keep the
things which, by means of these revelations, may direct the
saints (I do not doubt it), but whether the things prophesied
of directly concern the church in its present state. Now as
regards a great part of the book, it clearly does not: none
of the latter chapters do. e very important revelations as
to the two witnesses do not. And therefore to say that the
command to the churches in this book supposes that the
church is in the circumstances prophetically revealed, is not
true of the whole, and the use made of the passage therefore
is unfounded; for if actually untrue of a part, it may be
untrue of all: and the deduction is unfounded which from
the existence of the exhortation infers applicability to the
church. e fallacy is the same here as elsewhere, as if there
could be nothing but the church as such, and Israel’s state
after the church is gone. It is assuming the whole question;
and, I have to repeat here, an assumption denied by the
statements of the author as to the two witnesses. I admit
that we are interested in the events predicted in a sense
dierent from the Old Testament prophecies; because
the Old Testament prophecies predict the consequence of
Israel’s conduct, and the Revelation, the consequences of
the church’s or Christendom’s conduct, and God’s ways in
this respect. ence any one on the stage of Christendom
now is very directly interested in all its contents, and that
in the most serious and solemn way. But this does not
prove that the faithful church will be in the circumstances
of which it is thus warned, though the warning be of the
deepest interest to it. e warnings and revelations may
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
66
be just the means of hindering our being there, while they
may be a guide and support to them who nd themselves
in it. is is certain as regards the two witnesses for the last
three years and a half; and therefore the use of the passage
as made by the author is necessarily false.
Hence it could not be given, as he alleges it to be, as a
command to the churches, because a very considerable part
will not be fullled in the churches at all. Nay, according to
the author, they no longer exist even now. Hence the Spirit
of God has stated it in a general way, applicable when the
apostle wrote, applicable now when there are no churches,
and applicable when a new testimony shall be in the special
place of testimony, when Christianity is withdrawn. “
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of
this prophecy, and observe those things which are written
therein; for the time is at hand.” I have only to add this
remark, that the present address and exhortation of John
applies itself to those who were not in the circumstances;
for he says, “ Blessed are those that observe the things
written therein “; and yet not as circumstances they were
in, but on the contrary, because the time was at hand.
at is, they were to anticipate the things revealed in it.
I observe morally the things of a prophecy, not when the
judgments prophesied are there. It is a revelation of future
things to act on my conscience now. I do not. mean that
there may be no directions for saints when in them; there
may be in particular cases. e Lord may say, as He has
said elsewhere, “ then do this,” and “ then do that “; but
a blessing on the observation of the things in a prophecy
while it remains prophecy (and this is the case here) is not
conduct looked for in the circumstances prophesied, and
therefore cannot prove that we are in them.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
67
e statement of the author is not what is in the
Scripture; and the argument founded on it is unsound. e
comparison he makes is the oft repeated fallacy, which I
have noticed, of stating an alternative which just leaves out
the question.
What the author states about Christ is quite true. e
passage speaks of Him who has been faithful, is risen, and
will be manifestly gloried among men, but it says nothing
about His being ascended, nothing of His being the Head
of the body, nor as in the position in which He is connected
with His body the church.
“ Every eye shall see him “ is opposed, I apprehend, to
His being seen for testimony by chosen witnesses. I do not
attach any importance to it, but it seems to me very clear
that they also which pierced Him are exclusively the Jews;
for I suppose the civilized Gentile nations would come
under “ every eye “; and, “ they also which pierced him “
refers to Zech. 12 I agree that the wailing here must be
distinguished from the true sorrow of the spared remnant-
still as of the nation. ey had pierced Him.
I do not understand what wailing against a person is.
ey are confounded at seeing Him, I apprehend; and wail
about themselves. As to “ this generation “ (Matt. 24), it
is clearly the Jewish unbelieving race: hence the tribes of
the land wail. But what have the heathen to do with this
generation in in Matthew? But this by the by.
But at the close we have a statement which must detain
us for a moment. “ One object of the Revelation is to show
that, during the whole period previous to the appearing of
the Lord, Israel remains unconverted.” Which part of the
Revelation treats of this? e author does not furnish the
smallest iota of proof; and I humbly suspect his readers
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
68
would be considerably embarrassed in nding out or
naming in what this object of the Revelation appeared.
Israel’s tribes are once mentioned as being sealed in the
perfect number of one hundred and forty-four thousand as
servants of God in their foreheads. I do not know whether
this will be alleged as a proof that they are not converted.
It would be a singular one at any rate.
Now I would humbly suggest, notwithstanding the
assertion of the author, that while the Revelation says
nothing directly about it-I urge that it is a very bold thing
to say without any proof, that one of its objects is to show
that Israel will not- yet, that other scriptures clearly show
that there is a remnant turned to God, really converted,
before the Lord comes, though those that are left have not
received deliverance and salvation. e Lord Jesus expressly
says, “ Ye shall not see me henceforth, until ye say, Blessed
be he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Here we have
a positive assertion of the Lord Jesus, that they will not see
Him till they say, Blessed-till their heart be converted to
receive Him. Again, Let any one read Isa. 56, where Jewish
blessings are promised, and yet it is only said “ my salvation
is near to come.” Will it be said that persons of whom God
says, that they choose the things that please Him, take hold
of His covenant, that join themselves to the Lord to serve
Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants-
that God in this describes unconverted people? Again, Isa.
65; 66, where a remnant is distinguished by the Lord as
His servants. See chapter 65: 8-15, and 66: 5, 14, where
there is a remnant very expressly distinguished even from
others that are spared. And here I would remark in passing
(what seems to me the key to all Isaiah) from chapter 4o to
the end: it is this word servant. Israel was Jehovah’s servant
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
69
to be His witness. But Israel as in chapter 49 rejecting
Jesus, He is the servant; and then the remnant at the close,
who hear the Servant’s voice, are themselves recognized as
the servants to be blessed with Him in His earthly glory.
ey are thus described in chapter 51, and their progressive
condition spoken of (chapter 51 to chap. 53: 12). en the
atoning work of the true Servant is brought out. Again,
not to mention a multitude of other Psalms, see Psalm
80, where Israel, God with Israel, and Israel’s blessings are
spoken of. Yet here it is prayed that the hand of Jehovah
may be upon the man of His right hand, upon the Son
of man, whom He made so strong for Himself. And, to
go no farther, supposing the testimony of “ the Son of
God rejected “- stated by the author himself to be given in
Jerusalem after Christianity is withdrawn-to be believed,
surely the believers of this are not in an unconverted state,
nor unprepared to receive Him. Or will their wailing be the
opposite of the wailing of Zech. 12, when He does come?
e supposition is absurd. Again, the wise who understand
of Daniel II, 12, where I think the unprejudiced reader
cannot fail to nd persons commended of God as those
that shall understand, and who will seek to turn the mass
to righteousness (for that is the force of chapter 12: 3; it is
not who have turned many, but who have been teaching
righteousness to the mass-to the many), a class which may
after Christ’s days have been added to the church, but
who are also found in the end in a Jewish position, and
blessed with Jewish blessings, and delivered with a Jewish
deliverance. In a word, while there is a most unfounded
statement, without an attempt at proof, that such was one
object of the Revelation, the thing stated to be the object is
contradicted by a multitude of the plainest scriptures.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
70
It seems to me, indeed, a most solemn thing to say
that the Spirit of God in the Psalms should become
habitually the instrument, not of prophetically revealing
the wickedness of the wicked, but of expressing the
false piety (for, if unconverted, their piety is false) of
unconverted men, and that in the most touching strains
of appeal to God,
17
some of which rise up to prophecies of
Christ Himself, and are all inspired by His Spirit. It is in
vain to say they are Christians. eir hopes and prospects,
their prayers and praises, and the answer of God’s Spirit
to them, are all Jewish. And yet if this be not the former,
the whole system of the author must fall down together
(and that is the worst of making systems). See the promise
even at the end of that famous Psa. 69 Take again Psa. 73;
so Psa. 65 and 66: I take the rst that present themselves.
Are the promises in Psa. 31 and 35 not to be accomplished
in respect of those whose condence is expressed in so
many other passages? And these show the connection of
their hopes with Christ. And note here the quotation by
Peter, and even the prophecy as to Christ, verse 20. But
it would be endless to quote them all. e reader may
make this remark, that while often insisting on integrity
of heart, which the Lord insists on too (see Psa. 24), where
the ground of hope is stated or an appeal to God is made,
and His mercy and righteousness are introduced, mercy is
always rst introduced as the ground of their hope; and
this is but the answer to the work of grace in their hearts. I
cannot pursue this subject at large, but I have said enough
to lead one who searches it out to see how very untenable
the author’s statement is. Yet his system stands or falls with
it, because there is clearly in this case another testimony,
17 Appeals too which are to be answered.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
71
another work of God outside the church, before the Lord
comes, connected with Jewish circumstances and interests,
Jewish in its hopes. I have no doubt that the Scriptures give
a great deal more light on this subject than I have taken
upon me to state here; but I conne myself to the fact itself.
I agree with the author as to Lord’s day (i.e., his
interpretation as to “ on the Lord’s day “); but I confess it is
beyond me what he means by, we “ may live only to God on
that day.” May we do anything else on other days? I admit,
and rejoice in, a special blessing on it; but living only to
God is surely every day in the week.
In the subsequent note we are plunged back again into
the confusion in which we were before. e threefold
division is a recognized one. But let us see the application
of it. “ Chapters 2 and 3 are concerned with the things that
are, i.e., present to John, but to us past. Chapters 6, etc.,
altogether future.” e relationship then of Christ to the
churches, nay, to the church, see pages 14, 15 (as described
in a book which refers to the period in which Christ is
hidden with God, i.e., the dispensation to which the New
Testament belongs, the present period) is to us past-His
excellent relation to such a body.
e mere fact of these churches being past is not in
itself what makes so enormous a position of this; but its
being the description of the relationship of Christ with
the church: and this because it was to be maintained at
all cost that the Revelation applied to this present period-
the church period. It is the system of interpretation which
produces these consequences. I apprehend indeed, though
that be of comparative small importance, that it would be
very dicult to show that all that is said to the churches is
a past matter. I fully admit that there were such churches
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
72
which were so judged. But not only is the number seven
signicative, but “ he that has an ear “ is called upon to
hear what is said to the churches. Now this could hardly
be the case unless the condition (and it is not merely
individual conduct) of these churches might be descriptive,
at such or such given time of the state of things in which
believers would nd themselves, and of which the Lord
gives His judgment. e church in general lost its rst love
as well as Ephesus; and others may, whether in particular
circumstances, or in the general state of the church, at a
given time, nd themselves walking where there was a
name to live, and yet death. Nor can I suppose that when
the Lord speaks of “ the hour of temptation which shall
come upon all the world to try them which dwell on the
earth,” and adds, “ Behold, I come quickly,” that He is
speaking of that which is to us past. And how, if it be to
us past, can the author say (page 83, referring to the last
development of human evil), “ the great hour of temptation
comes only upon the oikoumenee (the Roman earth); but it
is to try or put to the test them that dwell upon the earth?
“ (Rev. 3:10.)
18
And if this be true of Philadelphia, can it be
conned to it? Or would it not prove that the Lord’s mind
was going beyond the local circumstances and referring to
God’s further and more general dealings, though it might
require a spiritual mind to judge of the application? And
why, I would ask, are all the peculiar instructions, and the
heavenly and blessed promises, thus passed over with one
word-it is “ to us past.” I understand this, if the prophetic
part referred to a distinct period which might be separately
18 It is the second time referred to in the same way in the “
oughts.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
73
discussed; but all belongs (according to the author) up to
chapter 19 to the church period.
One topic remains untouched, to which, as occupying
the minds of many saints, and of great importance in their
eyes, I would here advert. A few words suce to establish
the system, and sanction the widespread condemnation of
those who do not hold it: but the explanation of the point
will require a somewhat greater space. “ eir laws were
heavenly; for they were those of the sermon on the mount
“ (page 22, note). is meeting the popular and just feeling,
that the principles of the sermon on the mount ought to
govern us, settles the whole question in many a mind that
the sermon on the mount was addressed to the church, and
that it was for no one else. But hard words will not drive
me from what I have been taught of God from the word.
Now I fully admit that the directions in the sermon on the
mount are a guide to us. On the other hand it surely is very
objectionable to say “ their laws were heavenly, for they
were those of the sermon on the mount,” if it be meant
that this is the whole directory of the church, or that the
church was put under laws. Both of these propositions are
entirely false. But the question (though it may seem so to
those unaware of the bearing of all this) is not whether
the church can take these directions, and use them by the
Spirit for her guidance. If they are addressed to others than
the church, then a condition is found to have existed to
which the testimony of Christ applies, but which is not the
church. If it is solely and exclusively the church, then there
is no example (here at least) of disciples other than the
church; and we are to take the disciples as being, during the
lifetime of Jesus, the church; and the proper and peculiar
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
74
blessedness of that body, in the unity of the Holy Ghost
sent down from heaven, becomes a mere casual dierence.
I say then, that the disciples were not then the church,
though they afterward became the rst nucleus of it, and
that the sermon on the mount is not addressed to the
church, nor could be (though the church now has it for
its guide in its walk). If I say to one who has never been
at court, You cannot join the king’s court but in a court
dress, it is clear that he will have to wear the court dress
when there. For what I say means that that is the dress
that suits the court; but the man as yet does not form part
of the king’s court. But, further, the kingdom of heaven
is not the church; and while we enter into it in the way
of being the church, others may enter into it in another
way, as the Jews and others during the millennium; and
this dress prescribed in the sermon on the mount may be
as needed for those who are to enter in in that way, as for
those who are, by this new form of the manifold wisdom
of God, become the church of God in earth. us when
it is said, “ Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth,” this may be true of those who shall inherit the earth
in a millennial way, and I believe will be true and more
literally and immediately true than it is of the church; and
that to conne it to the church as exclusively true of it, is
only ignorance. is shows the bearing of the question.
en, as to the fact, I say that the disciples were not
then the church, and could not be addressed as the church
(Christ being not yet dead and risen again, and the Spirit
not given). ey were addressed in their then condition.
And is there any great wonder in that? But farther, could
one in the church, a Christian now, as it has been put
by one opposed to my view, have sat on the mount with
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
75
the disciples, and have listened with the disciples to this
sermon as addressed to himself as well as to them? I answer
at once, No. He would have said, How blessed to my soul
are these instructions! what a guide to my feet in this dark
world! how my soul delights in them, and in Him who gave
them! But he would have felt that they were addressed to
them, and not to him. He was in the kingdom, he had the
secret of the Lord, and the Holy Ghost dwelling in him.
And this one word, “ Except your righteousness exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in
no case enter into the kingdom of heaven,” would at once
make him feel, “ is is for them, addressed exclusively
to them.” It is impossible that such language as Ye shall
in “ no case enter “ can be addressed to those who are
already within, who are in and of the kingdom. It gives
the immediate consciousness that the address is to others,
though it may at the same time give the consciousness that
the principles addressed belong to those that are within.
at they got new instructions, belonging to the remnant,
is most true-such as would not have suited any others. at
this remnant became the nucleus of the church and carried
these instructions along with them into it, is equally true.
But they were not then addressed as the church, nor even
as being in the kingdom: nor could they be, for neither was
set up. And this sermon is in prospect of the setting up of
the kingdom, and shows the qualities and persons suited
to it before it was so set up, and in no case even alludes to
the church.
For my own part, though a practical direction in
principle, I have no doubt that chapter 5: 25 applies to
the then position of Christ with the nation, and that the
nation is now suering the consequences of not acting on
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
76
the principle there stated. I add that, while all the teaching
here remains eternally true for every one, yet that, as it
stands here, it could be addressed now neither to saint
nor sinner. Not to a saint; for it is a question of entering
into the kingdom of heaven. Not to sinners; for it is not
an address of grace to them at all, nor is redemption once
mentioned at all, but doing Christ’s sayings as the ground
of entry. (See chap. 7: 21.) To say that it will be true as
regards heaven for us is avoiding the question. It is running
an analogy, and a just one; but it is not what is said or
treated in the sermon on the mount.
I arm then that the sermon on the mount was
addressed to the disciples in their then state; and I should
think it very natural that it should be so. But their then
state was not that of the church, but very far indeed from it.
I do not draw any further consequences, though I believe
these considerations throw light on many points; but as
the subject was started in the note to page 22, I thought
it well to state and repeat clearly what I do believe, as
to the general principle, to be God’s mind about these
passages. And I have done it the rather because of all the
denunciations which have been sent forth on the subject.
ey may produce prejudice (where there is not the light
of God on the point-a sorrowful eect), but will neither
produce conviction, nor create fear where there is. One
may, while confessing one’s liability to error,sorrow over
those who utter, and those who are led by them; but that
is all.
But as we are on the subject, I would touch on one or
two points connected with it. It is alleged that, at any rate,
prophetic passages cannot be addressed to the disciples, save
as representing the church-passages, that is, which relate to
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
77
a time subsequent to the Lord’s death. Now I apprehend
that Matt. 23:8-12 is of perpetual obligation on disciples.
Yet here we have, in the beginning of the address, a passage
which most certainly cannot be applied to the church, as
such; and yet “ you “ and “ ye “ are continued all through
the passage as if to the same class (the disciples being then
considered as connected with the multitude and a Jewish
position). ey were to mind the scribes and Pharisees, as
sitting in Moses’ seat. And it may be remarked that, in this
chapter, the apostles and others are spoken of as Jewish
teachers sent to the nation, as such-that-their scribes and
Pharisees might ll up the measure of their fathers. Yet, in
the midst of this there are instructions binding upon them,
and prophecies of their suerings, when they were in the
place of Christians, after the descent of the Holy Ghost.
(See the verses cited above, and 34, 35.) e Spirit of God
must teach us to apply these passages aright, and to put
each word of God in its place, according to His mind.
19
In Matthew to again we get directions for the future,
which, it cannot be doubted, have had an accomplishment,
at least, in the apostles after the Lord’s death; and yet
clearly the passage does not apply to the church, for they
are forbidden to go to the Gentiles. Yet the Spirit speaks in
them, and they suer for Christ’s name sake.
I admit that the standing of the Pentecostal church was
heavenly. e doctrine of the unity of the church as the
body of Christ was not yet brought out. at doctrine was
clearly based upon the death of Christ, and the descent of
the Holy Ghost.
19 I may add that, in Matt. 24:22-28, there are statements
connected with the word “ Ye “ which apply to a time when the
author does not suppose the church to be there.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
78
Christ could not be (and that is the material point) the
beginning of the church, until He had wrought redemption,
and was risen from the dead. He was not set apart as Son of
God with power, but by resurrection. No Christian doubts
He was Son of God, or that He was the resurrection and
the life. But as we are taught (Col. 1:18), “ And he is the
head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
rst-born from the dead; that in all things he might have
the preeminence.” His headship of creation was based on
His creative power; though it has to be reconciled. But the
cross and redemption were needed, as well as life, to place
any in a church standing-to begin it. Eph. 2 teaches the
same thing; but more of this hereafter. But, as touched on
here, I thought it well to say a word on the doctrine. It
is a very important one. e Holy Ghost can recognize
nothing as the church on this side death and redemption.
e foundation was not laid.
“ THOUGHTS ON CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 “
e introductory part of this chapter I oer no remark
upon because, though I do not acquiesce in parts of it, I am
not _ aware of any principle involved which is not elsewhere
remarked on. In page 40 we have another example of how
little anything critical or exegetical can be trusted to in
theses “oughts.” “He saw ‘a throne set in heaven.’ Being
‘set,’ or rmly established, it stood in contrast with the
mutability and failure of everything he had known below.”
Now it is perfectly clear to anyone who can consult the
Greek that there is no semblance of any such idea. It is
literally, “ a throne lay there “; but in English perhaps best
rendered by “ there was a throne there.” “ Set “ there (in the
familiar sense of setting, i.e., placing a chair) is all very well;
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
79
but the idea of “ rmly established “ has no sort of place in
the sentence.
e meaning of this dierence is this: stability of the
throne refers to the whole period • in which man failed
down here; whereas nding a throne placed, or set there,
shows rather the assumption of a particular position or
relationship by God. And this is perfectly answerable to
the statement made to John by the voice, “ Come up hither,
and I will show thee what must happen after these things.”
Now God may be ever in a general sense on a throne
(though He is not considered always in this light, nor is
it the highest thought of God-that is rather the dwelling
in the light inaccessible); still He is the blessed and only
Potentate. e throne, however, of government is a special
relationship, to be known as it is revealed. us in Job we
see Satan going among the sons of God before it. Here the
throne is revealed in relation to things which are to happen
after what has been stated as to Christ’s relationship to the
churches on earth. For it is well to remember that which
is stated of one general common period is contradicted by
the express word of God in the Revelation. John, after the
vision of the churches, is caught up to see the things which
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
80
should happen thereafter, and then sees the throne
20
which
was set or was then in heaven. Rev. 4:2.
As to the jasper and the sardine stone, I have not
much to say, nor any particular reason to object to what
is said as to it, save that it is all without any foundation.
I know not why, because He that sat on the throne was
like a jasper and a sardine stone, so said to be by the Holy
Ghost, that therefore it should be concluded that He was
like the others which the Holy Ghost does not mention at
all. It would rather seem that it was a special sort of glory
to which these stones answered, or had some analogy: as
the building of the wall of the city was of jasper. And the
city is thus spoken of, “ Having the glory of God, and her
light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper
stone, clear as crystal.” Here, what had the glory of God is
likened particularly to a jasper. In the twelve foundations
the sardine stone is not found. I confess I do not know what
the light of a precious stone means, nor its not ickering;
yet I would not stop to remark on it. But whatever this glory
and beauty be, I would ask, What means “ accomplished in
20 I suppose there can be little doubt that the allusion here is to
Dan. 7:9, where the thrones are set; which, being expressed by a
word used for “ thrown into a place,” has been translated “.cast
down “ in the English translation, but by the Septuagint “ set
“ which, I suppose, is clearly the sense, as received by Gesenius
and other learned men, and many interpreters, and agrees
with the context. If so, the Greek here is natural enough, and
would give much critical force to the observations here. But
this I leave to the learned. ere is no need of reference to the
Hebrew word; as the Greek word is regularly used in the sense
in which it is found here: as John 19:29, “ ere was set a vessel
full of vinegar.” Reference to a dictionary will give the use and
examples; John 2:6, Matt. 5:14, may suce, particularly the
former.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
81
no little measure when the church of the Firstborn shall
inherit that heavenly city … and when of Jerusalem it shall
be said that her righteousness shall go forth as brightness
“? Is the church gloried with Christ in an imperfect
state of glory? Is it only “ in no little measure “ that its
grace and glory are accomplished? I suppose, then, being
like Christ, seeing Him as He is, leaves yet something to
be accomplished by some other glory than His. Or why
this eort to show the glory of the bride the Lamb’s wife,
having the glory of God, as yet imperfect? and to bring in,
as analogous and parallel glory, Jerusalem on earth? “ e
stones of the breastplate were covenant tokens
21
of these
blessings “; and, “ yet the moral excellency and the glory as
of the church, so also of Israel, were in this vision seen alike
secured in the Person of Him who sat on the throne-’ in
Him that is true, even the true God.’ “ (page 41).
“ Union with the Person of the Son of God, is the great
characteristic blessing of the whole family of the redeemed,
whether in earth or heaven,” etc. “ And therefore we read of
the heavenly city the bride,” “ and of Jerusalem it is said,”
21 All this is built on the fact of the jasper and sardine stones being
assumed to prove that the reference was to the breastplate of
the high priest, of which there is no kind of evidence, because
no relationship of any kind with anything else is intimated. It
is merely that He was like it-the expression of certain qualities
in Him. On this is built, that the stones on the breastplate
secured the heavenly as well as earthly glory in unity as
covenant blessings. Where is all this in Scripture? And of what
covenant? What an edice is here built, without one scripture
being quoted, on these two stones being the likeness of God!
And note, that the whole system of the author, proving the
imperfection of the church’s own glory, and the participation
of Israel in it (without saying that it is inferior, so as to leave all
vague), is built, without a scripture proof, on this.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
82
etc. “ Such are the results of His being as the jasper and
the sardine stone, who sitteth upon the throne, for He is
the Preserver now, even as He will be the Communicator
then, of all this exceeding grace and glory.” Is then this
exceeding grace and glory communicated to Jerusalem on
earth, as well as to the bride the Lamb’s wife? “ e bright
excellency of character and glory, which is now found in
Him who sitteth on the throne, is, in Him, preserved for
us, in whom it is soon to be manifested in like radiancy of
beauty. And therefore we read of the heavenly city”; “and of
Jerusalem it is said,” etc.
Is then Jerusalem on earth to be in like radiancy of beauty
with the heavenly type of the divine glory? Is Jerusalem
to be clothed with what is said to be preserved for us? “
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor
corruption inherit incorruption.” “ e glory of the celestial
is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.” But here,
by a measure of accomplishment only for the church, and
the connection of gures used as to Jerusalem with the
type of divine glory, all is swamped in one undistinguished
mass, based on union with the Son of God. Are the saints
prepared to have the promises to the bride the Lamb’s wife
thus dealt with? Jerusalem may be a “ crown of glory in
the hand of the Lord “; but is that what the bride is in the
Revelation, or the New Testament promises? I have little
disposition to reason on these statements: if the heart, as
taught and animated by the Spirit of God, does not reject
them, reasoning would be of very little avail.
And what are these statements based on? An
assumption, that because two stones were specially selected
as descriptive of Him on the throne in vision, therefore it
meant all such as were found on the breastplate of the high
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
83
priest-from which, observe, lights and perfections were
distinct-the enumeration as to the heavenly Jerusalem
being moreover dierent. en the actual state of the
church of God in glory is said to be only an imperfect state
as to state and glory, inward and outward; and then they
are stated to be Israel’s risen priests, without a hint of proof
being yet given. at is, by a series of statements without
the least appearance of proof, or a single text of scripture
adduced as warranting them, the whole condition and state
of the church in glory is subverted, by giving to Jerusalem
in vague terms what Scripture does not, and taking from
the church, the object of Christ’s dearest aections, what
He has ascribed to it.
“ Union with the Person of the Son of God is the
great characteristic blessing of the whole family of the
redeemed.” Where in Scripture? at they all have life
from Him is undoubtedly true. But where is union spoken
of with the Son of God as characterizing the saints on
earth during the millennium? Union is an ambiguous and
not even a scriptural term; and, though blessedly used
when spiritually understood, may be used to ensnare the
understanding of those who truly desire Christ’s glory. Are
the saints on earth in the millennium united to Christ in
the sense of being then His body? is is what would be
implied here, though the author has not ventured to go so
far as to state it.
Union with Christ, spoken of in Scripture, conveys the
idea of the body with the Head. Now there was no body,
and no Head neither, till the exaltation of Christ (Eph.
1). e Holy Ghost speaks of the exceeding greatness of
God’s power in raising Christ, and setting Him to be Head
over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
84
of Him that lleth all in all. at is, it is the exalted Man
with whom, as Head, the church is spoken of as one body.
Now there was no exalted Man till Christ ascended on
high; and thereon He sent down the Holy Ghost to form
the bout’ in unity. Giving of life is not here the point. As
Son of God He gave life to all the family in every age; but
union as a body with a gloried man could not be when the
gloried man was not there. Nor are the saints during the
millennium said to be in union, nor anything of the kind.
Nor are they the gloried body of Christ. e saints lled
of the Holy Ghost are spoken of as having gifts according
to the unity of this body, till we all come-that is, Scripture
contemplates only all the saints under the operation of
these gifts which are the joints of the body. And the use of
“ in him that is true “ is a mere gloss and has nothing to do
with its use in Scripture. Here the grace and glory are said
to be secured for the church and Israel, in Him that is true:
whereas Scripture says, “ we are in him that is true.”
e truth is, ‘Union with the Person of the Son of
God,”
22
is an idea as unscriptural as the words. “ We are
in him and he is in us.” We are also said to dwell in God,
and God in us; but we do not speak of union with God.
Again, of whom is it said, “ We have received of his fullness
22 e expression has been used most innocently (I dare say
I may have used it myself), as the carrying up the mind to
the true source of all its blessings. But when a mere human
imperfect expression is used as the basis and expression of a
doctrine, so as to draw immense consequences from its terms,
then the value and accuracy of the terms must be estimated.
It is just the way of error to use, some inaccurate expression,
popular and consecrated to express a great blessing, to sanction
the false doctrine contained in the terms employed: us it was
with “ mother of God,” used perhaps at the rst innocently, as
meaning the mother of Him who was God.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
85
grace for grace? “ Of the Word made esh, He dwelt
among us, full of grace and truth. Before that it had been
said, “ in him was life “; but now the Word becomes esh,
and we talk of fullness. Again, the same truth is omitted
in citing the passage, “ in whom all fullness dwells.” Is it
merely in the Person of the Son of God? Not at all. “ In
him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And
we are complete in him who is the head of all principality
and power.” And again: “ He is the head of the body the
church: who is the beginning, the rstborn from the dead:
that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. For all
the fullness was pleased to dwell in him. And having made
peace through the blood of his cross,” etc. at is, it is not
the mere lifegiving power of the Son of God, but His own
taking a position as Man, in which He becomes the Head
of the body, the church, which gives occasion to the union.
Hence the whole of these pages are a perversion as
to Israel, the church, union, and Him with whom we are
united. And I beg it may be remembered that there is not a
word in this chapter commented upon about Israel, nor the
priests of Israel, nor the God of Israel; though all seems to
be based on it, and the very glory of God to be drawn from
the breastplate of their high priest. Nor has the rainbow
anything to do with the God of Israel. It was established
long before, though God may bless the earth when He
restores Israel, and manifests the church in the divine unity
of all His counsels.
e author is pleased to say, “ Hence the connection of
the rainbow with the throne of the Lord God of Israel.”
But where is it said; the throne of the Lord God of Israel”?
Or what shows that this heavenly throne was that of the
Lord God of Israel, unless the fact that there is but one
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
86
God, and so it must be the same? But such a reason is
triing with Scripture. On the statement as to the church
I have not much to remark, but that “ knowing as we are
known “ has nothing whatever to say with “ participating
in the counsels of the Most High,” which Scripture never
says, and I believe to be impossible. ese counsels may
be revealed to them; but God does not take counsel, as if
anything were undetermined in His mind Nor do I see
how the fact of the analogy of the twenty-four courses of
priests connects them with Israel, so as to prove that Israel
is not forgotten.
at the twenty-four elders allude to the twenty-four
courses, I believe, and in general all the vision to the state
of things in the temple, as is quite clear; but to make out of
this gurative allusion that they are therefore really Israel’s
priesthood in the world to come, without any allusion of
Scripture to it, is building without any foundation. e
vials were the prayers of the saints-it is never said of Israel,
nor is it said to be during the time of glory. e Lamb is yet
in the throne above. As to 1Chron. 25, it is Levite service,
not priestly at all. ere is no scripture quoted or alluded
to, on which to ground it; and a gure drawn from facts is
surely not a warrant for actual relationship with those from
whom the gure is taken: and this is all that is to be had for
the large system here presented, which is to unite heaven
and earth.
As to the thunder and lightning being not the millennial
relation but the present, there is nothing yet which proves
it to be either. is book is evidently written for persons
long and carefully imbued with the ideas it contains, or it
would be impossible to advance so many things without
any proof. We have seen this as to Israel’s priesthood,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
87
stated without a symptom of proof. Here we are told that
the gloried are to be manifested on mount Zion: this is
assumed and reasoned from. It may be so, but cannot be
assumed. I believe it to be a total mistake. At all events there
is no proof.
23
But as to present relation, if the churches are
present relation (which, as to period, they are stated to be),
then the throne-I have to repeat-cannot be; because this
vision is said to be of things after the others.
But we now arrive at statements of the most
unaccountable character, which suppose a confusion of
mind scarcely possible to conceive in one guided by the Holy
Ghost. “ e appearance of the jasper and the sardine stone
attaching to Him who sat on the throne, has taught us the
source of all our excellency and glory. e elders represent
one form under which that glory will be exhibited “; “ the
cherubim symbolize another.” What glory? e divine, as
a jasper and sardine stone? By itself this might pass; for we
rejoice in hope of the glory of God, and the city had the
glory of God. I draw attention to it merely that we may
see on what ground we are entering- participating in the
divine glory as seen in the throne itself.
But before these we have two other symbols, we are told:
“ one indicating the nature of a power with which we are to
be invested; the other, the essential purity that will attach to
our new condition of being. e rst of these is represented
by the seven lamps of re, burning before the throne, which
are the seven spirits of God.” ey represent the Spirit “
as subserving the government of the throne of God “-not
as He acts in strict co-equality. Yet “ nothing, perhaps,
amongst all the attributes of God, is more wonderful
23 We shall see how far this holds good with other statements
further on.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
88
than this Omnipresent control; all the merely executive
agents of His government being subordinate thereunto,”
etc. “ When we consider … that the universe, morally as
well as physically, is under a superintendence,” etc.; “ it
gives a view of Almighty and Omnipresent power, more
wonderful, perhaps, than the original power of creation, or
that whereby He continually upholds that which He hath
created. is power is at present possessed and exercised by
the Lord Jesus; for He hath the seven spirits of God sent
out into all the earth; but His saints do not possess it yet.
At present His divine power is given to us only so far as
is necessary for present purposes of life and godliness. But
since it is said in the scripture, that we are the fullness of
him that lleth all in all,’
24
and that we are to be made like
him, and joint-heirs with him,’ and since the Lord Jesus
has Himself said, the glory which thou hast given me, I
have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one,’
it cannot be doubted that the church will participate in
this branch also of His glorious power.” And that there is
no mistake in this attribution of Almighty Omnipresence to
the church, we are told that all the merely executive agents
of His government are subordinate thereto: for such we
could well suppose the church to be according to this
power, as angels are now, or even more exaltedly (though
they are said to be equal to the angels, Luke 20:36). But
24 is is an utter misapplication of the passage. e church is
said to be His fullness as the body of the head-” like Him “ in
personal glory, having the image of the Second, as we have of
the rst Adam. “ When he appears, we shall be like him.” It is
what we shall be, not the possession of divine attributes. And
when He speaks of glory given, it is given to Him; but He
upholds all things by the word of His power; and in or by Him
all things consist.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
89
it is distinguished from this; and in the note we are told
the dierence, that this power in the whole universe is “ in
Him essentially and inherently; to us it will only come by
communication.”
I have given this long quotation, and I shall add little
comment. It is not strict coequality of the Spirit; but it
is an “ attribute of God “ more wonderful than creative
power, or that by which He upholds the universe. It is
the universality of Omnipresent control, or Almighty
and Omnipresent power. e saints do not possess it yet,
but they will participate in it. What is coequality of the
Spirit, if it be not in the attributes of Godhead? And are
you, saints of God, prepared to accept- to admit of-such
statements as these? Do you thus interpret “ we shall be like
him, for we shall see him as he is “? What shall I say? Nay,
I leave it to yourselves. For how should we reason on the
attribution of Almighty and Omnipresent power, to which
all executive agents of His government are subordinate, to
the church; and that in a chapter in which it is said that, yet
imperfect, her grace and glory can only be said to be “ in
no little measure “ consummated? If anything were needed
to complete this confusion it would be the connection of
the notes of the preceding chapter, where we are told, that,
in the thought of impending conict, “ we may remember
the seven Spirits of God, that their power has not ceased to
be supreme, and that benediction, as from them, has been
pronounced over us.” Yet, though supreme, and exercising
power greater than creation, it is not coequality with the
Father and the Son. Alas! what is the confusion of man’s
mind when it deals thus as human mind with Scripture?
Nor is this all. It is brought yet again most denitely
out. “ But there is yet another character of power, which the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
90
church is to exercise, in the glory “ (page 51 -though this
follows on partaking of the glorious power of the throne.
“ Admission into the counsels of God is represented by
the throned elders-Omniscient power of superintendence,
by the seven spirits; but the execution of the will of God,
and the omnipotent power, necessary to such execution,
25
is also committed to the redeemed.” I know not what more
power should be committed to them than Almighty power,
which they had already in the seven Spirits, or what else
should be necessary. And indeed I know not (though I
really feel almost afraid to reason on such statements, lest
the reasoning on them might take the character of the folly
of bringing man’s mind into such subjects, and I should
do what the author has done, though only to refute it-for
there are some things which to refute is as foolish as to
state); yet I know not why it should be said, “ the will of
God,” when they participate in the counsels of the Most
High (page 45). Let the reader only weigh all this. e
author insists on it, “ nor,” says he, “ is it conceivable that
the saints should be joint-heirs with Christ, without being
invested with this character of power.”
Nor is this all. “ at the cherubim symbolize the
redeemed, is manifest,” etc. “ e vision of Ezekiel aords
the fullest description of that power which the cherubim
denote.” e author then quotes the description, not
of Him seated above, but of the cherubim, and adds, “
Nothing can be more signicant of the resistless course
25 Were the angels, too, omnipotent-those ministers of His who
did His pleasure? And we are said to be “ equal to angels,”
Luke 20:36, though exalted above them, through union with
Jesus. Cannot Almighty power go with the agents of His will?
Does it not do so now, even with poor, feeble saints, where they
do it?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
91
of Almighty power. ese terrible wheels-combining the
movements of four, without losing the unity of one, etc.;
nowhere absent, but everywhere present, in the perfectness
of undivided action; aord the mysterious, but tting
symbol of the omnipotent agency of Him, before whom
all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing:
and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay
His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou? “ Is this the
power which the cherubim, the redeemed, denote? We read
(page 53), “ eir agency in the earth has for the present
ceased,” and “ we may see the necessity for such a power,
and the high calling of the church, in being entrusted with
its application.” “ e various characteristics of this power
are denoted by the forms of the four living creatures,” etc.
A reason is then given for the change of form from Ezekiel,
which I leave to any one to explain; and after describing
their characteristics, we are told that “ as such,” they “ will
apply to the earth and to the universe the wisdom of the
elders [!!] and the throne.” Is it possible that saints can
have read such a passage as this, and not hid the book
from them? “ Of the elders and the throne! “ and the elders
are themselves. But no observation ought to be made on
such a passage as this. And all this is to be saved by the
confession that, though it may seem to exalt the creature
almost into coequality with God (no wonder, when they
possess attributes more wonderful than creative power,
and that it is their wisdom as well as that of the throne
they apply), yet that, for all that, they worship Him that
sits there. In possession of wisdom and power, blessed in
himself, and a source of divine blessing to others, man will
yet render homage to Him from whom all things proceed!
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
92
Glorious as these cherubim, however, were, the
exaltation of the elders was higher. Still they worship. ey
may be a higher symbol, but it must be remembered that
they are the symbol of the same redeemed church: so that,
even in this respect, all is confusion here. e church has
been taken from its proper blessed glory and joy as the
bride of Christ, to reduce it to a vague uncertain position
of identity with Zion and Israel; and hence, to satisfy the
cravings of the mind (or rather to show its wanderings), all
this exaggerated statement is to be made, outraging every
truth, and making every feeling of the soul shrink, not only
from this, but from afterward approaching the question of
what these symbols do mean, for fear of being drawn into
the vortex.
And now let me ask this question of the reader, Was
there reality in the vision of Ezekiel? that is, was there the
exercise of judicial power in Jerusalem, of which he saw
the symbol in the throne of Jehovah in vision? If there was,
then, was it the church of the redeemed that then exercised
the divine power? or were there eyes in others who are
to be deprived of them? e church was not there. Nor
were the cherubim the executors of anything. A man took
a coal from between the cherubim, and certain agents of
judgment smote those that another had not marked. e
cherubim did nothing of all this.
Further: the cherubim did not then (chap. 1) go up to
heaven, though this is a common mistake. Nor were they
(though that be equally common, and one into which I
dare say I may have fallen myself) the throne of God at
Jerusalem. See Ezek. 1:4. It would seem from that to be
providential judgment by the means of Nebuchadnezzar.
Compare Jer. 1:13, Is-a prophecy referring to the same
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
93
period in general, though there were several successive
invasions. at the church may be the instrument of His
power is very likely: but partaking of Almighty omnipresent
power is quite another thing.
Another example of the entire uncertainty of exegetical
interpretations, introduced to serve the moment’s purpose,
or deny those of other brethren, is aorded here. Generally
the human face in the cherub has been interpreted of
intelligence. Here, page 55, we are told “ the human face “
“ represents not, I think, intelligence,”-” but that sympathy
with humanity,” etc. Of the locusts we are told, page 108,
“ eir having the faces of men (the same characteristic as
we nd in the cherubim) marks, I suppose, the wisdom and
sagacity with which they carry on their hellish counsels.”
e reference of the cherubim is the author’s own.
“ THOUGHTS ON THE FIFTH CHAPTER “
It is a remark, I think, of Lord Bacon’s, that if one were to
tell a falsehood to one’s self often enough, we should believe
it at the year’s end: how much more when error comes from
those we are accustomed to respect, and falls in with our
natural wishes and feelings. “ e throne, surrounded by
the symbolic glories we have been considering, is intended,
through all the deep darkness and sorrow of the present
dispensation, to stand before us a sure sustaining object of
faith.” Abstractedly, no doubt, the throne of God does so,
though much more to us a Father’s love.
26
But this does
not hinder its being true that the revelations here made
are, according to the author, all entirely future. e throne
here displayed has never acted at all up to this time. And,
according to the word, all the events were subsequent
26 e throne, I apprehend, is little spoken of in direct known
addresses to the church.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
94
to what is stated as to the churches; which are Christ’s
relationship to the excellent body, the church, according to
the author. It is future glory too, according to him, that is
revealed: so that it is not the throne as acting now. Further,
while it showed the church in its high and distinctive
future glories, “ our future exaltation,”
27
yet the object
also was to give us instruction essential to our testimony
and service upon earth among men-precise and denite
instruction through John to the churches upon the earth.
Now what is the instruction as to service? Or when, save
the two witnesses, is there any service of the church, or
of any saints at all, spoken of in the Revelation; and that
precisely and denitely? For that is what a book, we are
told, is the symbol of. Not one word of proof or example is
given as bearing out this assertion.
But again, “ Hidden in the throne had been one who,
now for the rst time appeared, and assumed a new
27 is is really all confusion, because the throne is surrounded
with future glories, and yet is the throne of the present
dispensation. It ‘presents the church symbolically in glory, and
gives Christ the titles which belong to His connection with
Israel in a yet unasserted title; and yet it is hence that precise
and denite instruction is given to the church for its present
testimony and service. is has been in a measure felt by the
author, though laboriously sought to be got over: for, after
stating that it is not Christ’s church title, but a new relationship,
he says, “ yet it is not dicult to see the reason why He should
be here introduced as the Lion of Judah.” Having mingled
and confused all the relationships of Christ and the throne
with the church and Israel, the reasons for that must be given:
but the simple scripture does not need these reasons, nor this
justication. He who was on earth the Lamb, and was withal
the Lion of Judah, was thus identied and recognized in His
own Person in the throne on high. Hereafter He will be known
as Ospring of David too.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
95
relation to Him who sat upon it “-rst appeared, that is,
in the heavenly vision; for He had been seen in another
way among the churches. But if it was a new relation, it
was not a relation to the churches at all. It is in vain to say
that this was an anticipation of the millennium;
28
because
in the same character He opens all the seals, which are “
this period,” the “ church period,” and contain precise and
denite instruction to the churches upon the earth. But
how to the churches on earth, if it was, as indeed it really
was, a new relation that the Lord was in; and instructions,
moreover, for testimony and service? And when the author
speaks of a new relation to the throne, was He in a new
relation to the throne without its being new towards the
earth and the saints? at cannot be, because it was a
new intermediate relation. And it was a new relation. It
is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the Root of David.
No doubt that it was the same person as the Lamb slain,
and all-important that we should know it; and no doubt
this knowledge was communicated to the churches. For
things to come belong in knowledge to the church. It was
to Abraham that the knowledge of what was to happen to
Lot at Sodom was given, not to Lot, nor because Abraham
was there, or to be there, but because he was the friend of
God. But this new relationship was not established with
the churches, though communicated to them. If people
choose to call it the church, it is the church on entirely a
new footing, and in a new relation, after the Lord has done
with the churches and His excellent relation to the body.
Further, it is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of
David-that is, Christ’s name in relation to the earth and
28 If so, it was not the throne which was the sustaining object of
faith during this dispensation.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
96
Israel in power.
29
So also, on the other hand, it is not yet
His millennial relation on earth, because then He takes
the additional character of “ Ospring of David “-that is,
as actually coming, as may be seen at the close of the last
chapter of this book. Judgment and righteousness (page
58) are to be exercised in the earth, and Judah be saved,
and Israel dwell safely; but this is not Christ’s relation
to the churches, nor to the church. So that it is not His
relation to the churches, for it is a new relation. It is not
His millennial relation, for then He is Ospring of David;
and yet the throne in which He is found is the stay of faith
during the present dispensation. Nor is even “ Lamb slain “
properly His relationship with the churches. He is, as such,
the foundation of reconciliation with God, and the taker
away of sin from before Him; but it is not His relationship
with the churches.
I pass on to page 60, where I read, “ e book taken
from the throne reveals the manner in which God is about
to enforce the title of His Son as the Lion of Judah, and
to manifest that He is indeed the root of David.” Now, is
this to be done connectedly with God’s relationship to the
church? Clearly not, save as being with the Lord in heaven.
Is it precise and denite instructions for the church’s
service? It may be revealed to the churches. But are they
the objects of its revelations, when God is enforcing this
new relation, and manifesting that Christ is the Root of
David? Is that the church period? Yet this, by the author’s
own statement, describes the contents of this book. It is
clear the church’s portion and place is when God does not
enforce this title, nor manifest that Christ is the Root of
David. e church suers with Him, when His title is not
29 A title, as the writer himself says (page 59), “ yet unasserted.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
97
enforced. It is the “ contrariety of all things in the earth to
this His title,
30
and the consequent necessity of enforcing
it by Almighty power, that will bring on the coming
judgments of the throne.” But is it not the plainest rst
principle on this subject, that if we suer with Him, from
this very contrariety or contradiction of sinners when His
title is not enforced by judgments from the throne, we shall
reign with Him?
“ It was only for a moment that the Lamb assumed
this intermediate place between it (the throne) and the
creature.” What place? “ e eectual communicator of
the blessings which will ow from the love, and from the
glorious power of the Most High God, possessor of heaven
and earth? “ Does He assume this place in this chapter 5,
or anything like or about it? at He will have it is certain.
at there is here and often in this book an anticipation of
the results actually to be produced by subsequent events I
do not at all deny. But that it is a celebration of a millennial
state of things, or that a millennial song is sung, or that
Christ, even for a moment, assumed a millennial position,
or that there is a word about Israel, is entirely false and
contradicted by the statement of the chapter. “ e Lamb
had “ not “ taken His place between the throne and the
creature, as the connecting link of blessing.” Where is
there one word about it in the chapter? He will do so. at
they may anticipate it from seeing Him may be possible,
30 After all, this is not the ground of the church’s suering,
properly speaking. It is as Savior and Son of God that the
church knows and declares Him, and suers for Him; though
the other be fully owned. But the writer always brings down
the church to the earthly title of Christ. It is characteristic of
the book, and that to which the saints have to give heed.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
98
as I may do in thinking of Him now, and with a nearer
approach to it; but He took no such place.
ese are the words of Scripture: “ And he came, and
took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on
the throne. And when he had taken the book,” etc. “ And
they sung a new song, saying, ou art worthy to take the
book, and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and
hast redeemed us to God,” etc. Now, is that a millennial
song, when the thing celebrated is the title to open the
book, all the contents of which are to be accomplished
before the millennium begins? Is the Lamb seen here as
“ the eectual communicator of the blessings which ow
from the love, and from the glorious power of the Most
High God, possessor of heaven and earth,” even in earnest,
when the contents of the book, not yet opened, were the
actings of God upon the throne for Him before He left it
or took His place as such? When the throne from which
He received it is one from which proceeded lightnings, and
thunderings, and voices? If the preceding
31
“ chapter “ (and
it is the same throne) “ had been describing the millennial
relation of the throne to things below, and not its present
relation, we should not have seen this Sinai character of
awful majesty attached to it “; nor “ if Israel and the earth
had been reconciled to God.” (Pages 46, 47.) Whereas,
when from this very throne, the Lamb takes the book
which describes the judgments which are to ow from it,
during the very period thus insisted upon as not millennial,
“ Israel is supposed to be reconciled “ (page 61).
It is in vain to say, e presence of the Lamb supposes
the state of millennial reconciliation, because the “ awful
names “ given Him are to be enforced by the “ coming
31 See pages 46, 47.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
99
judgments of the throne,” and these judgments are what He
is here receiving the communication of, in (as the author
reminds us in a note) a bitter book. ere is nothing about
a link of blessing. at every creature owns His glory, when
He appears, is quite true; but His relation is not as a link
of millennial blessing then; nor is millennial blessing the
thing celebrated in the song, but His worthiness to open
the book, which is not millennial.
Again, in the note we read, “ the prayers of the saints
(i.e., Israel).” Why? is has been stated three or four
times, and to be believed because it is said, if the reader
pleases. No word or hint of proof is given. “ Who are
reigning “: where is Israel said to reign as such? Where is
this oft-repeated statement, “ e church discharging its
priestly functions? “ When men are suciently imbued
with a system, they may receive these notices of it. But
those who hold to Scripture must be excused if they do not
receive an immense system because it has been repeatedly
asserted without proof pretended even to be given. It is
very convenient to say “ saints, i.e., Israel.” But can any
reasonable man be expected to receive things stated in
this way? I would urge the saints who really believe that
Scripture is the only source of truth, to ask themselves in
reading the book we are examining, every time they meet
with any statement, where the Scripture proof or authority
alleged for this is. ey will soon see how many have such
authority even advanced for them.
I will close the examination of this chapter, by asking,
Is it an interpretation which can be received for a single
instant, which takes the proof of the actual reigning of
Israel, being in view, as anticipated, from a passage thus
presented: “ ou art worthy to take the book … for they
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
100
[Israel] are reigning “? Yet this is what is presented to us in
these “ oughts.” I add (as to the criticism in the note: “
is is the right reading: ou hast redeemed us to God-
and hast made THEM “ etc.), that the “ us “ here insisted
on, is rejected by Griesbach as absolutely spurious,
32
and
by Tischendorf, though admitted by Scholz. Mr. Tregelles,
who generally approves Tischendorf, admits it, but without
giving any authority for it in the margin. e only ancient
MS of the three which remain
33
(which MSS Mr. T. says
are worth all the modern ones) rejecting it. Now I would
only ask, When Griesbach and Tischendorf reject, Scholz,
without quoting his authorities either, followed by Tregelles
doing the same thing, receive, the word “ us “ (but both the
latter giving as against it the best and only ancient MS,
of which we have the reading here); what is the warrant,
under these circumstances, for this short and conclusive
32 [So it was marked in Griesbach’s manual edition, Leipsic,
1805, and thus it is represented in some reprints; but in his
critical edition it stands only as questionable.-En.]
33 Unless one is here uncollated: no one cites it. e passage is
wanting in the third. I will venture to make this remark on
Mr. Tregelles’s book. As far as I can judge, the preface is the
clearest and most satisfactory statement, as to the materials of
an examination of the text of the Revelation which we have.
But having generally given the cursive manuscripts in classes,
and merely the numbers which agree, no one can form a
judgment for himself, unless he assume the system of recension
adopted by Mr. T. His judgment may be very good; but the
reader is disabled from judging for himself. Another defect, as
to convenience of reference, is, that the hiatuses in C (which
no one can be well expected to carry in his memory) are not
stated in the margin; so that the reader cannot judge whether
it be silent or adverse. In the present case Tregelles’s note is a
transcript of Scholz’s, which states the authorities against, but
nothing more.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
101
dictum-” e right reading of this passage is “? It may be
all very right; but things cannot be settled in that way. It
is a most royal road, to critical certainty. And this word,
thus uncertainly supported, is the only proof given (page
5i) that the cherubim symbolize the redeemed. ey may:
I do not here decide; but on what a basis it rests, on the
author’s statements!
“ NOTES ON CHAPTER 4 AND 5 “
e author insists that the words “ Come up hither “ do
not refer to being seated in heavenly places in Christ, nor to
a future translation of the church. at it is not as to John
personally one or other is clear; but this is not the question,
but whether he is not therein brought prophetically to view
events from the position in which the church would view
them as so placed. I do not here decide the question; I only
state it, because his allusion to John’s personal condition
and conduct entirely falsies the question. If John was
taken there to be instructed, and these instructions are for
the church, is not the church to view the things he speaks
of from the same point of view? Or why is he set to instruct
the saints from this point of view, if it is not theirs when
the things arrive, though always prospectively protable? I
repeat, I do not decide this question: I only disencumber it
of the fallacy of his argument.
But the following note really goes too far. “ It is
immaterial whether the Greek be translated ‘ hereafter ‘
or ‘ after these things.’ “ Is this really to be said, that it
is immaterial whether a passage of Scripture be translated
right or wrong? Whichever be the right translation,
it cannot be immaterial; because it is not immaterial to
translate it right. But, moreover, it is so little immaterial
here, that the whole structure of the book depends upon
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
102
it; and if the exact translation be given, the whole system
of these “ oughts “ is entirely subverted. e words are “
after these,” which plainly signify “ after these things.” ere
can be no disputing about the plain meaning of the words.
ey are used in the Revelation continually in this sense,
and all through the New Testament; and I nd no case in
which they are used, without reference to some previously
stated fact or time, after which certain things happened.
is might be translated very commonly “ afterward.”
is would be the ordinary English word in a great many
cases. In a few “ hereafter “ may be used, where there is no
subsequent limit put to the second period.
us, if speaking of present things actually existing, I
should say “ now,” or “ already “ and “ hereafter.” Now, or
already, you are guilty of such or such things, and hereafter
you will do yet worse; because I mean thereby, after these that
you are now doing. But then it always supposes an existing
state of things, after which the things subsequently stated
take place-never the general English idea of “ hereafter,”
referring to a distant future, with a length of time elapsing
before that future arrives. e preposition meta means
sometimes things co-existent with
34
others, sometimes
things immediately consequent upon the cessation of the
others.
35
As Tregelles translates it “ hereafter,” I thought
there might be some special idiom, and I had the LXX
and other lexicons also searched by a friend: but there is
nothing whatever to modify the usual sense of the words.
Further, in this particular case we have a special guide
to the employment of these words, because they form a
distinct division of the book. e division I allude to is
34 It is then used with the genitive.
35 en (as here) with the accusative.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
103
admitted in page 37 of the “ oughts “: indeed, no one can
deny it. It is found (chap. 1: 19), “ Write the things which
thou hast seen “-contained in chapter 1; “ the things which
are “contained in chapters 2 and 3; “ and the things which
shall be after these things “-i.e., which are future to the
things which are: the seven churches; at the close of which
(related and judged in chapters 2 and 3) John is caught up
to see the things which are to happen afterward.
e form of the Greek in chapter 1 is stronger even
than if the words in question were found alone. e things
which are, and the things which are going to happen
afterward, after these. But if this be so, and the seven
churches be the relation of Christ to the body gathered
out of the nations, then the things which happen after are
not during the period of that relationship. e system of
argument followed in these “ oughts “ depends on the
period treated of in the prophetic part of the Revelation
being the church period. But if the seven churches give us
Christ’s relationship to that body, as previously stated by
the author, then the words “ after these” (afterward) show
that the prophetic part refers to what is subsequent to that
period. In a word, his system is founded on the prophetic
period and the church period being the same. e words “
after these” are a positive declaration that they are distinct,
and that the prophetic period is subsequent to that treated
in chapters 2 and 3, and denominated “ things that are,” the
only direct mention of the church, considered as on earth,
in the Revelation. In the prophetic part it is only seen
as in heaven above. If it be “ hereafter,” then it is merely
that the things there related were after John’s time. Is this
immaterial? Or can the divisional structure of the whole
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
104
book, relative to the very point in debate, be immaterial to
the argument?
Next as to the throne. We are told it was something
then existent, and not future: but inasmuch as the symbols
which surrounded it pointed onward to yet future glories,
these chapters have a prophetic character indirectly
attached to them. If this merely meant that God had an
eternal throne, but that its character here was prophetic,
this might be all very well. But in the next note we have
an application of this which throws all into confusion, the
object being, as may be seen in reading the note, to connect
the throne with this dispensation. But before I enter into
any detail, I would ask, Is it not singular that, to give the
vision of the throne of this dispensation, we have rst
the throne “ in itself,” as it is “ unchanged throughout all
dispensations,” and surrounded by symbols which do not
belong to it in this? e throne by itself belongs to none,
or (if you please) is unchanged throughout all. Its relative
character must then be determined by the symbols attached
to it. But these pointed onward to future glories. It is thus
indirectly prophetic when the symbols are separately and
abstractedly considered. ey were anticipative, and of the
next dispensation, as is clear according to the “ oughts “
(see page 61, in the text and note). e symbols themselves
then do not belong to this dispensation. Indeed this is
clear, for the church (the elders) are in heaven. Nor does
the throne belong to it.
But the symbols “ will not be attached to it in the
same manner “ in the next dispensation: which in several
respects is quite true. But then, would not the natural
conclusion be that, if the symbols do not belong to this
dispensation at all, but are prophetic of future glories, and
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
105
yet that they are not attached to the throne in the same
manner as they will be when the next dispensation is
established, the throne represents a peculiar state of things,
and belongs properly to neither? Is it not (seeing that the
symbols are confessedly in themselves not indicative of
this dispensation, but prophetic of future glories, and that
the throne belongs to none)-is it not strange from those
premises to draw the conclusion? “ e vision of the throne,
therefore, must be regarded as peculiarly belonging to our
present dispensation. It is only indirectly prophetic when
the symbols are separately and abstractedly considered.”
And what if considered as characterizing the throne, which
in itself is unchanged throughout all dispensations? But it
may be added, “ the Sinai character of the throne “ has to
be considered as well as the symbols. Be it so. Is the Sinai
character of the throne what characterizes our dispensation?
Is this its relation to the church? Or is the church really to
have no place at all in considering our dispensation? Take
the Hebrews. Is Sinai the character given to the throne
there as we view it? (See chaps. 4 and 12.) It is all very well
to say, “ a character it may well retain whilst Israel and the
earth remain unreconciled by the blood of sprinkling.” But
what is this but to put the church and church-relationship
wholly out of view as characterizing the “ church period “
and “ our dispensation “?
e church is seen exclusively in heaven in the prophetic
part of the Revelation. It is not seen, save after chapter 19,
in its millennial state. e throne has a judicial character,
governing and plaguing the earth. What am I to conclude?
at it is the church dispensation? or something special?
e statement of the unchangeable throne, however, is
full of confusion, because all the titles, the revelation of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
106
which distinguished dispensations, are given as the titles
of the unchangeable throne, and declared to be the same
one as the other. Now, they are just what distinguish the
relationship, as the symbolic circumstances and the Sinai
character do here the peculiar position which it takes. e
eternal throne, we are told, of Jehovah Elohim Shaddai, the
covenant God of Israel.
Now, that the one true God was all this is well known:
but the revelation of these names was what constituted
the dierence of dispensation. “ I appeared,” says God,
“ to your fathers, by my name God Almighty, but by my
name Jehovah was I not known to them.” Now He takes
this name as the covenant God of Israel. At Sinai the legal
covenant connected with it is sealed by blood. As “ seen by
Isaiah and Ezekiel,” it was not a heavenly throne. In Isaiah,
“ His train lled the temple,” which is now no longer
owned. In Ezekiel, He is the God of judgment against
that temple. For His throne was not there, but came there.
And now the throne was found in heaven. e throne was
supreme and immutable power in government: but its
relationship varied. ese variations are what are called
here the unchanged throne, throughout all dispensations;
and that which is Sinaical in its character, and clothed with
a glory confessedly future, is said to be peculiarly belonging
to our present dispensation. But when we nd this Sinai
character connected with the expression “ after these
things,” speaking of the churches, or “ things that are,” does
not the character of the throne become most peculiar and
signicant?
at the throne was then existent (that is, the throne of
God simply as such) nobody doubts at all. But this proves
nothing. It is a mere sophism, because the throne will be
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
107
connected in the mind of the reader with that throne,
and thus that throne attached to the present period or
dispensation. But let him remember that the existence of
the throne is alike true of all dispensations, and before and
after all. e question is, Was that throne, i.e., the throne
in that state, existent? because otherwise it has nothing to
do with dispensations at all. It is “ unchanged throughout
all.”
36
It is not revealed by itself. It is clothed with
prophetic glories, and we must not consider, in order to
judge of dispensations, either the throne by itself, “ for it is
unchanged through all,” nor the symbols by themselves, but
the throne clothed with these symbols, and these symbols
connected with the heavenly throne-that is, the church in
heavenly glory, the Lamb in the throne, etc., and yet the
throne having a judicial Sinai character (i.e., a character
which does not belong to the next dispensation, and is not
its relationship with the church in this). e church indeed
being seen, not as its object at all, but enthroned around it,
or in, and in the circle of it, if we so apply the cherubim
also. But to judge of the throne by separating the symbols
from it, is to separate it from what characterizes it here.
Nor is anything gained by what is called its Sinai character,
i.e., that it is actively judging the world, and enforcing
the awful names of Lion of the tribe of Judah, and Root
of David, because that certainly is not its character as
belonging to the present dispensation. It evidently has its
own proper character, such as is nowhere else found; which
is not millennial with the world, and is not its relationship
with the church.
36 e question clearly is, not about the existence of God’s
throne, but to what period the vision applied.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
108
As to the opposition between government and worship-
that it is a court of government and not of worship-all that
can be said is, while the government part is fully admitted,
that it is not the fact; of which any one can satisfy himself
by reading the book. at government is the predominant
thought, most have long seen. e added thought, that it
is not worship too, is clearly entirely false, as these very
chapters particularly demonstrate, their chief subject being
worship as soon as the throne is manifested. Government,
though the throne be set for it in this new peculiar
character, not being exercised at all. If in “ this dispensation
it is otherwise,” it is clearly not otherwise here; so that it is
not this dispensation that is in question.
When it is stated that the court of regal government
will nally be identical with the temple, the answer is, It is
not so stated in Scripture. Zion is not the temple, and Zion
is the holy hill on which the decree has set the Son. at
He is a priest upon His throne is another matter, but that
is before the Possessor of heaven and earth. at does not
set the throne in the temple.
What the following statement (page 66) may mean, is
hard to tell: “ e seat of His universal government cannot
be symbolized by the temple, until Israel and the earth are
reconciled through applied redemption.” And what is it
symbolized by in this vision? Is not that seat symbolized
by the temple?
“ e contrast between the court of government and
the temple is clearly sustained in the Revelation.” at is a
strange note to append to Rev. 4 and 5. I can only ask the
reader to read the chapters.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
109
“ It is whilst in the court [what court?
37
] that John sees
the vision, in which vision the temple, the earth, the sea,
are all equally employed as symbols of something external
to the place in which he was.” In vision he was in heaven.
It was said, when the door was opened in heaven, “ Come
up hither,” and the throne was set in heaven. As far as one
can speak of a man in vision being anywhere, he was there
where he saw these things. Nothing is said of any court
where he was. He was in heaven, where all this was, and he
saw it. ere was no veil to distinguish the holy and holy of
holies, nor is this distinction maintained here. e prophet
was near enough too to converse with the elders. I hardly
know whether the confusion or the unsustained character
of the assertions is more remarkable in this note.
I have only to repeat here that “ fellowship with divine
glory,” and the church being “ the fullness of him who
lleth all in all,” are not at all the same thing (the latter
being the description of the church as the body of Christ);
nor is all fullness dwelling in Him the same as lling all in
all. e former relates to His Person; the other refers to the
place He has actually lled as mediator, as may be seen in
Eph. 4
As to the note on “ey sung
38
a new song”-its contents
have already been discussed, as to the new song being
millennial. It is added now for the rst time, “ It is plain
that Israel is meant by the saints … because it is said they
are reigning, or shall reign,” etc. Neither Israel nor the
saints were reigning when the book was opened: that is a
37 I suppose the court of government is meant. It was so much
more natural, in reading the symbols found in this chapter, to
suppose it the court of the temple, if in any, that I did not know
what to think.
38 It ought to be, “ they sing.”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
110
clear case, if it be a future thing. Are not the saints to reign
over the earth?-the heavenly saints? ey are a kingdom
and priests, Why is it so plainly Israel to the exclusion of
those who need encouragement as being yet under trial
in this book? And where is kingship on earth said to be
the privilege of Israel? at they will have great privileges,
I do not doubt, and be a royal nation: but I do not know
where it is said that they are to reign on the earth. e
nearest statement is, “ Instead of thy fathers, thou shalt
have children, whom thou mayest make princes in all lands
‘; but it is never said anywhere in Scripture that Israel shall
reign on the earth. Kings are to be their nursing fathers,
but their reigning is never spoken of.
But there is another point here. e author rests on
the words “ on earth,” putting them in italics-” kingship
on earth.” “We are kings: but we suer, instead of reigning
on the earth.” But here he is simply and entirely wrong.
e translation in a general sense might be borne with
as it stands, taking the earth as the subjected object of
government. But when the word “ on “ is insisted on as
distinctive, the answer at once is, It is not the meaning
of the Greek word. Hence Mr. Tregelles has very
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
111
properly translated it “ over “ in this passage.
39
Yet this,
which is simple error, is the basis of the very important
interpretation given to the passage. Moreover, the least
attention to the system of the author will show that it is
an essential link of it. It has been already stated four or ve
times (no proof of it being given) in the previous pages
we have examined, as necessary to the understanding of
the order and relationship of the dierent parts of what he
calls the Israel of God. e church in heaven being Israel’s
priests, and Israel thus united and brought into the same
body, though in an inferior position, and enjoying, through
the intercession and priesthood of the church, communion
in all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places, and so
standing “ in all the full excellency of the heavenly calling
manifested on earth.” Now this connection of Israel and
the church standing in a priestly place is found to rest on a
complete error in the use of a Greek preposition.
As to the mediate place. It is a very strange assertion,
that opening the book was a sign that there was some
one worthy to communicate blessing. No doubt opening
a book may look like communicating its contents; but
how communicating blessing? Is not worthiness to receive
39 Any Greek scholar who has paid a little attention to the
point, would know that epi, with words of government or rule,
used with accusative, genitive, or dative, is connected with the
subject of rule, and not the place of rule. I refer to the following
passages as illustrating this: Matt. 2:22; Luke 1:33; chap. 19:
14, 27; Judg. 9:8, 10, 22, 12-15; 1Sam. 8:7, 9, 11 (LXX); Matt.
24:47; Luke 12:44. Indeed, with a genitive it has itself the
sense of being set over anything, as those set over aairs. e
contrast of en reigning in a place, and epi, over a people or land,
may be seen in 2Sam. 5:5. As to epi, “ over,” all Samuel, and
still more Kings and Chronicles, aord instances without end.
Gen. 36:31, of en. See Vol. 13, p. 131.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
112
and open, a common identical title in the passage? And
how to communicate blessing, or (as is said, page 61, of
its “ understood meaning “) “ the eectual communication
of the blessings which will ow from the love and from
the glorious power of the Most High God, Possessor of
heaven and earth,” when page 7, “ the chief subject “ of
chapter 6, i.e., the opened book, is the iniction of divine
chastisements on the earth, until they are consummated by
the day of the wrath of the Lamb? “ Or how indeed did He
appear as communicator, when (pages 74, 75) “ the Lamb
opened the seals, not to fulll the events declared under
them, but to instruct us prophetically concerning them?
“ Or, after all, what is a mediate place between receiving
and communicating? Or what is there about all this in the
chapter, contradictory as it all is? e taking the book, that
was in the right hand of power of Him that sat on the
throne, called forth the song of those in heavenly places
seen in their glory, because the glory and person of Him
who took it to receive and develop the accomplishment
of God’s counsels were brought before their eyes. at
He will be the eectual communicator of blessing no one
doubts; but there is nothing about it here. And the reason
of His title to receive and open the book is quite another
reason, that is, His having accomplished the redemption of
those who sing.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
113
As to the vials.
40
2Chron. 4:22 only says, the basins were
of pure gold; and where they are mentioned elsewhere, all
that is said is “ and he made an hundred basins of gold.”
From the place they are mentioned in, and the materials,
it may be supposed that they were somewhere in the holy
place; but there is no kind of connection with the altar of
incense whatever. It is elsewhere that that is mentioned,
and these hundred basins are connected with other things.
Nor does the author venture to state why they “ answer to
the vials.” Incense, of which the vials were full, was put in
another kind of vessel called censers.
40 e Greek word phiala is indeed used in 2Chron. 4:22, by the
LXX, of the hundred golden basins made by king Solomon.
But these bowls are never connected in the Old Testament
with incense, nor even with what men used to take re from
the altar with to put the incense on. It is employed for the
Hebrew word used in Num. 7 several times for the silver bowls
oered by the princes; Ex. 38:3. (LXX ch. 38: 34, Ed. Bos.)
Bowls of brass connected with the brazen altar; the same in
Num. 4:14. In Amos 6:6, when used for a drinking bowl the
LXX translation is quite dierent. In 2Chron. 4:22 (21), the
Septuagint seems to give another word; but a little attention
will, I think, make it plain. e word labides is placed by the
Complutensian edition, after luknoi. Of this there can be very
little doubt, seeing it is the term used for a part of the luknoi
in the description, Ex. 37 (LXX 38: zo, or Compl. 24.) ere is
no word for this in 2Chron. 4:22 in Hebrew; the Septuagint
adds it. is being so, phialai corresponds with the usual
Hebrew word. e general expression of phialai is borrowed
possibly from Solomon rather than others. But they had no
particular connection with the altar of incense. e censers, or
vessels used for that, are translated by the LXX as pureia, as in
Ex. 38:3 (35).e same thing is in Ex. 27:3 as to both words.
ey are used to contain the plagues oftener than prayers. See
chapters 15-18, ch. 21: 8.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
114
As to the note at the close, stating “ they are reigning,”
it seems to me absurd; because the song celebrates the
opening of the book, when most certainly they were not
reigning. Griesbach and Scholz both give “ they shall reign
“ (the latter citing the authorities for both readings together,
without distinguishing them). As to the evidence of these
dierent readings, it is this. Two of the three ancient MSS
are here wanting. One has not this passage: the other,
if it has, is not cited. e one uncial MS which remains
reads “ they reign,” with fteen others, and some versions.
Eighteen MSS read “ they shall reign.” Tischendorf reads
“ they reign “- Knapp, “ they shall reign.” When the writer
states that it is not found in any ancient MS, he goes farther
than he is warranted. ere are but three. One has not this
place in it at all, being imperfect, and the other is not cited
at all.
ere is one thing, curious enough, as to the exactitude
and authority of these criticisms, namely, that in the
beginning of this note, the MS “A” has no authority
whatever; at the end, it is almost conclusive. e statement
of the friend alluded to, we are told, leaves little doubt that
the reading “ they are reigning “ is the correct one. at on
which the author rests, leaving all other authorities out,
is, that it has the authority of the Alexandrian MSS (read
MS), whereas the other reading is not found in any ancient
MSS. In the beginning of this short note we are told that
there is no doubt that the correct reading is “ thou hast
redeemed us,” etc. e unlearned reader will be surprised to
hear that this same Alexandrian MS is against this reading.
It is conclusive at the end of the note, under the same
circumstances (that is, the silence of the other two); on the
other side, it is totally rejected at the beginning, where no
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
115
authority at All is cited against it; that is, a certain MS
called “A” rejects the word “ us.” But “ us “ is retained as
of undoubted authority, though not found in any ancient
MS either. is same MS reads “ they are reigning,” and
then it is conclusive, though a majority of other MSS read
“ will reign.” It can hardly be of no authority, and of all
but conclusive authority, in the same note. Yet, as we have
seen, a whole edice of interpretation, a complete system,
as to the church’s priesthood, and Israel’s place, is founded
on all this. Do not let the reader complain of my plunging
him into criticism: I engage him to keep out of it. But
when vast systems of interpretation are based on assertions
made about them as of undoubted authority, one may be
forced to inquire whether such assertions are well founded,
because they have an imposing air with many who have
happily no idea of distrusting them.
CHAPTER 6
To the statements in the introductory part (page 69),
though they be not quite exact, taken in a general way, I
have no objection. Generally speaking, from chapters 6
to 18 inclusive, the prophecy does treat of God acting for
Christ; the subsequent part, of what occurs after Christ is
sent forth. e period thus noticed is not the whole of our
dispensation, nor even here stated to belong to it. e fact
merely is stated, that this part of the Revelation treats of
God acting for Christ; the other, of events after Christ is
sent forth. Indeed the statements would seem to distinguish
this as a peculiar period. e author says, “ events which are
brought to pass during the time that the throne of God
is acting for Christ.” Now, as the whole period and series
of events is future,
41
this future period seems designated
41 See “oughts,” page 37.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
116
as the time during which the throne of God is acting for
Christ. Such is clearly the case. It is the revealed period in
which God is so acting (treated as future in page 37) as
characterizing the present period in page 11. I could only
say, generally speaking, because it is quite clear that the end
of chapter 11 closes the whole history, and goes far beyond
the period here spoken of; and begins with the marriage
of the Lamb, which is not an event after Christ is sent
forth. When we come to details, these distinctions will be
important; but do not aect the general statement, that the
subjects referred to are those of these two parts.
But then the statements in page 7o are altogether
contradictory and untrue. I supposed at rst the author
must mean the whole prophetic part, but he is precise, and
says, that from chapters 6 to 18 the last forms of evil are
described, etc. But how, if this part be only “ the throne of
God acting for Christ,” and Christ “ waiting till His foes
shall be set as a footstool for His feet,” can it be also “ then
by the mission of His Son “? Again, if it be the second
part that gives events after that mission, how are found in
the rst “ the aspects of the blessedness and glory, both in
earth and heaven, which will, as soon as the hour of Satan’s
triumph is over, attach to those who share the resurrection
glory of the Lord Jesus “? If these are the subjects of the rst
part, then it is not merely events brought to pass during the
time the throne of God is acting for Christ. Further, the
mission of Christ is neither the throne acting for Him, nor
events that occur after His mission.
But there is another more material objection to this
statement. It involves (as so many others that we have
seen) most important, and, I believe, entirely false views,
assumed without the reader’s being the least aware of what
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
117
he is adopting. It reveals, we are told, “ various aspects of
the blessedness and glory, both in earth and heaven, which
will, as soon as the hour of Satan’s triumph is over, attach to
those who share the resurrection glory of the Lord Jesus.”
Now what does this mean? Who are they that in earth share
the resurrection glory of the Lord Jesus? I am aware that
it is stated farther on, that Jerusalem on earth is in the full
excellency of a heavenly calling. And this, unsaid but quietly
assumed here, prepares the mind for such statements. But
where, I ask here (from chapters 6 to 18 inclusive), are those
spoken of who in earth share the resurrection-glory of the
Lord? Or what is the blessedness in earth of those who
share it (if this is the turn given to this passage), so stated
in these chapters? One hundred and forty-four thousand
of Israel are sealed to be spared. But where is blessedness
and glory on earth spoken of in these chapters, unless the
writer would apply the rest of the great multitude to earth,
which he does not? And if on earth, how do they share the
resurrection glory of the Lord? All this just goes to eace
the proper heavenly distinctive glory of the church; and
no one can have read the book attentively, without seeing
that this is its constant and unvarying purport. I would
draw the reader’s attention to this. It is evidently of the last
importance. And I would ask him what is the meaning of
blessedness and glory in the earth of those who share the
resurrection-glory of the Lord Jesus; and where he nds
that in Rev. 6 to 18 inclusive.
Next, as regards the order of arrangement. ere are
several separate visions. is I do not contest at all. But
that Christ’s mission is referred to (that is, if the author
means by the Spirit of God) as then just arrived but not
entered upon, I deny altogether. e only passages which
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
118
can be alleged in proof are, rst, the close of chapter 6;
and secondly, chapter 11:15-18. e rst is the fear of the
wicked in the earthquake, and not the revelation of God at
all, nor in any circumstance or prophetic date, whether of
narration or fact, possibly to be connected with the actual
coming of Christ; because all the circumstances are quite
dierent from the account the Spirit gives of His coming;
and the seventh seal is not opened. e second passage
which may be referred to is chapter 11:15-18, where the
voices in heaven, on the seventh woe-trumpet sounding,
celebrate the earthly kingdom of Christ as come, and all
the consequences from that time onward. is does indeed,
as has been stated, actually close the mystery of God;
but the only thing that is not referred to in it is Christ’s
mission. And it speaks of our Lord and of His Christ as
having the kingdom. e events which follow are declared,
but not the mission; and even this not at all in a revelation
by vision, but in the celebration, anticipative as to the facts,
of the kingdom by voices in heaven. And it is quite evident
to me that the connected historico-prophetic narration of
God’s dealings closes entirely here. at which follows is
made up of distinct visions as to special points at the close;
but of this more hereafter.
Next: “ Blessing is mentioned rst,” we are told, “
prior to the events of evil and of judgment by which it
is preceded and introduced.” is, which is a very ancient
remark on the Apocalypse, I do not contest neither. e
use that is made of it, to deny narrative order, I arm to
be entirely unfounded. How does it militate against any
orderly narration, if I say, See the happy and blessed order
and prosperity of that family; and now I will show you
all the discipline and trial they went through in order to
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
119
arrive at it; and then give their previous history in orderly
narration? It would be a very simple and consistent method.
e question is a question of fact. e reasoning to subvert
it, a priori, is perfectly futile. at God, who knows the end
from the beginning, may encourage the saints by chewing
the result before He makes them go through the diculties
of the way, is most possible, and I believe constantly true.
He stated that the seed of the woman should bruise the
serpent’s head. Yet, I suppose, we have an orderly narration
of what passed from that day out in Scripture until it be
accomplished. Nor does this declaration militate against
its historical order. As I have said, there is not the slightest
force whatever in this reasoning. Its aim is evident, but it
has no force.
en as to the facts by which it is sought to prove it.
Chapter 17, we are told, is earlier than chapter 13. Now
let me put this case. I am giving the history of all the
revolutionary war. I give a long account of all that passed in
France — Buonaparte’s victories in Italy, etc.; I come at last
to his subversion of the Romano-Germanic empire by his
victories over Austria. In order to make this understood,
and its importance appreciated, I give an account of the
origin and formation of this system, its place in Europe,
and in general history; and, having brought it down,
together with perhaps a similar account of the Italian
States, to the period at which I had arrived in the general
history, I resume the thread of the narrative, and complete
what referred to all thus brought under view. Would it be
said, because of this, that my narration was not orderly? Is
it not the universal practice, when a general history bears
on particular subjects? Can it be otherwise, if a history is
complete? And, as “ we know in part,” is it not the way to be
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
120
expected, though the writer be the Spirit of God Himself?
And it is just what is found in the book of Revelation. If it
were asserted that the same order of narration continued
from chapters 6 to 18 without interruption, then indeed
what is remarked of chapters 17 and 13 might have some
weight. But who has asserted this? No one but the author
himself. And having given to understand that chapter 6
to 18 is one complete whole, he shows that it cannot be
a whole of orderly narration. But then the proof given is
merely a mistaken assertion of the author assumed to be
true.
I surely do not believe that the reward given to prophets
and saints precedes the destruction of Babylon and the
mission of Christ; but this does not hinder my nding
orderly narration. Let us examine the facts.
I have a succession of events: seven seals, one after the
other, and seven trumpets in order: and before the last
of these, I am told (in connection with a parenthetical
little book which is opened, of which the close is clearly
marked) that in the days of the seventh angel, who is
about to sound, the mystery of God should be nished.
e seventh angel does sound, and the time for closing
the mystery is come. Hence the voices in heaven celebrate
all connected with closing the mystery, and the orderly
narration is interrupted-the general scheme of the history
being complete. A vast power
42
(as important as all the
rest of the history, and whose parasitic roots, as we learn
from 2ess. 2, had been planted in Christianity from the
days of the apostle-at least what prepared its way) was to
42 is supposes 2ess. 2 to be the rst beast. It is rather to
be taken as the second or two-horned beast; but this does not
aect the argument.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
121
be unfolded as that on which the judgments, celebrated
in general at the close of chapter 11, were especially to
act. Hence the history of this as a distinct power in all its
bearings is given, and the historical order of narration of
course interrupted.
Chapters 12 to 14 give us this history complete, and
the dealings of God in the world connected with it. It
is a distinct vision and hence the order of date must be
conned to the subject treated, and can at most only be
compared with what is in another vision. But it has its own
order within itself, closing with the vintage of God. en
we have another sign in heaven, introducing the seven vials,
which are the wrath of God on the earth not the history of
the beast, though the beast be found there. is was needed
to complete the materials of this history. Just as I might
relate the state of the provinces of France in the history I
have supposed, after giving the public European history of
the revolutionary body.
Lastly, chapters 17 and 18 do not profess to be history
or narration at all, but description of a particular object
of judgment, whose details had not yet been entered
into; only the fact of its judgment had been mentioned
in its place in the two previous statements of the course
of nal events. Now the details are entered into, of what
it was, its relationship with other objects of judgment,
and’ the circumstances of the judgment itself. Just as I
might describe Paris, its circumstances, vanity, objects of
art pillaged elsewhere, and its siege, in the history I have
supposed. e same thing occurs after the completion of
the history of, and subsequent to, Christ’s coming: after
the marriage of the Lamb, the coming of the King of
kings-the destruction of the beast-the binding of Satan-
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
122
the millennium-the loosing of Satan-the judgment of the
dead-and the close of all things. In a word, after the series
of events given from chapter 19 to the end of chapter 21: 8
inclusive, a description is given of the heavenly Jerusalem,
and its relation with the earth (as before of Babylon, and
her relation with the beast, and in the same manner).
But all this does not touch the orderly narration, where
orderly narration is professed to be given, as it surely is, as
description is professed to be given in another part; and to
take events out of the descriptive (professedly descriptive)
part., in order to compare them with others in the narrative
part, to disprove the order of narration, because the chapters
of description come after the narrative ones, is simply
confusion and nothing else. Yet it is of this the writer says
“ I wish it to be especially noticed, that these instances
prove that the Revelation is not a consecutive history; and
therefore any system of interpretation that regards it as
a consecutive history, whether of events yet future, or of
events past, must be erroneous.” And all this confusion is
the more unreasonable, because it is based, not upon the
statements of others, but upon the author’s own assertion
that chapters 6 to 18 is one complete part, taken together;
and on this he argues to prove that others must be in error.
ere is this peculiar to the Revelation, and this only-
that, the subjects being moral, the descriptions and account
of judgments are of as great consequence as all the history;
and, we may almost say, of even more consequence than
the narrative part. But this changes nothing of what I
have said. On the contrary, it is very important to have
the narration, to give the order, to put each thing in its
place, and show the general relationship of events. is is
the division I should make in the book. First, in general,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
123
chapter 1; then chapters 2 and 3; then chapter 4 to the
end. en, in detail, chapters 4 and 5; then chapters 6 to
11. ere the general history closes,
43
but none of the facts
of the seventh trumpet are given in prophetic vision. en
chapters 12 to 14; then chapters 15 and 16; then chapters
17 and 18. ereon the scene changes, but the event is
taken up„ and we have chapters 19 to 21: 8. en chapter
21: 9 to 22: 7; when the closing remarks and testimony
commence, and complete the book.
We come, in page 74, to the chapter (6) before us. “ Its
chief subject is the iniction of divine chastisements on the
earth, until they are consummated by the day of the wrath
of the Lamb.” is is a most inaccurate account.
Four riders on horses go forth: three of whom, at any
rate, bring chastisements on the earth. e opening of the
fth seal lifts up the veil to show us martyred souls who
yet must wait for the execution of vengeance, till others are
killed as they; of which, note, nothing at all is said. en
there is an earthquake, but nothing at all said of the day of
the Lamb’s wrath, but by the terror of the kings, etc., of the
earth. at it is not the un-described day of Christ is clear,
because the state of the kings of the earth, etc., is described,
and it is entirely contrary to the description the Spirit of
God has given of their state at that day, at the close of
43 I believe there is consecutive order in chapters it and 12 in
this way. Chapter tz takes up from its origin, and pursues in
its conduct, what becomes the object of judgments which
happen under the seventh trumpet, and so falls into the general
narrative. But then it was quite important enough to give it a
history apart, as it was of Babylon afterward; because these evils
and judgments at the close, which take place under the seventh
trumpet, forming the latter part of the Revelation (beginning
with chapter 12), are really the most morally important of the
whole book.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
124
chapter 19, where they make war haughtily and boldly
with the Lamb, and are slain, and did not hide themselves
from His wrath at all: they had been given over to believe a
lie. e eect of fear upon unbelieving man is confounded
with a revelation of the Spirit of God. It is, moreover,
revealed that these signs come before the great and terrible
day of the Lord. It is these signs that alarm them, and not
the actual arrival of the day, nor consummation of wrath
by it.
And here let me recall what was said, that opening the
book was a sign there was some one worthy to communicate
blessing. It was surely a strange book to open to prove that.
We again also see the unsuitableness of the song as
celebrating the opening the book, and Israel’s actual reigning
at the same time. But further, “ e nal triumph is rst
announced.” What nal triumph? I admit that God can
give anticipative views of blessing before the sorrows that
introduce it. But that we have had, according to the author
(and I am not combating the general idea), in chapters 4
and 5 already. But after that has been done, and we have
seen the resulting glory, and we are come to a systematic
succession of events of an active character, numbered 1, 2,
3, etc., of an analogous nature-to say that the rst of these
means the result of all, seems utterly unreasonable. e
resulting glory we have had: we have now events opened,
and active agents in the scene. e rst seal is opened, and
the rst beast says “ Come and see,” and there is a rider on
a horse. e second is opened, and the second beast says
“ Come and see,” and there went out another horse; and
so on. is second horse the author would persuade us is
the rst, and the rst the last of all. Is this a reasonable
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
125
interpretation?
44
e fact of the seals being opened in
vision changes nothing of their being events to be fullled,
though not then fullling. So that announcing or fullling
makes no dierence: they were announced as to be fullled.
But this, though it seems to me unreasonable, is
comparatively immaterial-a point in which any might err
in interpretation. But what follows (page 77) is surely very
serious in its character, and is the settled leading principle
of the book. “ Neither is He yet surrounded by the risen
church, as ‘ His fellows,’ partaking in His glory.” at is
admitted, of course. “ Jerusalem does not as yet stand as
the ‘Queen at his right hand, arrayed in gold of Ophir,’ i.e.,
in the full excellency of a heavenly calling, maintained and
manifested on the earth,” etc.
What is then the heavenly calling? It is clear it is not
a calling to heaven at all: for this glory is on earth. It is
glory terrestrial, at the time all things are gathered together
in Christ in heaven and earth. If the earthly Jerusalem (if
such a contradiction in terms can be stated) is “ in the
full excellency of a heavenly calling,” how is it heavenly?
Because, remark, it is not suering for it. We have the
heavenly calling now; because, though on earth, our hopes,
joys, place, when Christ comes in glory, are with Him
there. We suer on earth because we have this heavenly
calling. But this will not be the state of things then. It is
with Jerusalem and her inhabitants the result on earth of
Christ’s coming in glory. And how is that a heavenly calling?
44 I would here ask in passing, what proof there is that this horse
and his rider is Christ at all. I see none whatever. It seems
to me much more like some imperial conquest, providentially
permitted of God (perhaps of Antichrist himself, before
he assumes that character). is question does not apply
particularly to Mr. N.’s system.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
126
Can the full excellency of a heavenly calling be maintained
and manifested on the earth? and if so, what is a heavenly
calling? For, I repeat, it is not now the manifestation of its
power in suering, in following Christ crucied. at may
manifest in spirit the power and excellency of a heavenly
calling, because all is dross and dung for the sake of it; but
that is not the case here. It is the actual result of Christ’s
triumph and coming on earth, for those who have not
suered with Him by faith in the heavenly calling and
glory. And how can that be a “ heavenly calling,” and its
“ full excellency “? Is it not destroying the very idea and
meaning of it, and bringing all down to earth, and leveling
all to that measure and standard? ask any saint, is the state
of Jerusalem on earth the measure for his soul of the full
excellency of the heavenly calling? And if not, what is this
but to lower and degrade the church to the place and level
of what is earthly- of those who have not suered with
Him in His rejection?
It will be said, perhaps, It is distinguished from sharing
His glory as His fellows. No doubt it is not said that the
earthly Jerusalem is in heaven with Him: I suppose that
would hardly be expected to be received. But their sharing
His glory as His fellows, together with what is yet more
blessed-being one with Him in love in the Father’s presence,
and being His bride when He holds the kingdom-that is
the heavenly calling in its chief parts. And how, if it be
distinguished, is Jerusalem on earth said to receive it?
Nor am I aware that the eternal state is ever spoken
of as the heavenly calling (supposing now that there is no
dierence when that eternal state comes, between those
who have been in Christ’s glory, and those who have been
His subjects on earth during the millennium); I am not
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
127
aware that it is even particularly connected with heaven
more than earth. God is all in all, the kingdom being
delivered up. e tabernacle of God is with men. But
there is nothing ever spoken of as distinctively heavenly.
e heavenly calling is an expression used in the Hebrews
to contrast it with the earthly promises made to the Jews,
which will be accomplished in the Jerusalem glory, which
is here stated to be the full excellency of the heavenly
calling. e same contrast between the promises to Israel
and our portion, I have no doubt, is urged in John 3, when
(having referred to the necessity of regeneration for the
enjoyment of earthly things with God, as they had been
revealed in prophecies which the master in Israel ought
to have known) the Lord says, “ If I have told you earthly
things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you
of heavenly things? “ and then at once refers to the cross,
the lifting up of the Son of man-taking Him (and us with
Him) out of these earthly things.
us what is properly and distinctively our calling is
entirely eaced and set aside in these statements. e earthly
Jerusalem being on earth when enjoying present glory, not
suering for hoped-for glory, in the full excellency of a
heavenly calling maintained and manifested on earth. We
have already seen the expression-e blessings on earth
of those who share His resurrection-glory-an expression
entirely incorrect, or extraordinarily ambiguous, and
entirely destitute of foundation in the chapters from which
it is alleged to be drawn, in which there is nothing about
blessing on earth at all.
But there can be no doubt as to the general purport of
the writer to exalt Jerusalem on earth to the full level of
our calling now. ose familiar with the question will well
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
128
remember the passage often urged to show this, “ We are
partakers of their spiritual things.” But to insist only on
what is found in this book, I shall produce here from other
pages in it the statements of the writer, showing that it is
not because of an isolated passage of doubtful meaning,
that this view is attributed to him.
us page 138: “ Our mother is not Babylon, but that
divinely ordered system of truth and power, which though
now not known as having form or comeliness is yet to be
paramount in the earth, and to reign, beautiful in holiness,
supreme over all nations. I saw a woman clothed with the
sun, and having the moon under her feet, and on her head
a crown of twelve stars.’ Such is the vision of her coming
glory in the earth [note, he is speaking of “ our mother
“[; and faith even now recognizes her as this. is is our
parent- the system to which we belong, and to which, in
the midst of all the brightness of Babylon’s rising greatness,
we give the homage of our hearts; and will, through God’s
grace, constantly adhere. Our estimate of its excellency
will of course vary, according to the singleness of our
hearts, and the integrity of our faith and knowledge: but
in proportion as we are able to look on into the future,
and consider the period when Christianity shall, in Mount
Zion and in Jerusalem, be supreme in the earth, we may
see the reason for the glory of the symbols wherewith this
chapter commences.” Is it to glory in the earth that the
homage of our hearts is given? or is Christianity supreme
in Mount Zion, and Jerusalem here below, our mother?
Where then is the heavenly calling? or why such avoiding
of the simple and blessed statement of the apostle, that
Jerusalem which is above is our mother?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
129
Again (page 142), We need not marvel, therefore, if
Christianity “ be here presented, as if bearing the name
of Zion.” (We may remark in passing that it is not at all
so represented: the writer is commenting on chapter 12.)
“ How indeed could it be otherwise? For when that holy
blessed system of truth and power, for which we and all
saints have from the beginning suered, and which now
we name Christianity, shall at last arise into its destined
supremacy in the earth, it shall be identical with Zion,
arising in the moral grace and dignity of its high calling
in the earth.” (is expression is the more remarkable-”
high calling in the earth “; because high calling, as anyone
acquainted with the Greek Testament knows, is calling
above, up out of the earth, our calling, ‘ above ‘-ano). “
Christianity can never have its rightful pre-eminence until
the hour comes for the mountain of the Lord’s house to be
established in the top of the mountains, and to be exalted
above the hills (mountains and hills are the emblems of
authoritative power); when many people shall go and say,
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to
the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his
ways, and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall
go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’
e mountain to which we by faith are already come,” etc.
“ So that the identication between ourselves and Zion
will need no proof.” Are the promises to Israel-of its latter-
day glory, the “ Come ye, and let us go “-our hope? the
rightful pre-eminence of Christianity-of that “ which we
now name [what an expression!] Christianity “? Do “ we
belong “ to Zion on earth?
It will be seen further on, that Zion itself, literal Zion,
is said to be the church’s place, as holding power on earth;
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
130
that the saints, in an earthly state, are as “ really blessed “
as those in the heavenly; and, on the other hand, that “ a
heavenly as well as an earthly character is given to Zion.”
But all this in its place. It is merely the general statement
that I would place before the reader now. One quotation
more will suce for this purpose.
“ ere is, however, one blessed point of contrast
between the system of God’s city, Jerusalem, and this. When
Babylon’s system is separated from its city, it perishes-and
perishes forever. But, when Jerusalem’s system is separated
from its city, as it even now is, it does not perish. It is indeed
outcast in the earth-no eye but the eye of faith recognizes
its beauty: but it exists, and there are some eyes that see it,
and some hearts that love and cleave to it-and they shall
continue to cleave to it, until the hour comes for it to be
united to its own city, and to be exalted in the earth.” Now
what I would ask here is this: Is Jerusalem on earth the
“ own city “ of the system to which my heart cleaves-to
which yours does, reader-or Jerusalem above? Is it earthly
Jerusalem’s system to which you belong? If not, where is all
this leading you? Certainly not, as to your mind at least, to
heaven. Heaven and the heavenly calling cannot be denied,
but it is assiduously made “ our high calling in the earth.”
I have given those long quotations to show that it is not a
casual expression, but a regularized system: no matter of
inference, but of elaborate statement, and diligent repeated
assertion, that Jerusalem on earth is the own city of the
system to which we belong-that our high calling is a calling
in the earth.
Having made the matter of fact plain, I do not reason
on it much here; I prefer leaving it to the reections of
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
131
the reader. It will recur again in its eects and bearings on
other points. I pursue now the chapter.
After stating that some will be slain in the midst of all
this abounding iniquity (the connection of which however
with this period is given without any proof at all), we are
told that the “ altar represents the priestly intercession of
Christ. It is the place around which the risen priesthood of
Israel
45
will by and by be gathered, clothed in their garments
of glory and beauty,” etc. “ But here they are under it, in the
place of ashes, crying for vengeance.” “ e holy place is
turned into a place of judgment.”
Why does the altar represent the place of the priestly
intercession of Christ? Christ intercedes within the veil,
45 is point is constantly recurring in the author’s statements,
and is part of an elaborate system, which makes the Aaronic
priesthood of Aaron and his family the type of the heavenly
priesthood of Christ and the church during the millennium.
Where is the proof of this? It is assumed all through this book.
I do not discuss it at length here. ere is no proof given of it
whatever. Now, it is to me more than questionable if it be true.
e proper priesthood of Christ is Melchisedec priesthood.
Now He exercises it for the church after the type of Aaron;
but there is no proof that He will do so during the time of
millennial glory. It seems to me rather inconsistent, on the
contrary, with His position as Melchisedec on earth judging
righteously. During the time of Satan’s power and our inrmity
in conict we have, if any man sin, an Advocate with the
Father. Not to make good our righteousness, but to maintain
us in our position before God in our walk. e question is,
whether, during the millennium, where there is no temptation,
judgment is not the consequence of sin in that day in the earth,
instead of intercession, as regards actual present dealings with
it: It certainly ought not to be assumed that Christ exercises
His priesthood in a Melchisedec manner on His throne, and
after an Aaronic pattern in heaven, at the same time, and about
the same things.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
132
not at the altar of burnt-oering. e altar of burnt-oering
was not the place of intercession at all. If it had been the
altar of incense, there might have been some appearance
of reason here, though that is not properly Christ’s place;
but it is not. As the writer observes, their souls were in
the place of ashes under the altar. It is indeed an evident
allusion to their having been as burnt sacrices for Christ:
their lives are found under His altar. And how are the risen
priesthood of Israel to be gathered there in their garments
of glory and beauty? Was it at the altar of burnt-oering
that the priests oered their incense and sought blessing?
Sin-oerings and bloody oerings of every character were
oered there; but that was all. We have indeed seen that
this priesthood of Israel, so often repeated, rests merely
upon a decidedly bad and false translation of the Greek. I
must say it is a painful thing to be obliged page after page
to take notice of trains of statements so entirely unfounded
and palpably wrong. And what of the system built upon
them?
It is a curious remark, that the white robes were given
to them, but not put on them; but I leave it where I nd it.
Everyone can judge of it according to the weight it has in
his mind.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
133
As to the criticism
46
“ a white robe, and not white robes,”
I suppose it is correct: but then it is not merely said “ to
them,” which the English reader might suppose, because it
is said “ to each “; so that, white robes were given to each, or
a white robe was given to each, is pretty much alike.
When it is said, “ signs which immediately precede the
manifestation of the Lord in glory “-in a general sense it
is true: but it is quite clear that the signs in Luke occupy
a period-perhaps a considerable period of time-a state of
things in which men nd themselves, which causes them
to look forward with anxiety.
But it seems to me that, as the images here used are
drawn more or less from passages whose accomplishment
takes place clearly at dierent periods, the image being
46 I take advantage of the word criticism here to state, that
the friend referred to in the “ oughts “ has very kindly
communicated to me the information, that, though in
Griesbach’s Leipsic edition of 1805, and many reprints, the
reading “ us “ in Rev. 5:9 is marked as spurious, this mark is a
misprint. at Griesbach really gives it as only a questionable
reading. Mr. Tregelles (for his name is now known by the
publication of his book) adds, in his communication to me,
proofs that “ us “ is the right reading. I dare say his reasonings
are just, though the one ancient MS is against the reading; I
have no disposition to dispute it. My objection is not to the
reading, which is the commonly received one (the change is in
autous), but to building an immense system on it. But as I had
been misled by the reprint of Griesbach’s edition, I thought
it right to correct it. It is no wonder I was, as these reprints,
misled by the Leipsic edition, so give it: indeed Mr. T. says, “ I
used to think he had rejected it.” Having corrected the mistake,
which I am enabled to do by the kindness of Mr. T., I do not
enter further here into the detail of the critical question. No
one can deny that the passage is, as to critical readings, in an
entangled and unsatisfactory state.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
134
generally used for great revolutions, we must take its date as
employed here from the revelation itself: and, I apprehend,
its coming before the seventh seal is opened proves that it
is not the closing act of the mystery of God. Passages in
which these images are used will be found in Isa. 14 where
it is connected with the fall of Babylon, which is itself
called the day of the Lord,
47
and, according to the author,
precedes the nal judgment of the nations. In Joel they are
said to come before the great and terrible day of the Lord;
in Isa. 34 they accompany the judgment of the nations in
Idumea. Seeing also that, while the objects used as signs are
the same, what happens to them (whether intentionally I
do not here say) is quite dierent; that the particular points
here are taken in part from Joel, which says it is before the
day, in part from Isa. 34, where it is the accomplishment
of judgment on the nations in Idumea; while clearly (the
seventh seal not being opened, nor, I apprehend, even the
trumpets blown, though this may be dierently judged
of, but certainly the seventh seal not opened) the nal
judgment is not executed:-considering all these things, it
seems hasty to x the time by a view of these signs taken
from other passages, and quite incorrect to suppose that
they are used as happening once in a determinate sole time
common to all the passages. Nor are the signs given in
Luke at all the same as those in this passage. I have already
remarked that Joel says they are before the day, and that the
state of men’s minds here does not answer to their state at
the end.
Further, the writer should not say “ events which follow
the manifestation of the Lord,” because there is not one
47 See verses 6, 9, and to, when the signs are connected with the
day.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
135
word about His manifestation in the passage. It may be
remarked that the same expressions as to islands and
mountains are used as to the judgment of Babylon, in the
Revelation itself (chap. 16: 2o), which, according to the
author, is before the day of the Lord on the nations, or
the manifestation of the Lord (as indeed is clear in that
passage chapter 16: 2o). e other passages cited from here
are Hos. 10:8, and Isa. 2:19.
As to the rest of pages 8o and 81 I say nothing. I
believe, as we all do, that these countries will be the scene
of marvelous events. e statements made here, which are
given as of “ doubtless “ events, I do not enter on, as they
are more prophecy than interpretation. e only eect is to
lead the mind to put far o its own expectation of Christ by
statements which not one syllable of scripture is brought to
support. I read that political events “ must infallibly raise,”
etc.; that other events “ will doubtless dispel,” etc.; and that
European energies “ will doubtless be an era “ in the world.
So that we may safely put o the Lord’s coming till another
era is passed. But who will answer for the infallibility of all
this, or dispel the doubts which may arise as to it? I might
bring as strong arguments against it as for it, but as mere
speculation I leave it untouched.
Scripture seems to say that Egypt shall not rise into
greatness. Nor do I remember there any statement whatever
of the glory and greatness of these countries in the latter
day. Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles to the end.
is may be considered moral perhaps. ese countries
will be the scene of wars and political jealousies, rumors of
wars, nation rising against nation. But it seems to me that
Ezek. 34-37 tends to show that the land of Israel will not
be in prosperity till the Lord restores Israel to it. I should
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
136
think Hos. 2 tended to show the same thing; Joel 2 also;
and even the accounts given in Daniel. And I would ask,
Is there any passage to the contrary? Deut. 32 I would
cite as bearing on the same conclusion; and Lev. 26:33,
34, 40-42 seems to speak very strongly in the same sense.
But I do not pronounce on what the wickedness of man
may do: only prophecies of this kind, drawn from political
events, without one ‘word of scripture, cannot be of any
weight. First, the information of the writer may be very
imperfect;
48
and political consequences are so uncertain,
that one cannot trust them in divine things. One would
like to have a little scripture for them. As to Babylon,
concerning which I am sure there are many erroneous
statements made by the author, I will consider it when we
come to that part.
I have only to add, as to the note to this page (81)-
” the principle of each prophetic book being its own
interpreter “where is this principle to be found? I should
judge that the statement of the apostle Peter (2Peter 1:20),
rightly understood, is the direct denial of this principle.
No prophecy of scripture is its own interpreter: you
cannot interpret it in taking it by itself. Such is the plain
translation: so it is understood by Wahl (though he adds
what will interpret it, in which we may not agree with him;
48 Some of the statements, made in the tracts connected with
prophecy, show the most entire ignorance of the political state
of things. Certain acts are attributed to the French, for example,
as promoting certain principles, which were done solely to
destroy their inuence. I do not blame the ignorance at all here,
but the pretension to interpret events in this manner.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
137
but this is his translation). Every one will judge of this for
himself.
49
I know not who ever considered the change under
Constantine as the real work of the Spirit of God, save as
a providental work is.
In page 82 we have a very important principle, which
the reader will do well to weigh. “ ese nations cannot
be raised except in direct contravention of His (God’s)
declared resolve.” Yet here “ the unhindered progress of
human greatness is to reach the nal point of its attainment.”
Surely this serious statement ought to be well borne out by
plain and direct scripture. It is not merely blessing, left to
man’s responsibility, lost, and men acting contrary to God’s
revealed will. “ ese nations are declared, in the word of
God, to be under His judgments.” Now, that man should
attempt to act in contravention of God’s will is, alas! surely
to be expected. But that he is to succeed in raising up
whole countries to such prosperity as never was heard of, in
direct contravention of God’s declared resolve, so that the
unhindered climax of man’s progressive greatness should
be there, where God declared it should not be, and in
places which are under His judgment-surely this requires
some wonderfully strong proof, to be believed. And let the
reader remember that this way of putting it is the author’s
own, not mine; and that he has not adduced nor alluded
to one passage of scripture on the subject. ere is nothing
at all but his speculations on political consequences, and a
system he has framed in his own mind.
I have no doubt that the prophetic and specially the
Roman earth is the scene of the greatest events and deepest
49 I apprehend Luther and De Wette translate it in the same
sense.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
138
evil principles of the latter day. But when the author says
(page 83),
e great hour of temptation comes only upon the
Roman earth (oikoumene-see Luke 2:1), but it is to try or
put to the test them that dwell upon the earth,” his use of
oikoumene is wholly unwarranted. Augustus representing
the imperial power of the beast, the habitable earth (for
this is what the word means) was given to him; and the
pride of man, ignorant as he might be of God’s counsels,
was prone enough to assume the title. But to use this in
order to conne the word to the limits of the Roman earth
actually possessed is entirely unwarranted. Is it only the
Roman earth, the assurance of the judgment of which is
given to all men by Christ’s resurrection? (Acts 17:31.) Or
is this the meaning of verse 6 of the same chapter? Is it only
into the Roman earth that the Firstbegotten is introduced?
(Heb. 1:6). Or is the sound (Romans to: 18) gone out only
into the Roman earth, translated “ the ends of the world “?
ere it is used for Tebel, the world, in its largest Hebrew
sense. So the LXX. (Psa. 9:8). We may remark that Rom.
10:18, moreover, seems to set “ earth “ and “ world “ just
in the contrary way to that in which the author puts it.
Nor am I aware of any passage which gives ge, earth, a
more extended sense than oikoumene. (See Isa. 24:4.) e
contrary is the case, as in those already cited; that is, ge
(Greek) is used for eretz (Hebrew), and oikoumene (Greek)
for Tebel (Hebrew). ere is clearly no possible authority
whatever for the use of oikoumene for Roman earth in Rev.
3:10, because it is applied to the empire once in a conned
sense (that empire then including the civilized world,
which indeed had been give up to it by God). As to the rest
of pages 83, 84, the topics found there have been already
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
139
treated-the candlesticks said to be in the sanctuary, etc.;
and (the assertions made in it, though without any proof
at all, being partially true) I turn to more important points.
As to the order of the book, I have already given what
I believe to be the true one: but I would add some remarks
on that given in the notes (page 85). In a certain sense
chapter 6 is complete in itself; that is, there is suspense,
to bring in the sealed ones and the great multitude before
going farther. But it is not complete in the sense of closing
the order of things treated of, because the seventh seal was
not opened; only chapter 7 comes in parenthesis.
e next division is as unreasonable as it can well
possibly be, that is, chapters 7, 8 and 9; because there is
a clear and positive series of trumpets divided into two
parts-preparatory trumpets, and woe trumpets, which last
three are named as going to sound, in chapter 8: 13, and
are not closed till the end of chapter it; and the second woe
contained in chapter is not said to be ended till chapter II:
14. ere is in the meanwhile the little open book; but its
introduction merely gives the place and date of its close,
viewed in connection with the order of events under the
trumpets, as is evident from chapter II: 14. Moreover, in
chapter 1 o it is stated that the mystery of God would be
nished in the days of the seventh angel. And accordingly
when he sounds, the kingdom is celebrated-anticipatively,
perhaps. Still as a series of trumpets, the detail is closed,
though events included under them may be important
enough to be detailed elsewhere. So that to put chapters
7, 8, and II together, and cut o chapters to and II from
chapter 9 is to subvert the declared order of the passage
itself. e object is to identify the witnesses with the period
of chapter 13; but with this purpose it is a contempt of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
140
the declared order and not a statement of it. In chapter 10
there is no preface of blessing at all, nor any blessing stated.
ere is a public declaration of right to be accomplished
afterward (to wit, at the seventh trumpet, the sixth being
not yet ended), but this is all.
Chapter 12 is evidently quite a new vision. e temple
being declared to be opened for the rst time. Some of
it evidently precedes the last three years and a half, and
cannot therefore be called a narrative of the same evil
period- assuming the three years and a half of chapter
II to be the same
50
-which is very far indeed from being
proved or as yet attempted to be proved. At all events,
nothing is said in chapter 12 of this period, but as a result
of something else, of which the greatest part of the chapter
treats (chapter 13 being mainly the account of the beast,
who has received his throne from the dragon, whose history
we have in chapter 12; while in this last we have very little
of the period mentioned in chapter 13). As to chapter 14
being. read by itself I make no diculty; though I believe it
to be intimately connected with chapter 13-God’s dealings
in mercy and judgment in relation with the evil. It has not
the form of a distinct vision, more than verse 14. However
it may be considered apart, and I have no desire to make
any diculty. Chapters 15 and 16 I agree with-chapter 17,
alone, I do not; but then I do not feel any need to enlarge
upon it. We shall have the subject before us farther on.
Chapter 17 seems the description and relationship with
50 My own present conviction is that there is only one period of
three years and a half. No doubt the power to come makes a
covenant for a week; but it is on his breaking it that the evil day
and tribulation begins. Deception was there before, but it was
not the time of Jacob’s trouble. is is the last three years and a
half of which the Apocalypse treats.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
141
the beast; chapter 18 the judgment, and its eect on others.
However, I may pass on.
On the two following pages I have not much to say. e
statement as to Daniel (page 86) certainly conrms strongly
the doctrine that there is a Jewish remnant recognized in
Jerusalem at the end; because Jerusalem has “ a national
existence,” and it is clear that the remnant spoken of there
are identied with her, and her interests. To say (page
87) that the inroads of the barbarous nations were not
destructive agencies from the hand of God, is an assertion
that must be left to everyone acquainted with history
to judge of. It is curious that one of their chiefs became
celebrated as being entitled by public and universal consent
“ the scourge of God.” Nor am I aware how Constantine
consolidated human greatness. His own genius stayed the
ruin for a time; but the departure from Rome, making a
balance between the pagan aristocracy of ancient Rome
and the Christianity of the emperor and the East, paved
the way very plainly for the dissolution of the empire. But
these are not subjects I feel it necessary to pursue here.
As to the note on “ Hades followed with him,” it seems
to me quite unfounded, and beside the object, of the verse;
but I do not feel it worth discussing. e next note is
more important, and will demand a little more attention. I
shall not discuss the dierence of language in chapter 20,
nor the giving of the robe. Seeing the souls seem to me
only to mean that he who had power to kill the body had
none over the soul: they were alive still. I do not see that
the question of resurrection is treated in either case. e
resurrection is never (that I am aware of) treated of in the
Apocalypse. ere is the single expression “ is is the rst
resurrection,” speaking of those who have part in it; but no
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
142
account is ever given of it at all, either in this chapter, or in
chapter 20.
And now as tot Corinthians 15: 23-a passage evidently
of the utmost importance as to this, and one quite
calculated, as here commented on, to produce diculties in
an honest mind. But then there is not one single statement
of the author which is not incorrect. We have, Christ “ the
rstfruits, then those that are Christ’s (they that are Christ’s),
then “ cometh the end, etc., when, as we learn from Rev. 20,
the nal resurrection occurs of those who are written in the
book of life. Consequently those who are not Christ’s (i.e.,
manifestly His
51
) at His coming, do not rise until the last
resurrection. If the words rst, second, and third had been
used, they could not have xed the order of the resurrection
more denitely than it is xed by the words ‘ rstfruits ‘-`
then ‘ and ‘ then ‘; 1Cor. 15:23, 24. e writer then reasons
on the Greek word meaning “ coming,” or else being used
in the sense of “ presence,” as opposed to absence. If used in
the latter sense, he argues, there could be no contrast with
the third period at the end. “ Besides which, nothing can
be more clearly revealed than the inconceivable rapidity of
the resurrection.”
51 is itself is, I judge, a complete misstatement of the text. It is
not at all Christ’s at His coming, or not Christ’s at His coming
(i.e., those who are His at that time, or not) as it is used here to
make it a part of those that are Christ’s who rise at that time-
but, they that are Christ’s (rise) at His coming, when from
absent He is present. I appeal to any one accustomed to Greek,
if it be not so.e Greek words in 1Cor. 15:23, to which the
common English translation perfectly answers, “ Christ the
rst-fruits: then they that are Christ’s at his coming.” e end
(as we have seen) is after all resurrections of just and unjust are
passed.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
143
Now that these three Greek words mean consecutive
order is quite clear, that is, as to what is connected with
one of them, in respect of what is connected with the
other. For example, they that are Christ’s could not be
raised before Christ; nor the end be before they that are
Christ’s be raised. e order of the events actually named
is denite. But they express only the order which exists
among the things stated; and if the author means to the
exclusion of other intervening things, he is quite wrong. I
have not to make even the most unlearned reader travel far
to be convinced of this. Look at 1Cor. 15:6, 7. “ at he
was seen of Cephas, then [eita] of the twelve: then [epeita]
of above ve hundred brethren at once … then [epeita] he
was seen of James; then [eita] of all the apostles; last of
all of me.” Now here we have the very same words, with
the absolute certainty that Christ was seen by several other
parties, which are not mentioned here: as Mary Magdalene;
the two that went to Emmaus; once also by the eleven
when omas was absent; and another time when he was
present-of which, at any rate, only one is mentioned-to
seven of them, in John 21. is is declared to be the third
time to the disciples; and yet He certainly was seen another
time, when He ascended; besides the mountain in Galilee,
which is perhaps the ve hundred spoken of, though only
the eleven are mentioned by Matthew. At any rate we have
here the absolute certainty, that while eita and epeita give
the order of events mentioned, they do not exclude others.
Any reasoning founded on this idea is entirely destitute
of any force, as the example drawn from this chapter itself
proves. Again, we know that many bodies of the saints
arose after the resurrection of Christ, whatever became of
them afterward. So that this order does but state the order
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
144
of the great public acts referred to, but certainly does not
exclude others.
Further, when the author says, “ en cometh the end,
when, as we learn from Rev. 20,” etc. Now, why could not
he go on with Corinthians 15? For a very simple reason:
because there is nothing about the nal resurrection at all,
but quite another thing, namely, Christ’s giving up the
kingdom. Now it is quite clear that this does not refer to
the judgment of the dead, mentioned in Rev. 20, because
He does not then give up the kingdom. For He is to judge
the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.
It is surely wrong to slip over what is stated in the chapter
under discussion, and most decidedly misapply another
passage, quoted to help the argument out-further, even, not
only misapply, but misstate the sense. For there is not one
word about the nal resurrection of those in the book of
life. All that is said about the book of life in that passage
is, that those who were not found there were cast into the
lake of re: but not a single word about those who were.
e author’s statement is, ey who are converted during
the millennium rise then. Who told him the saints died
during the millennium? Death is not destroyed: but where
is it said the saints died? Nowhere. And! think there are
very strong passages to make us think they will not. At any
rate it is in vain to build a great system on passages which
say nothing at all about it, as if they did, and to allege that
they do-leaving out the very passage treated of, to give us
its sense from this other, while it actually speaks of another
point, to which the other passage cited cannot apply.
Next as to “ coming,” or “ presence,” the word avowedly
means “ presence “: but as by coming a person ceases to
be absent, it is so used. us, as to the coming of Titus,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
145
the apostle says, “ I found no rest in my spirit, because I
found not Titus my brother “ (i.e., he was absent); then
by his coming he was comforted (i.e., by his presence). As
to the words “ by my coming to you again,” it is a strange
passage to quote as not applying to a prolonged presence,
as he is referring in the preceding verse to his abiding and
continuing. e truth is, there is nothing in the word to x
continuance or not. I may present myself and disappear, and
it would be my presence or coming. I may do so, and stay,
and it would be my presence or coming. Now I have not
the least doubt whatever that presence or coming is used
in 1Cor. 15 in the general abstract way for the occasion
and power of the resurrection of the saints; for this only
is spoken of, though we know the wicked will be raised.
While Christ is absent, they must remain in their graves:
when He comes, when He is present, they that are His will
leave them: and this is most certainly not contrasted with
another resurrection at all, but with another event-that
is, the giving up the kingdom-which will most positively
happen after all resurrection, even of the wicked, is over.
And this conrms very strongly indeed the general sense
of “ presence “ or “ coming,” because the contrast is with
another thing (which thing quite changes everything from
that idea, and puts an end to what it expresses), that is, with
giving up the kingdom.
ere is His own resurrection, His presence, and another
event which closes and is in contrast with this, or changes
the whole state of things brought in by His presence (to wit,
His giving up the kingdom). I do not think anyone reading
the passage with intelligence can doubt the justness of
what I here say. One thing is certain: the whole statement
of the author as to it is wrong. e statement is a general
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
146
one-that when Christ comes, they that are His will rise. I
suppose no Christian doubts it.
In verse 51 the apostle is giving details as to themselves
and the dead previous to this act, and does not speak
at all of all the dead in Christ, or of the order; but of
themselves, of the church, such as he then addressed it-
the general principle or manner of their own resurrection.
“ We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a
moment … for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall
be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” Such is
the manner of the church’s resurrection. But nothing more
is said; and the writer himself believes that there will be
another resurrection of saints after this: so that it is clear no
principle is involved in applying it to those only of whom
the apostle is actually speaking, and going no farther-a
most important principle in interpreting scripture.
For my own part, then, I have not the smallest doubt
that we have (v. 23, 24) the general principle and order-
every man in Christ. First, Christ the rstfruits; then His
presence comes (for He is now absent), and they that are
His are to rise, when He is thus present. Afterward He is
to deliver up the kingdom. Secondly, we have the manner
of the church’s resurrection, wherein, from many passages,
I have no doubt that the saints of the Old Testament will
be found. I do not cite them, because I suppose no one
doubts it.
ere is another very important principle involved here.
“ ere is no redemption apart from union to the person of
the Son of God.” is sounds well; but while, as a general
expression, it might have passed unnoticed as a commonly
received truth, that life is in the Son, and of Him we have
it, and in Him we have it-still, taken as the accurate basis
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
147
of an immense system, it is well to estimate justly its value.
ere is no such thing spoken of in Scripture,that I am
aware of, as union with the Son of God. He is our life: and
we are said to dwell in Him, and He in us; which is known
to us by the Holy Ghost.
But I apprehend unity is spoken of the body-of the
head and members. He is the Head of the body. But this
is not redemption; nor is possession of life ever said to be
this union as His body. For the millennial saints are most
certainly not in this, seeing it is His fullness as Head over
all things- gloried together with Him when He reigns
(to be gloried together with Him being the consequence
and reward of suering with Him, which the millennial
saints most clearly will not). at they are redeemed and
quickened is most sure; but they are not gloried with Him:
those that suer with Him are. We are His body, His body
the church-of His esh and of His bones-that is, the bride,
the Lamb’s wife, whom He presents glorious to Himself-”
the whole body “ (Eph. 4), which makes increase of itself
in love, through the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists,
pastors and teachers, “ till we all come,” etc. In the ages
to come He is going to show the exceeding riches of His
grace in His kindness to us, whom He has made to sit in
heavenly places in Him. We who have rst trusted or pre-
trusted are to the praise of His glory. And there is one body.
Headship in Adam and headship in Christ may be spoken
of in another way. All Adam’s children had Adam’s life, and
the consequences of it; but all Adam’s children were not
Adam’s wife Eve. No one can live before God, but by the
life of the Son of God. But it does not follow that all are
His body, His bride. I go no farther than to say here, it does
not follow. As in the Adam all die, so in the Christ shall
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
148
all be made alive. ey are the two heads- of a sorrowful,
and of a blessed system. is happens in one, that in the
other. I do not doubt that all saints will rise in virtue of
the life-giving power of the Second Adam. at there is
universality in this is quite clear to me; but I do not see
why this makes union in the sense of the bride. at they
will have all spiritual bodies I do not doubt. is cannot be
forced to prove that pages 51 and 52 apply to all, because
the writer’s view is that there is another resurrection at
the end. So that either these latter do not partake of the
spiritual body, or else the apostle turns in these verses from
the general principle
to the special mystery of the church’s participation in it.
As to the order of the resurrection of all who are
quickened
52
in the second Adam being given in 1Cor. 15,
the answer is, there is not one word about it. ere is the
general statement-they that are Christ’s at His presence
or coming; and that is all. We have already seen that the
author is obliged to resort from 1Cor. 15 to Rev. 20 which
says nothing about it, save the fact, that it will be in the
time of His presence or coming. e confusion between
the doctrine
53
of the Epistle to the Ephesians and 1Cor. 15
is perfectly unwarranted, and very important too.
ere is another point I would refer to here, that is, the
force of the word “ in Christ.” It is not at all to deny that
participation in His life may be included in this word; but
52 ere is the assertion that every man will rise in his own
order; but there is nothing at all about the order of all who
are quickened. ere are two classes named, of which Christ
Himself is one; they that are His another: but there is not a
word of order amongst these latter.
53 at is, between the communication of life, and the union of
the body of Christ.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
149
it is not its meaning nor force. us, “ if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature “ (or, there is a new creation)
is arming that about a Person in Christ, while the
expression “ in Christ “ has its own ordinary meaning.
e following passages will show that, while it is most
certain that there must be the life of Christ communicated
to be really in Christ, as a saint, and that this implies now
being actually a member of His body, the words “ in Christ
“ have not in themselves this force.
Eph. 1:10, 11: He should gather together in one all
things in Christ. Here it is clearly not life, nor union. Col.
1:17: By Him, (en auto, in Him) all things subsist.
1Corinthians 11:11: But neither is the man without
the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Rom. 8:9: But ye are not in the esh, but in the Spirit. It is
clearly not union with the Spirit, though the Spirit be life.
Phil. 1:14: Many of the brethren in the Lord. Gal. 5:6: For
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision. Phil. 4 I: So stand fast in the Lord. Phil.
4:2: To be of the same mind in the Lord. Phil. 4:7: Shall
keep your hearts and minds in (through) Christ Jesus. Phil.
4:19: Glory in Christ Jesus. Phil. 4:21: Salute every saint in
Christ Jesus. 1John 2:24: Ye shall abide in the Son and in
the Father. 1John 2:27, 28: Abide in Him.
e following passages prove that in, and dwelling in,
do not necessarily imply union:-
Rom. 8:1: No condemnation for them who are in Christ
Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.
Corinthians 15: 8: ey that have fallen asleep in Christ
have perished. 1John 4:4: He that is in the world. 1John
4:16: He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God
in him. 1John 5:19: Lieth in the wicked one. 1John 5:20:
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
150
And we are in the true one, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is
the true God and eternal life. 1John 3:6: He that abideth
in Him.
e consideration of these passages will show that being
in, dwelling in, are not expressions which necessarily mean
union; for they are used where union would be entirely out
of place. at these two things go together in our own case,
when we are really in Him, is fully admitted. Indeed the
very expression “ as in the Adam all die, so in the Christ,”
etc. proves that it is not union; because, though involved in
Adam’s fall, we are not in union with him, as the church is
with Christ; we are not members of his body.
As to the following note, in what is quoted from Jer.
4:23-27, if parallel, the Lord declares He will not make
a full end. So that the symbols most clearly do not mean
what they are alleged to mean. And if it is the time that
He will shake, etc., how do they hide themselves in caves,
etc., seeing once more is the removing of things that can be
shaken? Jeremiah and Haggai cannot both apply; because
Hag. 2:21, the apostle tells us, means the end; and in
Jeremiah, the Lord tells us, He does not.
CHAPTER 7
We have here to deal with some very important points.
Some important in themselves, others through the questions
raised on them, though of themselves comparatively of
little moment.
e general ideas of the way the Gentiles have despised
the promises to Abraham, etc., are common to all who hold
the personal reign “ since the revival of prophetic light.” It
is the use of them which is here to be inquired into.
e very word “ despise,” taken with what follows, has
a very equivocal force, though it would not have struck
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
151
me perhaps else. It is not reject, or refuse to admit, but
“ despise,” as something which might be worth our
having. And as we read on, the full force of this little word
becomes evident, falling in with the earthly character to
which Christianity is really reduced always in this book.
We are not called upon to own Israel’s ancient promises as
belonging to Israel, but to blend them into harmony with
the new hopes ministered by Jesus and His apostles. ese
ancient promises to Israel being forgotten, the consequence
was that Gentiles Christianity became useless for God’s
purposes of practical testimony on the earth. And, in fact,
before the apostles died, they were boasting themselves
against the natural branches of the very tree to which they
owed all their own fatness-such is the author’s view.
God makes everything work together for good to those
who love Him. It was the attempt to lower our Christian
privileges to an earthly measure (so constantly and
assiduously made in the system of which this book is the
fullest expression, and from which the Spirit of God made
one instinctively recoil)- it was this attempt, I say, which
led my mind to dwell on the highest and blessed source
from which our privileges do ow.
Now, I would ask, do the apostles blend into harmony the
ancient promises to Israel with the new hopes ministered
by Jesus and His apostles? Or, while maintaining these
hopes, did they confound them with the heavenly glory
which belonged to the church? Nay, did Jesus minister
these hopes, or did He say that He had many things to tell
them, but they could not bear them now, but that when
the Spirit of truth was come, He would guide them into
all truth, and show them things to come, glorifying Christ
and taking of His things (and all the Father’s were His)
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
152
and showing them to them? And as Jesus declares, in direct
contradiction of the author’s assertion, that He could not
administer these hopes to them then because of their state,
but that the Spirit could (because, being in them, He was
a capacity of reception as well as power• of revelation)-
so the apostle declares that it was the Spirit that did so
reveal them. “ Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which
God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath
revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth
all things, yea, the deep things of God.” “ So the things of
God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have
received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which
is of God; that we might know the things freely given to
us of God.” And this (to go no farther in quoting passages
on this very important point) was so truly the case, that,
precious and blessed as the presence and care of Jesus was,
such was the immense dierence with the coming of the
Holy Ghost, and that to dwell in the disciples, made, that
it was expedient for Jesus Himself to leave them.
All this is kept out of sight, and new hopes ministered by
Jesus and His apostles brought in together, as if there were
no dierence. Is this honoring Jesus? Would men think
it needful to bring Jesus up to the level of the apostles?
ey may spare themselves the trouble. His lowliness and
humiliation were His glory, His highest and new glory. It
is, on the contrary, but despising His own lowly and tender
words in that place of humiliation which no living man but
Himself could have taken. e Son of God making Himself
of no reputation is the eternal wonder of heaven and earth.
at Israel’s earthly hopes and glory will be accomplished
when the church’s heavenly hopes are, and that thus there
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
153
will be harmony, is true. All things in heaven and earth
will be gathered together in one in Christ. But they will
never be blended. Flesh and blood will never inherit the
kingdom of God, nor corruption inherit incorruption. If
an eternal state be spoken of, then these are not Israel’s
ancient promises. What is peculiar to and prophetic of
Israel, will then be done with.
e ancient promises made to Israel were of earthly
blessings (as God’s people no doubt): but the promises to
Israel were of an earthly inheritance, made to them as a
people separated from Gentiles. I am not now speaking of
individual saints, looking beyond those promises to better
things. ese were not promises to Israel, but heavenly
hopes. And that the hopes ministered by the apostles were
dierent from those promises is clear; for the author calls
them new hopes. e question is, how far they are blended.
at there may be common things is very possible. No
doubt there are. ey must be born again. ey must be
forgiven. And they will have life. But what is the blending
of the heavenly and earthly hopes? e olive tree would be
referred to; and here it is said that the Gentiles owe all their
fatness to it. Now this is merely the sad principle which
runs all through this book namely, reducing the church to
the lowest privileges of which it is partaker. Let us consider
a little this teaching of the olive tree. e apostle had
concluded all under sin without dierence, the Jew having
only added transgressions under the law: and he had closed
the account of the privileges of the saints in Rom. 8 Not, it
is true, on the ground of the elevation of Christ to be Head
of the body (this is the subject of the Ephesians), but on a
principle of a headship of Christ going beyond Abraham
and David, and extending to a position which answered to
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
154
that of Adam, the gure of Him that was to come- the new
resurrection man. is blotted out the idea of Israel as to
distinctive position before God. Lifted up from the earth,
He was to draw all men in a new way. God was the God
of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews. e free gift had
all men for its object. e consequent blessings are then
inquired into; the presence of the Holy Ghost; they were
called, justied, and gloried, and never to be separated
from God’s love in Christ Jesus. is closes chapter 8.
But then naturally arises the question-If Jews and
Gentiles are indiscriminately admitted by faith, what
comes of the promises made to Israel as God’s people? is
question the apostle answers in chapters 9 to II, showing
that God had foretold that they would be a disobedient
and gainsaying people, as they had in fact stumbled at
the stumbling stone. e question, then, here discussed
is not church privileges, but how to reconcile their being
indiscriminate with the distinctive promises to Israel. And
therefore (chap. 11) the apostle asks, Hath God cast away
His people? And here he comes entirely on earthly ground:
for Israel never were, and never will be, and were never
promised to be, a heavenly people: whereas the church,
in its higher and distinctive and proper privileges, was a
heavenly people, and had Christ’s suering portion for
them upon earth. ey were sitting in heavenly places in
Him. But they were to have a place actually on earth; and
here they replaced for a time Israel. But this did not at
all set aside the promises to Israel as such: there was no
blending of them. A Jew, or circumcision, was nothing now.
One displaced the other on earth. In heaven the distinction
was unknown. Christ was the Head of the body in heaven,
but He was no Messiah of the Gentiles upon earth, though
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
155
the Gentiles were to trust in Him, so that the apostle could
justify himself by the Old Testament.
But then how reconcile these things? God had not cast
away His people. First, He had reserved an elect remnant.
Secondly, it was to provoke, as He had declared He would,
to jealousy, His ancient people; therefore not to cast them
o. irdly, Israel would be saved as a whole by Christ’s
coming again and going forth from Zion.
But this last, instead of blending, was preceded by the
threat of utterly cutting o the Gentile branches. Now it
is quite clear that this cannot refer to the heavenly body of
Christ (for it cannot be so cut o), but to God’s dealings
with them on earth. And this is yet more evident, because
the Israelites are said to be graed into “ their own “ olive
tree, which clearly has nothing to do with the church as a
heavenly body, because that is not their olive tree any more
than a Gentile’s. All were alike here, children of wrath.
ere was no dierence. It was one God, and one Mediator
between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. But there was
an administration of promises, and immutable promises,
which did naturally belong to them. e Gentiles came in
here, inasmuch as, being united to Christ the true Seed
of Abraham, they come into the promises and blessing of
Abraham. But on repentance, Israel down here on earth
will be graed into their own olive tree, where we are now
contrary to nature.
But all this naturally, and contrary to nature, has no
place in our proper church position: all is beyond nature and
contrary to nature there. Yea, though we had known Christ
after the esh (and He was seed of David according to the
esh, and Abraham was the Jew’s father after the esh)-
but, though we had known Christ after the esh, we were
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
156
now to know Him no more, though we recognize His title.
“ e glory of the Messiah of Israel “ will be established,
but not on the principles, though both be received by grace,
on which the church is set in heaven; because there can
be no Israel known there. ey have their own olive tree
down here, and the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance. But in Christ as known to the church there is
neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and
in all. e church of heavenly places has put on Christ and
knows nothing else.
And it is because the church at Jerusalem did yet as to
earth refer to this special place of Jews, according to the
mind of God Himself (and not as if it did not enter into
the full heavenly privileges itself), according to the sermon
of Acts 3 (where the unbelieving Jews are still treated as the
children of the covenant which God made with Abraham)
that the Pentecostal church has been spoken of as having a
Jewish character. It is not that those who composed it did
not form part of the heavenly church and body of Christ;
but that God (till Jerusalem had rejected the testimony of
the Holy Ghost about a gloried Christ, as she had rejected
a humble Christ) did not nally cast her o as having no
more hope. She had deserved it, indeed; but God answered
the intercession of Christ for that nation upon the cross,
by the Spirit in the mouth of Peter in Acts 3 (as indeed
as a nation He will hereafter, only in a remnant saved by
grace) telling them that now, if they repented, He would
send Jesus, and the times of refreshing would come. But
when He called, there was still “ none to answer “; and
judgment, though with long patience, took its course. And
Paul appears (Col. 1), as minister of the church, to fulll
the word of God, and of the gospel to every creature under
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
157
heaven; and the full heavenly indiscriminate character of
the one body is brought out. Nobody ever dreamed that
the Jewish saints were not of it; but they justly discerned
the blessed patient dealings of God with His ancient and
beloved people-the nation for which Christ died, and for
which He interceded-and the full bringing out of the
doctrine of that heavenly body which knew no dierence
of Jew within itself at all, nor Christ Himself after the esh,
while it recognized the truth of all the rest.
54
And further: the doom of the Gentile nations and beasts,
though long foretold, will not have its accomplishment
till the Gentile church has lost its own place. “ Gentile
Christianity “ as such-as Gentile-became mighty when
Peter’s testimony was useless at Jerusalem; that is, when the
blending down here of Jewish promises and Christian hopes
closed Jerusalem’s rejection of the gospel, as to practical
testimony on the earth. It was as eacing the distinction
of Jew and Gentile, and showing that Israel was cast away
for a time from all its hopes, that the testimony of Gentile
54 And I am fully persuaded that the more spiritual discernment
there is, the more it will be perceived that (while there was the
same life, and grace, and salvation for all believers, and all were
in the church) Paul held a place in ministry proper to himself-a
dispensation or administration of the grace of God committed
unto him, in which he was quite alone, and none at all like him.
He recognized all the rest; but he stood, called independently
into an independent place, for a special and distinct service, and
peculiar and distinctive suerings. None other speaks the least
like him in his relationship to the saints and churches; while,
there is no doubt, he preached the same gospel of salvation.
None were the head of a system entrusted to them in the same
manner. e special doctrine was Christ among the Gentiles
the hope of glory, and the unity of the body the church, with
the gathering of all things into one in Christ, and the glory and
principles connected with this. It was his gospel.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
158
Christianity was mighty upon earth-not by blending them.
at the denial of Israel’s earthly hopes has helped on the
ruin of Gentile Christianity is most true: because the
church thereon looks for earthly place and position, which
is only and contrastedly Israel’s. It was the attempt to blend
them
55
that did the mischief, and I rmly believe is the
grand mischief of this book. Deny Israel’s place and glory
with Messiah, and the church will become earthly, rise in
its own conceits, and nally, as a system down here, cut o.
But it was the distinct and unequivocal maintenance of the
church’s proper and separate place, as sitting in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus, which maintained its position for
Israel; and not blending them in harmony, when God had
temporally replaced on earth one by the other, as He will
the latter by the restoration of Israel on a new ground, but
as a distinct people on its own promises. And if this be not
kept clear, the church actually and practically loses its own
place and character, and will not long give its testimony
in the earth. It cannot blend itself with Israel’s promises,
and continue so to do. It is true that the church has taken
55 e setting aside the metropolitan order of Jerusalem which
had been, as far as it went, the blending of the two systems,
and which the author compares with Jerusalem’s place in the
millennium when this blending will be accomplished, certainly
was not what destroyed the power of Gentile Christianity, but,
as he himself has stated, set it a going in the person of Paul. e
denying the future hopes of Israel, and so blending the earth
and heaven in a new popish metropolitan, is quite a dierent
thing from distinguishing the nature of these hopes, and so not
blending them. e author has assumed, that not to blend the
church’s hopes and Israel’s, is to deny Israel’s; but it is quite the
contrary. It maintains them. Whereas, blending them denies
what is proper to the church, which is lost when you blend it
with Israel: and so does it Israel’s too; for each is what it is.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
159
up the dropped inheritance of the promises down here;
but it has taken them up as possessor of a higher and new
glorious title, which was no subject of promise-living union
with the Lord Jesus as His body, which was no subject of
promise-and in accomplishment of a mystery hidden from
ages and generations. Israel was judicially blinded to let in
the church; as the apostasy and excision will come, and the
faithful be in heaven, that Israel may be graed in again.
Is this blending them? e Gentile Christians do not owe
all their fatness to the tree. ey partake of its fatness, i.e.,
of the Abrahamic promises. But they owe their highest
blessings to their union with Christ-being His own body-a
thing never promised to Abraham at all, whatever portion
he may be judged to have in it, in his own person.
at Paul recognizes the old things and the new we all
believe; but, as we here nd, the writer does not go beyond
old things and new of the kingdom. e church, as the
body of Christ, does not enter into the new or old in his
statement. I do not the least wish to deny the importance
of this question; I implore brethren to weigh anxiously this
point: they may be assured it is of the greatest practical
importance-I mean the distinctness of the church’s hopes
or their blending with the ancient promises to Israel. e
life and spiritual energy of a saint depends on his faith in
what is proper to his own dispensation. is is so true, that,
if he only believed what belonged to the last, it would not
be life to him; it has ceased to be the test of faith to him.
To Abraham, faith in Almighty God was living faith: is
this (though living faith surely owns it) what living faith
consists in now? A Jew, not owning Jehovah, would have
failed from the covenant. And it is true of power too. If
the Holy Ghost be not fully owned, if the proper heavenly
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
160
place of the church be not fully owned, no general idea of
salvation, however true, will give the power, nor form and
guide for Christ’s glory those who neglect the former. What
is special to the dispensation is the power and testimony of
the dispensation, and not what is said to be common to all.
We will now turn to Christianity in Jerusalem. It is well
for the reader to remember that all that used to be said as
to the church being in the tribulation, the blessedness of
our being forewarned and prepared for it, the doctrine of
Christ’s appearing before the church’s going up to meet
Him in the air (to prove which the “ rest with us “ when He
shall appear was quoted)-all this, I say, which was so much
insisted upon, is entirely given up. Many of the disciples of
the school still hold it; but the author of these “ oughts
“ has entirely relinquished it. A few scattered Christians
(and disobedient ones too) may be caught in the storm: but
all intelligent and obedient ones will escape it altogether.
It is a new testimony, when Christianity is withdrawn,
that will be exposed to the malice of Antichrist. is is
evidently an important point. e saints well know how
much it was insisted on, that they would be there and must
be prepared for it. It was urged as one grand delusion to
fancy the church would be out of it, whereas God was
specially preparing their hearts for it by forewarning them.
e mistake (it appears now) was in those who insisted
upon it. In page 124 of the “ oughts “ the reader may
see that Christianity is withdrawn from Jerusalem. e
dragon drives it away into the refuge God has prepared for
it out of the limits of the civilized earth (pages 148, 149).
e harvest also is reaped in Christendom, and has no
reference at all to the regions of the Roman earth, where
Christ appears suddenly to destroy Antichrist.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
161
But let us examine these statements. e reader will
understand that the answer must be somewhat longer than
the statement; because, when a statement is made without
any proof- when it is said, that such is manifest from Matt.
24, it does not suce to say, “ It is not manifest,” and
increase the phrases only by the word “ not.” It would be
quite as valid, but very useless.
at Christianity will again exist in Jerusalem is
not denied, for it does exist there. But, according to the
statement of the author, already referred to (page 124),
it will not exist there during the tribulation, or period of
the beast’s power. So that what he means by His disciples
being destined to witness in that city the great hour of
Antichristian triumph, it would be hard to tell: on the
rst sign cf that triumph, they are to leave the country.
All is mixed up together here, to say the least, in the most
confused manner. He (Christ in Matt. 24) “ foretells,”
we are told, “ the period of unequaled tribulation.” “ e
Revelation also again and again refers to those who hold
fast the testimony to Jesus, and the faith of Jesus, in the
midst of similar circumstances to those which Matt. 24
describes.” Now would it be supposed that the author held
that there would be no Christianity in Jerusalem during
the last three years and a half (that is, during the whole
period of anti-Christian triumph, or “ period of unequaled
tribulation “)? So that all that in the Revelation refers to the
beast’s reign, as far as “ hopes and testimony of Christianity
in Jerusalem “ go, must be entirely excluded from all that
is said here. e obedient ones, seeing the sign, will be far
away. And it is not to be passed over, that the only denite
reference to testimony to Jesus, and faith in Jesus, in the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
162
prophetic part of the Revelation, refers to the period of the
beast’s reign.
And, further, I will assume
56
with the writer that it is
Christians and Christianity that receive the direction to
ee from Jerusalem when the abomination of desolation is
set up; because then there would be unequaled tribulation,
and that “ ye “ means in Matt. 24 this same body, the church,
all through its “ last representatives.” Does he mean to say
that they are directed to ee from Jerusalem because the
tribulation is setting in, to be in the very same tribulation
elsewhere? Is there any sense in that? And if not, what “
evil hour “ does he refer to as “ that evil hour “? He had
spoken of “ the great hour of Antichristian triumph.” But in
Jerusalem they will not suer from it. ey are to ee-not, I
suppose, into the identical persecutions elsewhere. So that
they will not be in the great tribulation at all. In speaking,
therefore, of similar circumstances to Matt. 24, the author
must refer to what precedes the day of the beast’s power.
So that his doings against the saints in Revelation do not
apply to those instructed in Matthew: they are ed “ into
the bosom of uncivilized darkness.” Very possibly; but they
are not in his power. We may remark that the patience of
those who “ have the faith of Jesus “ is referred only to not
worshipping the beast. It is an expression used only once.
e expression “ faith of the saints “ is used in reference to
the same thing. And so is “ testimony of Jesus “ in the only
place in which it is connected with any persons specically.
Only here it is the dragon who makes war with them.
CONTINUATION OF CHAPTER 7
We may set aside, then, the beast’s reign as referring
to Matt. 24 in connection with the suering of the saints,
56 In point of fact, I believe the church will be gone up on high.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
163
on the authority of the author himself. I should have had
merely to cite the statement of page 124, that Christianity
will be withdrawn from Jerusalem, and the statement here,
“ Christianity in Jerusalem,” if there had not been the
greatest ambiguity of statement. First, you would suppose
that witnessing in that city did not mean exactly eeing so
as to be secure, on a signal divinely predicted-that when
(after taking all those addressed in Matthew as one body,
because of “ ye “) it is stated “ the Revelation also again
and again refers to some,” etc., you would suppose that the
statements of Revelation were connected with the same
period of Antichristian triumph, and the trial of the same
persons. But not at all. Christians are not to be there. It
is there said in italics, similar circumstances to Matthew:
I suppose to avoid saying the same; because at Jerusalem
Christianity will not be to be persecuted. But are they the
same persons? Can this be supposed? Does the reader
believe that the Lord desires to ee because of tribulation,
that these identical persons may be in the same persecution
elsewhere? I say same, because similar circumstances can
only mean a like persecution-elsewhere, perhaps, but
the same thing. But if it be not the same body, why is it
introduced here, giving to suppose that it is the same? or
why connect them with Matt. 24, where those that listen
to Christ’s voice evidently get away from under the beast’s
power? If the statements in the Revelation have anything
to do with Matt. 24, how can the faithful ones of the earth
at that evil hour (who keep the commandments of God,
and have the faith of Jesus, and hold fast the testimony to
Jesus, and who are in the Revelation described as suering
in patience of faith under the beast’s power) be the same as
those whose obedience, if they had listened to the voice of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
164
Jesus, would have taken them out of his power? It is true
the writer does not say here that they suer in the evil hour,
because the contradiction with Matt. 24 would have been
agrant; but if the passages in Revelation are consulted,
it is plain. Elsewhere (page 148) he leaves a general idea
of suering because driven out. Be it so; but that is not
patience under the beast’s reign, who is overcoming them.
e truth is, the whole system is so unsound that you
cannot put the dierent parts of it in juxtaposition without
its discrepancies being manifest. e expression of them
may be avoided; but they are not the less agrant to those
who take the pains to examine them.
One thing is certain, that we have no need to examine
the beast’s doings in Jerusalem at “ that evil hour “; because
the Christianity at Jerusalem, of which he speaks here,
will not then exist. If any Christians remain, they are
clearly (according to the author) disobedient ones, not the
faithful ones. Indeed they would spoil all; because the new
witnesses would be declaring it was too late for present
forgiveness; and these Christians, disobedient though
they were, would prove that it was not. And here I would
ask in passing (for we must speak of it farther on) how
the witnesses in Jerusalem (page 1241 can testify of the
message of forgiveness through His blood despised and
now withdrawn, when elsewhere in Christendom this
forgiveness subsists still, and is not withdrawn at all? Nay,
when it has been stated that in Antichrist’s world, though
Christianity be driven out, some scattered saints remain?
Is it withdrawn and subsisting at the same time? Can
an individual have peace in Russia and its dependencies,
perhaps up to the Euphrates, and the testimony of God
the other side be, that he cannot? Yet such is the system
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
165
which denounces as heresy whatever does not submit to its
statements. And let us remember that we are here upon the
very ground of that assertion-the interpretation of Matt.
24.
However, we may now leave aside the application
of Revelation to Matt. 24, as referring to the time when
Christianity is not in Jerusalem, and speak of the previous
period, when it is alleged to be there. Only we shall do
well to remember also, that it is the Revelation we are
examining, and that this part of Matt. 24
57
applying solely
to Jerusalem in that evil hour, the Christianity spoken of
as referred to in the Revelation, has no place here at all;
because it will not exist at Jerusalem during the evil hour.
Now rst, as to the word “ Ye “: it is urged as a conclusive
proof that all the chapter refers to Christians.
Now, if Christianity be entirely withdrawn from the
scene, and that “ ye “ and “ you “ mean Christianity, how
is it that the words “ ye “ and “ you “ are found after the
tribulation is come in, and refer to their being involved in
its diculties? “ For then shall be great tribulation. en, if
any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or lo, there.
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the
desert,” etc. at is, the “ ye “ and “ you “ are continued
after Christianity is withdrawn. For it will hardly be
denied, that these false Christs, etc., appear in the scene
of the tribulation from which the Christian disciples have
entirely withdrawn, on the sign given in the chapter, verse
15. And if Christianity be withdrawn, who, on the author’s
system, are the elect?
But, further, not only is the “ you “ continued to them
in the scene of tribulation, after Christianity is withdrawn,
57
Namely, verses 15-28.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
166
but the character of the warnings is very strange, if it be
Christians that are warned. When I say, “ Christians,” I
heed the word very little: it is a human name; and if men
please to call Christians the confessors of that time, I do
not oppose. On the author’s statement of what it is, I do
not see how he could refuse it, though he does. But what is
material is the church as such now. Does Matt. 24 speak of
that as such? Now, what is the warning? It is-not to believe
(though, as we have seen, it is hard to understand how they
are there, if Christianity be withdrawn) the statement of
Christ’s being in the desert, or the secret chamber. But
how can the church believe that, when it is to be caught
up to meet the Lord in the air? It must rst believe that
Christ has falsied His word, and have fallen from the
faith. But I shall be told that that would be true: but that
we know how Christians have forgotten the proper hope
of the church, and therefore may need these warnings. Let
it be remembered, then, that these instructions in Matthew
apply only to those who have entirely forgotten the proper
hope of the church: which it is impossible to reconcile with
what is here said. is is a good deal to say of the faithful
of the earth, who “ stand like the last representatives of
the rstborn on earth, just as Stephen and the pentecostal
saints represented it in its early history “-so that the visions
of glory in the Revelation seem almost exclusively to
belong to them.
But let the fact be remembered, that the Lord’s warnings
here are entirely inconsistent with the church’s own hope
given elsewhere.
But the truth is, even this resource is taken away here;
because what the author is treating of is the revival of
clear light on these very subjects, blending in harmony the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
167
ancient promises and the new hopes. And whatever the
revival of prophetic light amongst us western Christians
may do, it is certain that when Anti-christianism has
brought back the nations of the prophetic earth into
their former place, and Christianity is again found amidst
Israel and Jerusalem, the expectation of Jesus as Messiah
of Israel, and of the judgments that will accompany His
return, will again form part of the hopes and testimony
of Christianity in Jerusalem. But will this clearer light,
this more than revival of prophetic light (described in its
prophetic character, page 92, as the blending into harmony
the ancient promises with the new hopes, which does
revive the expectation of Jesus as Messiah of Israel) exclude
the church’s expectation? If so, surely it is not Christianity.
If it does bring this clear blending in, as the apostles and
Paul had it (and we are told the disciples, who were the
apostles, were so addressed here), then this warning can
have no place here; because it is clearly inconsistent with
the church’s hope. If, on the contrary, it is a revival of Israel’s
hope of Messiah, and an exclusion of the church’s, then the
case supposed is one of a believing Jewish remnant, and
not the church. I am obliged to put it in this alternative,
because the author, in speaking of the revival of prophetic
light, and, further, of Christianity at Jerusalem, has not
said a word of the church’s hope. I may therefore suppose
that he takes for granted its power, according to what
he approves in page 92. If not that, it is excluded. But in
page 96, we are freed from this uncertainty. It is asserted
that “ they “ (i.e., those who are here addressed) “ will be
freed from the darkness which now broods over Gentile
Christianity, and will again combine the new things of the
kingdom with the promises made unto the fathers.” It is
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
168
therefore impossible that, thus clearly discerning Israel’s
hope and the new things of the kingdom, they would be
liable to be ensnared by being told that Christ is in the
secret chamber; because, with a clear and certain light, they
will know that they themselves are to be with the Lord in
the air. All reasoning from “ the darkness that now broods
over Gentile Christianity,” which might make a true saint
liable to such a mistake, is quite taken away. e truth is,
the whole system is a mass of confusion, arising from man’s
mind dealing with the mighty word of God.
Nor is it merely the state of men’s mind we are to
consider. e Lord, we are told, is dealing with the disciples
as the church. Would the Lord, in explaining all to the
church, give them warnings which implied the denial or
total absence of the church’s hope in their minds? Would
He sanction that, by not even alluding to it? For the Son
of man’s appearing is only spoken of as acting on the tribes
of the earth, or land. I will not enter into the discussion
of the whole chapter here, having now applied myself to
the use the author makes of it in this place. I will only add
one or two questions. Of what age do the disciples speak,
when they inquire about its end? Does the Lord correct
the evident Jewish character of the disciples’ questions,
or answer them on their own ground, which was clearly
Jewish in its character? Of what is Daniel treating, when
he speaks of the abomination of desolation? Is it of Jews or
Christians? Is God’s testimony there occupied about the
Jewish people, as such, or Christianity? Daniel’s people, it
is clear. (See chap. 10:14.)
One thing yet remains in this testimony of Matt. 24 and
in Revelation. According to the author, Gentile Christians
will not be entrusted with this closing testimony in and
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
169
round Jerusalem. Yet it was people from every nation, etc.,
contrasted with Jews, who, in Rev. 7, were come out of the
great tribulation. Matt. 24 does clearly not speak of Gentile
Christians, but Rev. 7 as clearly does, contrasted with Jews,
if this be the great tribulation, as the author says.
I have only to remark further on page 97, that I am
not aware of any who are spoken of “ who shall testify
therein,”
58
unless it be on the chasing the woman into
the wilderness. But let us note here, that, according to the
author, testimony in Jerusalem is over, viewed as testimony
of the disciples of Jesus at that time: so that all said of that
in the Revelation does not apply to what is directly the
beast’s reign there.
59
But it does not apply to a testimony previous to that
reign in Jerusalem, for the patience and faith of the saints
in the Revelation is during his reign. And when it is said
“ escape its plagues,” the writer must not think of God’s
judgments: they escape the tribulation of Antichrist.
But there is another point here. We may travel out of
Jerusalem. Now these are the faithful ones of the earth at
that evil hour, the enlightened ones, with old promises and
new hopes, and so on. But “ they see, like their Master
before them, the sphere of their earthly service hopelessly
closed, and wait in suering and in trial for the hour
58 In Jerusalem. e witnesses are not in question here. e
author speaks of them as coming after this testimony.
59 If, as the writer supposes in the note, page 90, the scene from
chapters 7 to 13, is Jerusalem, then I need not add “ there,”
because then all the actings of the beast against the saints are
conned to Jerusalem. All that is said of the faith of Jesus, or
testimony to Jesus, is conned to this; except Babylon being
drunk with their blood, which is quite general-the blood of
all saints being found there.e only other case of testimony
spoken of is general, chapter 6: 9.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
170
now fast approaching of their nal deliverance into their
heavenly rest.” But lo, when I turn to Matt. 24 I nd a
most active testimony going on at this time. e gospel
of the kingdom is to be preached in all the world (if any
one choose to translate it “ prophetic earth,” the argument
is only stronger), for a witness to all nations, and then the
end is to come. Now, if the sphere of earthly service is
hopelessly closed to the faithful ones in that evil hour who
had the testimony to Jesus, what is all this preaching in
that evil hour? For it is the evil hour; for it is to the end. If
the gospel of the kingdom be what we have to preach-the
gospel of salvation such as the church has it-how is the
sphere of earthly service closed of the faithful ones, the last
representatives of the church on earth, just as Stephen and
the Pentecostal church? If it be not the gospel the church
has to preach to the world, our present gospel, then what
are we to say to the subject of Matt. 24?
ere is another curious statement in page 96. Gentile
Christians being wise in their own conceits, the testimony
to Jesus in the scenes (though we have seen that it is not
in the scenes, because the word is used of the period of the
beast’s reign and even of Jerusalem, according to the author
with one exception, and Christianity is not there) therein
described is not entrusted to them. Now, the branches
are to be broken o because of this state. So that we nd
here the Gentile church, or Christians, in that state which
precludes the testimony to be raised up being given to
them, and, I add from Romans 11, going to be cut o and
a new and other set of witnesses (not the two) raised up
out of Israel, who are not to be in this state at all. us, the
church gets into the state for which it is to be cut o, so
that testimony is not given to it, and a new church is raised
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
171
up out of Israel, after this total decline and disappearance
(as far as testimony goes) of the Gentiles-which yet is the
church, and is quite out of the state of darkness which
broods over us. And yet, as we have seen, they have to be
warned against fancying Christ is in the secret chamber,
their earthly service being closed; and they wait in suering
and trial the hour of their deliverance. And yet all the while
(though coming from nobody knows where) there is an
active gospel preaching all over the world, for a testimony
to all nations.
After the departure of the disciples of Jesus to wait for
three years and a half, while another testimony goes on
(itself rather a strange position for the faithful ones in that
evil hour), that other testimony, the two witnesses, is raised
up. Of these we will speak in their proper place. I only add,
that I do not believe the hundred and forty-four thousand
of the sealed remnant are the remnant-the “ but a little
remnant “-brought to repentance by the two witnesses in
Jerusalem. I make no complaint at all of this statement;
merely, I do not agree with it. It certainly seems to me
that Rev. 7 speaks of a more general remnant spared of
the whole nation, without any reference at all to Jerusalem,
or the two witnesses. I see none in the chapter. It seems
purposely designed to embrace the whole nation, who
are not then there, and to secure beforehand God’s elect
remnant out of the whole nation, before any wind blew
on the earth, or sea, or tree. Whatever came any where,
this remnant would be safe. However, I leave this to the
judgment of the reader. ey are, as the author says, “ the
preserved of Israel on earth.” But then it is clear that a very
great part of Israel is not at Jerusalem: Ezek. 20 proves this;
because the rebels of all that band will not enter into the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
172
land at all, and there are yet others (Isa. 66) brought home
after Antichrist is destroyed. So, I suppose, Isa. 27:12. It
is reasonable, and I think scriptural (see John 5:43), to
suppose that the Jews who rejected Christ, and do so, come
under Antichrist: while others who have suered for their
rebellion, but not been in that guilt (i.e., the mass of the ten
tribes under Joseph’s stick) may be dierently dealt with in
this particular. Compare Isa. 28:14, 15. However, I leave
this point.
As to the church of the rstborn in heavenly glory, “
What is remarkable is, that they are all described as having
come out of the great tribulation.”
e author had said, “ No one, I suppose, will doubt
that this is the song of all the church of the rstborn.” For
my own part I do doubt it very much, unless [the] great
tribulation be taken as the whole church period. But I will
not discuss this here. Taking it as the great tribulation,
we are told, “ Individually, of course, the greater part of
them could not have been there. Yet as represented by their
brethren they were there; for the church is one.” is is, I
must say, a most comfortable way of being in tribulation: to
be represented there, and yet get all the blessings resulting
from it. at there is sympathy with those in tribulation
is true. But to nd them celebrated as in it, who had such
darkness brooding on them, and were so wise in their own
conceits as to be unt to be there, is a little strong.
But then there is another grave diculty. None of them
were there. On the sign being set up, which was to show
that it would take place, they all escape to avoid it. is
“ is a commandment too denite and too express to be
disobeyed by any who value the authority of Him who
gave it.” So that no obedient disciple of Jesus was in it.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
173
I suppose it will not be argued that Jesus said, Flee, for
there will be great tribulation; while He meant that they
should be in the tribulation, whether they ed or not. If
not, not one was there in it; and yet all the church were
there. Well, I confess, this “ is remarkable.” And not only so,
but “ the church as a whole will be known as having come
out of that dispensation which gains its distinguishing
characteristic from the evil hour with which it closes.” Yet
not one single one of the church will be there. It is an odd
expression, “ come out of that dispensation.” Is it not then
after all this dispensation, “ the church period “? the church
dispensation? And, if so, is this power of Antichrist and
the dragon the distinguishing characteristic of the church
dispensation-when the church will be giving no testimony
at all, the sphere of its earthly service being hopelessly
closed? Can that be the distinguishing characteristic of the
church dispensation in which the church is not found at
all, in which it can given no testimony, and from which it is
desired to ee? is will make the reader see why I inquired
into these terms at the beginning, and the important eect
of identifying the kingdom and the church, and this age or
dispensation. It entirely destroys the true character of each.
CHAPTERS 8 AND 9
I have not much to remark on here, not admitting that
all the ock of Jesus are those who are come out of the
great tribulation. It seems to me somewhat strange for
the church to have a conversation about themselves, and
describe themselves as a class of persons, explaining who
they were. at very dierent symbols may represent; or
that a symbol and that an historical statement may both be
used of, the same persons, I fully admit; or that the Lord
should present a man’s history to himself in a parable:
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
174
all this I conceive easily. But if the elders are the church
(which I do not combat), and the great multitude is the
whole church, too is it not somewhat extraordinary that
they should thus, as one looking on, ask the seer, Who are
these? when they were themselves? and then, when the
latter referred it back to him as knowing, should give a
special description of them, and what was to happen to
them?
If they were a special and exceptional class, I could
understand it, when those who as a body made up the
twenty-four courses of priests, were already brought in in
blessing. It would have to be explained, who they were, and
whence they came; and their salvation, and no more, being
ascribed to God on the throne and the Lamb, would answer
to the character of those who would be delivered under the
circumstances of this book-at any rate, of the greater part
of them. And they sing no more than their own salvation
and deliverance-nothing of the special blessedness and
title of Christ, as the previous song did: and their blessing
is all in contrast with previous trial and sorrow.
I am not prepared to recognize a cry, not unheeded
without intercession, and answered when intercession
comes. “ If we know that he hear us, we know that we have
the petitions.” And it seems to militate against the force
of “ I say not that I will pray the Father for you: for the
Father himself loveth you.” If then saints below were the
church, and this book takes the ground of the church, this
statement can hardly be true.
e note, also, I believe to be a mistake as to the “ right
translation.” I think it will be found that didomi is used
in the Revelation in a peculiar manner, signifying give
ecacy to something already subsisting.’ us, in chapter
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
175
II: 3, which is exactly the same form, I will give [power, or
ecacy] to my two witnesses.” So here, ‘ that He might
give [ecacy] to the prayers of the saints.’ However, this is
not of much moment.
To the rest of the statements I demur also. First, there is
nothing particular stated, as to Israel, in the rst trumpets.
ere is more reason for it in the woe trumpets-at any rate
in the rst, so that there I leave the remark uncommented
upon. But smiting earth, seas, fountains, rivers, heavens, if
taken really and literally, as is supposed here by the author,
must surely be more than Israel, and not Israel particularly.
Besides, Tire and Babylon are not Israel; so that page too
and the rst note do not agree.
e author says these several parts of nature will be
literally smitten
60
(page 112): but it is rather a loose way of
getting over it to say “ when the sea shall cease to supply its
riches,” when it is said “ the third part became blood “; and
of what sea, if literal? And how does a great star fall literally
from heaven, its name being Wormwood, so that a third
part of the waters became (literally?) wormwood? And
think of the key of the bottomless pit being literally given
to a star falling down upon the earth! And what then is the
description of the locusts that came out of the bottomless
pit?-is this literal too? And if not, why suddenly draw a line,
because the absurdity becomes too palpable? And why, if a
third part of the sun was literally smitten, should the day
not shine for a third part of it? It is easy just to pass over all
this by talking of “ waters changing their refreshment into
bitterness, and the heavens in their revolution beginning
60 If all this judgment goes on, how comes it that all is so
resplendent and full of comfort during the reign of Antichrist,
as is alleged?
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
176
to minister darkness instead of light.” But then for a literal
explanation, we should have something more precise. Nor
am I aware why it should apply to Israel.
It is a still stranger comment to say that these locust
powers of darkness wore chaplets the same as on the
head of the Lord Jesus: “ for the commission of Apollyon
is equally from God.” How is a chaplet the sign of a
commission from God? and what showed it in the rider
of the white horse? And are those who come out of the
bottomless pit crowned the same as Christ, because they
have equally a commission? I have already noticed in its
place the inconsistency of explaining the men’s faces here
(“ the same characteristic we nd in the cherubim “) as
marking “ wisdom and sagacity “-when, in explaining it
in the cherubim, it was declared not to mean it (page 55).
And why woman’s hair signies joy would be hard to tell.
at a woman’s shaving her head may signify grief (being
a shame, and her ornament gone) I understand; but why a
man putting on woman’s hair should be joy, is, I confess,
beyond me. I am not prepared to combat it, because I am
not clear about the point myself.
Nor do I admit the two witnesses to be during the last
three years and a half.
61
But how if they are (and they are
introduced during the sixth trumpet, or second woe, which
closes after the end of their history) does the author bring
the rst ve trumpets into the three years and a half, which
three years and a half are occupied in his system with the
61 My present thought [1868] is that there is only one half-week
in the dened periods of the Revelation. I confess I have been
surprised at the clearness of these pages; and have a deeper
sense of the evil of the author’s system than ever I had before.
e guarded inquiry here has comforted me, as not going
beyond assured ground at the time [1844-5].
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
177
witnesses who are found in the sixth, and not till then? I
put this not as an objection, but as a diculty that requires
solution.
As to the note (page 2) on the Jews, it is a thought long
since promulgated-the gradual breaking down of the Jews,
and their sanctifying by the gradual progress of morally
unbearable evil. But if “ humbled,” “ thoroughly broken
(conscious of the truth respecting the past, and correctly
anticipating the future “ and that by the testimony of God),
surely they are converted. And it cannot be said that they
were like John’s disciples, and that there was no testimony of
Jesus when Christianity was withdrawn; because John’s was
decidedly a testimony of Jesus. And if they were conscious
of the truth respecting the past, what was that about? Was
there no Jesus in that past? Were they not believers that
Jesus was the Christ, and yet not in a church standing?
And, if they are servants of God in Isaiah, they love His
name and take hold of His covenant; and say in Psalm 8o,
“ Let thy hand be on the son of man,” etc. (See Isa. 56 and
Psa. 80) “ John’s disciples before they were brought to Jesus
“ avoids the question. Was there no testimony to Jesus by
John? ese persons are converted and know that Jesus is
the Christ, and are waiting for His appearing: and they are
not the church. Let the reader note this.
I suppose the repentance of a person thoroughly broken
through the testimony of God proves him converted; and
this testimony was of Jesus rejected and coming. And is
it not a strange thing to say that the Spirit of God has
provided them with inspired expressions for their self-
righteousness? at He prepares the utterance of the
complaints of God’s people, is true. at He prophetically
declares by the Spirit what the wicked will do, putting it
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
178
as a complaint in the mouth of Christ, as in Psa. 22 and
69 (“ ey wag their heads, and say,” etc. “ ey gave me
gall,” etc.), or sometimes in that of a godly remnant, is
true also. But can the Spirit of God prepare an abundance
of touching appeals to God for self righteousness, and
sanction them by inspiring them beforehand? Is it not a
monstrous supposition? Yet this is the theory of the writer,
in order to make good his prophetic system and reconcile
the Psalms with his theory of Israel’s state. And if not, it
all fall.: for otherwise there is a remnant of Israel after the
church is gone, converted and turned to God; and yet fed
by Jewish hopes, and sustained by testimonies of the Spirit
adapted to them. And there is recognized as of God on the
earth what is not the church.
I have not much to say on the numbers: I think them
mistaken, but immaterial. Seven and twelve are alone
important. Seven is clearly wrong. Are seven devils rest?
or seven heads on the dragon? or even seven spirits of
God sent forth into all the earth? or seven vials? or seven
trumpets? It seems to me seven is used for completeness in
spiritual things, twelve in human associations. But others
can judge of this.
Surely agency towards others in blessing is not specially
the character of the heavenly city. I do trust we may get a
little “ rest “ there; yet I do not remember any sevens in the
city. ere is agency, it is true; but is dwelling with God
and the Lamb, where there is no temple, an inferior part of
the blessing? e twelve loaves of show-bread, what agency
had they? Twelve stones set up by Joshua as a memorial?
e twelve tribes of Israel, even, what agency had they?
Is it not rather a singular thing (if seven means rest, and
twelve agency) that all that part of the Revelation which
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
179
describes the actings, whether of Satan in mischief or of
God in judgment, is identied with the number seven, and
the result in the city of glory with the number twelve?
I believe the one hundred and forty-four thousand of
chapter 7 are distinct from the one hundred and forty-four
thousand of chapter 14; but I do not believe the second a
heavenly company.
And why in the next note does the fact of a multitude
coming out of all nations, and the elders and cherubim
also coming out of them (assuming them so to do) prove
they are the same body? And what proof is there that the
one hundred and forty-four thousand of chapter 14 come
out of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues?
ere is absolutely none.
As to the instruments of action: why, if all be literal,
is blood a symbol? All this description of agents assumes
the statements of the chapter which we have considered
(and which seem to me quite untenable), or they are mere
fancy. But I do not feel they involve any principle so as to
discuss them at length. But as to the stars (page 115), “ the
third of these divisions “ (where is all this found?)-” they
are continually employed to represent the saints in their
resurrection glory.” Where? is is all a preparation (as we
shall nd) for statements elsewhere founded on it as if it
were a truth; but would it not be better to adduce one passage
as a proof than to say “ they are continually employed “?
Believing stars to be inferior authorities, I admit they may
clearly be employed to denote the millennial state of the
saints; and of course it will be unearthly and superhuman
then. But I demur altogether to the general statement. Here
too we have a most easy way of getting out of the diculty
of interpreting the terms used in the trumpets: “ I doubt
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
180
not that the waters, and all that they symbolize, will be
found bitter.” is saves all diculty certainly; and you can
hardly be wrong, at any rate, but by excess. But then how
is it consistent with the note in page I 12, which seems to
shut totally out “ all that they symbolize “? ere they are
literally smitten, and do not mean spiritual blessings. “ e
gifts of God in creation, and the articial constructions of
man,” are the things judged.
However, to pass on. Who says that the host of the high
ones on high, and the great ones of the earth, are punished
together? Scripture does not: for it is said, “ the host of the
high ones [that are] on high, and the kings of the earth
upon the earth.” So that it is not together; for the high
ones are punished on high (if these be taken for spiritual
wickednesses, which I do not combat), and the kings of the
earth on the earth.
As to time, “ it comes to pass in that day “; but this
proves no identity. e whole chapter (Isa. 24) speaks of
a certain period, as in many other places. Chapters 25 to
27 are all “ in that day “ also; and the four chapters clearly
represent a series of events-the wasting and desolation
of the earth, continuing some time-the resurrection-the
full blessing of Israel-and the judgment of Satan, and the
gathering in all the outcasts from every quarter, one by
one-all “ in that day.” So, in chapter 7, “ that day “ is clearly
used for a continuous time, characterized, however, by the
same event or its consequences.
But when the author says, “ the expulsion of Satan from
the presence of God in heaven (see chap. 12) is carefully
to be distinguished from the possession of the authority of
the air,” it is really pushing the slighting of scripture for a
system too far. Why is it to be carefully distinguished? On
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
181
what scripture is this founded? e prince of the power of
the air is the spirit that now worketh; and the expression is
found in the Ephesians, where the evil spirits are called “
spiritual wickedness in heavenly places,” where our blessings
are said to be, and where we are said to sit. Now in Rev. 12
we read, “ ere was war in heaven; Michael the archangel
fought, and his angels; and the dragon (who dragged with
his tail the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them
to earth) fought, and his angels; and prevailed not, nor
was their place found any more in heaven. And the great
dragon was cast out … he was cast out into the earth,” etc.
Hence they cry in heaven, “ e accuser of our brethren is
cast down, which accused them before our God day and
night. erefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in
them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for
the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, because
he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the
dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth,” etc. Now, is not
his casting entirely out of heaven and down to the earth, so
that his place was not found any more in heaven, identied
with his being no more before our God-the latter being
celebrated, because the former was accomplished? Just as
the Epistle to the Ephesians, where he is called prince of
the power of the air in connection with his worldly power,
is the only place where he is said to be in heavenly places
where our blessings are. And how, if cast from heaven to
earth, was he still the prince of the power of the air?
I leave the other two notes; though they seem to me,
one very unwarranted (certainly it is not yet proved that
Babylon and the Euphrates are to be the World’s center),
and the other most strange. It is strange to say the blue
ame of the pit, or of burning brimstone, is a result of the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
182
same holiness of God as the blue of heaven: specially when
there was no smoke which darkened the sun, and no ame
at all; and the blue that was found here was of breastplates
on the demons. I suppose this was not the holiness of God,
nor much to do with it, nor with the ame of brimstone
either, that I know of. It is all summed up in one word-
imagination. Blue is in heaven-blue is in brimstone-blue
was in the priestly robes- and blue was on the breastplates
of demons.
e distinction between Satan’s possession of the
authority of the air, and his being in the presence of God,
is made because the system needed it; for this reason-it
was determined to keep the church properly speaking
on earth till the end. Now, it is certain that Satan is cast
down from heaven three years and a half before this: and
therefore, if there was not such a distinction made, it would
be impossible to consider the church as in its original
condition. e whole scene of its existence being totally
changed spiritually, and it called upon to rejoice because
it was so, its spiritual combats would have ceased, viewed
(as the Ephesians view it) as inhabiting heaven, and as
Rev. 11 does view this class of saints, calling on them to
rejoice because the kingdom and salvation were come as to
heaven. But then this upsets all the system; and therefore
this distinction is introduced here, and left to have its force
without any explanation or any proof.
As to the “ oughts “ on chapters 11 and 11, I have
already discussed the order. I only recall that the close of
the little book of chapter 10 is clearly connected in order of
time with what precedes: for the sixth trumpet is declared
to close after it nishes; and then comes the seventh of
these trumpets, which come in succession; while the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
183
announcement of the angel who gives the book refers to the
seventh trumpet, which clearly closes everything, though
its contents be not given as such. Chapter 12 begins, after
this, quite a new subject, not embraced in the trumpets, but
connected with the episode of the little book (through the
allusion to the beast who slays the witnesses) introduced
there to nd its place in the general and comprehensive
order of the trumpets, which embrace the whole series of
judgments historically; though the grand moral evil of the
latter day must be brought out in its sources, character, and
judgment, distinctly.
I believe a part “ immediately precedes,” then, and a part
not, the time of the Lord’s power. is is a very fair subject
for inquiry. I think I shall show that there are untenable
statements; but I can readily allow for this kind of error, as
such as we may all fall into, though it be right to show it.
In page 113, there is a statement which is unallowable,
because it is based on the system the writer is pleased to
maintain in direct contravention of the scripture. “ Drunk
(he says) with the wine rst mingled by the harlot, and
nally ministered through the beast.” Now, this is altering
Scripture, not interpreting it. Where is the wine said to
be ministered through the beast? “ She,” Babylon, “ made
all nations drink of the wine “ (chap. 14: 8). She had the “
golden cup in her hand.” ey were “ drunk with the wine
of her fornication “ (chap. 17: 2, 4). So chapter 18: 3. She
“ corrupted the earth “ (chap. 19: 2). Nor do I nd a trace
of anything else. But here Scripture, on a very material
point (namely, who and what is to be watched against as
rendering men morally and spiritually drunk), is altered
and set aside; because the system of the author sets the
ruling power of Babylon aside as a system at the beginning
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
184
of the three years and a half, and transfers all activity to the
beast, and therefore puts the cup in its hand. But is this
right?
As to the presence of Christ asserting His title to all
(earth and sea) here below, and announcing the closing of
the mystery of God, I have only to remark that, as to the
time particularly noticed in the little book, the church has
not, according to the author, “ to watch, testify, and endure,
many days.” I suppose we must consider the three years and
a half of the witnesses the special object or period presented
in that which was before this mighty angel, as it was the
period contained in the little book He gave, of which the
knowledge is “ so easy to be grasped.” But during this
period, according to the author, the scene of the church’s
earthly service is closed. So that it certainly had not to
testify. Hence the light of this vision cannot shine upon
its service as to the period spoken of in the vision. And yet
this is not to my mind the saddest part of this statement. It
is its consistency, not its inconsistency. Earthly deliverance,
an earthly power of Christ, is that which is always
presented as the hope and relief of the church. His title in
the world is the object here. I agree in this. But is it in the
strength of this knowledge that the church has to watch,
testify, and endure? at earthly deliverance and Christ’s
earthly power should be Israel’s hope, or the remnant’s
hope, rightly or wrongly apprehended, I well conceive;
but is this the church’s strength? Rest with apostles and
prophets, being caught up to be forever with the Lord-I
should have thought to have been more the coming hour,
and that knowledge, the strength of which would have
taught the church to endure and to testify. e church does
know that God shall destroy those that destroy the earth;
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
185
and it is a relief to the oppressed spirit. But in this it knows
that the earth is waiting for the manifestation of the sons
of God-for that part of the deliverance at least which can
be accomplished while earth remains. Its hope and faith
surely precedes, and rises higher than all this, in being with
Him who shall accomplish it, though it own the other.
I have only to add that pages 120, 121, just follow on in
this train. is is our future glory together with the Lord,
and the sorrow of the Lord was only sorrowful testimony,
and testimony, prophetic testimony, against peoples, etc.
Is this the sum or nature of His highest and deepest
sorrow? Is testimony against the world our
62
proper place,
or testimony to sinners of His and the Father’s love? I
understand well the place taken, sons being made servants,
and the church made prophet of, instead of the bearer and
witness of, grace to the Gentile world. is was what made,
we found before,
63
the only ecient practical testimony in
the earth; the Gentiles were to be viewed as beasts under
God’s judgment, and it was having these things clear that
gave the testimony power! Was it Paul’s testimony in
preaching, or was the gospel of the grace of God? I appeal
to the word, and call upon the conscience of my reader
to answer. at he instructed the church in these things,
according to its need, is true. at he told generally that
there was a judgment of this world at Christ’s coming,
is also true; but was that which he presented grace and
salvation, or not? Is the gospel and heavenly glory to be
given up for prophecy of earthly deliverance as the hope
and strength of the church? Is our sorrow to come from
62 e witnesses may thus testify; but then the church’s testimony
is over.
63 Pages 92, 93, of the “ oughts.”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
186
testifying against people? e prophetic judgments of God
I admit. It is well known I have taught, and that far and wide,
these judgments. But the hope of the church is another
hope, and the sorrow of the church and of the Savior is
another sorrow. Besides, whatever sorrow may accompany
the testimony, the coming of the things themselves is to
cause joy in the hearts of those who listen to the Lord. “
When these things begin to come to pass, then lift up your
heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
CHAPTER II
We now come to an important chapter, with (as usual)
an immensity assumed or implied. Some points may be
noticed here, other statements can be examined when more
enlarged upon. “ ose cities are Babylon and Jerusalem.”
is implies that an earthly Babylon is one great center
of the world. Here it is contrasted with the earthly, not
the heavenly, Jerusalem; in Revelation it is most certainly
with the heavenly, whatever its own place may be. But I
shall only remark here, that the mind, thus unconsciously
accustomed to this idea, is accustomed to an unproved
thing. e inquiry I reserve for its place.
Such an expression as “ that miserable race who are
about to re-people Jerusalem “ cannot be too strongly
animadverted upon. I appeal to every one familiar with
Scripture, as to the manner in which the heart of God
yearns over His people, wandering though they be: and if
they are miserable through His judgments, taunts are not
what become Gentiles, confessedly become wise in their
own conceits. eir sins are plainly proved in Scripture,
and wrath is come upon them to the uttermost: but they
are dealt with there with the hand and the heart of God,
not with the insults of men. Nor do I believe that the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
187
curse of man on those who are yet beloved for the father’s
sakes would be found in the mouth of one guided in his
expressions by the Spirit of God. Does the Lord, when he
states the fact here alluded to (which is not denied), use
any expressions like “ that miserable race “?
64
None ever.
But to turn to the substance of this chapter. We are told
that the chapter “ supplies us with the history of Jerusalem
during the period which immediately preceded its nal
visitation by the Lord in glory.” I have no complaint to
make of such a statement (which is an opinion on an
interesting subject of inquiry), but that it is not proved-a
very material thing, of course, in such a statement. It is
taken for granted, and we are told, “ In reading this chapter,
therefore, we must imagine Jerusalem,” etc.
So we are told, “ It would seem,” “ that Christians, and
Christian testimony remain,” previously to this period. But
is this the right way of dealing with questions of the kind?
e facts of Antichrist’s
65
deceit and subsequent malice I
believe to be true, and therefore need not enter on here.
But as to the place of the witnesses in the order of events,
I entirely demur. it is in vain to say, “ scarcely terminate
before the seventh angel sounds “ … “ this mystery of God
will terminate and other scenes open “; because, according
to the author, it ought to terminate without any “ scarcely “
at all. Besides, it s only in the days of the seventh angel who
is about to sound, that the mystery of God shall be nished:
and the seventh angel sounds a woe trumpet; and therefore
it is not said ‘ when he sounds,” i.e., at that given time-woe
64 Such is constantly the case with the author, and those in the
system of the “ oughts.”
65 I doubt its being Antichrist’s, though he may coalesce in it. It
is ie prince to come, the head (I suppose) of the revived Roman
beast.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
188
is still on he inhabiters of earth after and by the sounding
of the seventh trumpet. We shall see that the order stated
by the author, and necessary to his system, is impossible
and contradicts itself. It is attempted indeed to be slurred
over by the words “ scarcely terminate “: but a moment’s
examination will’show the palpable contradictions in the
statements made.
I read (page 125), “ when these servants of God shall
have nished their testimony, the wickedness of earth will
again, though for the last time, be allowed to lift up itself
and prosper.” Now this itself is not the testimony scarcely
terminating when the mystery of God nishes, and other
scenes open (see page 123), for the wickedness of earth
will again lift up itself and prosper. But in the notes, the
positive contrary of the statement in the text is proved
(page 131). “ Its being said that the Gentiles tread it down
for the denite period of forty-two months, proves that
they do not tread it down after this denite period is over.
Consequently the sackcloth testimony of the witnesses
and the times of the Gentiles, and therefore the reign
of Antichrist, end simultaneously.” How, then, when the
servants of God shall have nished their testimony, will
the wickedness of the earth again lift up its head and
prosper? I should bring the passage of page 125, which is
drawn from the plain text of the chapter, as demonstrative
of the falseness of the position taken in the note, which
is yet necessary to the author’s system. But to give the
simultaneous ending of the period as absolute and identical
for both, in connection with a statement, that when one
ended the other lifted up its head and prospered, is an
excess of self-contradiction rare to nd. Yet the writer well
knew what he was about in thus identifying them; because,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
189
absurd as it is, his whole system falls if the termination
of the witnesses’ testimony and the reign of Antichrist be
not synchronous; because this testimony of the witnesses
being for the twelve hundred and sixty days, if it be not the
last half week of Antichrist, we have then some previous
half-week, during which a testimony-which is not the
church, nor, according to him, Christianity (though it
testify of Jesus among the Jews)-has been going on, which
is closed (as he says, page 125) by the wickedness of the
earth rising up again and prospering. Yet it is clear that the
synchronous, simultaneous termination of the testimony of
the witnesses, and the reign of Antichrist, is an absurdity
on the face of it: because Antichrist it is that kills them-a
most curious way of ending simultaneously. I know not
what opinion the writer must have formed of his readers to
make such a statement.
And not only so, but there is an earthquake after; and
subsequently to this it is said “ the third woe cometh quickly
“; and then some time consequently after the seventh angel
sounds, in whose days the mystery of God is nished. So
that it is quite clear that the simultaneous ending of the
testimony of the witnesses, and the reign of Antichrist,
and this evil power of the Gentiles, is impossible, being
contradicted by the express statements of the word,
recognized in part (page 125), and hushed up in the word
‘ scarcely.’ And in these remarks I have passed over the
rather strange statement, that they testied as much dead
as alive; stranger still when we remember that it is said (as
quoted, page 125), “ when they shall have nished their
testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless
pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them,
and kill them.” And yet, though they “ have nished their
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
190
testimony,” and their enemies are rejoicing over them,
these three days and a half are included in the period of
their testimony.
But I have no need to insist upon this, seeing the evident
untenableness of a statement which makes a simultaneous
ending of two things, when one puts an end to the other, by
his wicked power, and there are several subsequent events
positively referred to before the close of the latter comes.
Besides, is there any moral identity in the state of things?
When the beast is given to make war, and overcome the
saints, and to kill whoever did not worship him; and the
power is given to the witnesses, that if any man would hurt
them, re proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth
their enemies; and if any man will hurt them, he must in
this manner be killed? I do not say that the beast will kill
all actually; I admit with the author, it need not be actually
done as to all. But is a power to do so, and as is alleged from
Daniel (though I do not agree with it) the saints delivered
into the beast’s hands, consistent with a power given to the
witnesses of God against all that could touch or hurt them?
Is this the same state of things? “ Power from God for
protection will visibly be granted them.” “ ey cannot be
overthrown, neither can their testimony be stayed.” Is this
the character of the period of the beast’s power, “ just at the
very moment when he is exalted into the plenitude of his
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
191
glorious power “? Is it the statement given in Scripture of
the relationship of the beast and the saints?
66
e beast, moreover, is not Antichrist, though helped
by the latter. at he is, was at the time of writing these
papers a commonly accepted idea. It does not aect this
point, save as facilitating the solution of what is a real
diculty, suggested above as an objection to the author’s
system-how, if there be only one half week, the slaying all
who do not worship him is consistent with the existence of
the two witnesses. e preservation of the woman indeed
shows that this eort of the beast or dragon to destroy all
cannot pass the limits set to it by God. For the true Jewish
worshippers as a body escape. So in chapter 11, the altar
and temple, the true worshippers, are measured and owned
of God; and it seems that a testimony also is preserved,
two witnesses, or an adequate testimony to the God of
the earth. e beast’s power is general in chapter 13, over
all dwellers in earth. Meanwhile, among the Jews, God
preserves a testimony where only the second beast may be.
e two periods do not close simultaneously; but the
beast’s having power to continue forty-two months can
hardly mean he continues in this character eighty-four.
In this the author is right; but as to the nature of the
66 e reasoning as to the two periods ending simultaneously is
perfectly put as regards the author’s system; but I believe there
is but the one (or last) half-week in the twelve hundred and
sixty days and forty-two months. But it is a Jewish testimony.
e beast can only blaspheme those who dwell in heaven. e
times and laws are delivered into the hands of the beast in Dan.
7 (i.e., Jewish ordinances, not the saints). He wears them out,
no doubt, but the great body escape into the wilderness, to a
place prepared of God for them; and, in spite of the beast, God
will maintain a testimony. When this is closed, however, the
beast will slay the witnesses.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
192
testimony he is fundamentally wrong. e only change to
be made in my argument is to apply it to the last half-
week, not a previous one. For, whichever half-week it is,
the testimony is not the church (according to the author
himself), not Christianity. e rest of the reply is all right.
e reply is just, but the positive statements are not clear,
though guarded; because the existence of two half-weeks
is supposed possible; as (see the text above) the diculty
of another interpretation is urged. e diculty is real; but
it is no more than existed in the time of the Lord on earth
(for I suppose the same period). Till His time was come no
one could take Him; though the power of the beast, and
apostate Jews, and Antichrist guratively were there by
anticipation. e positive truth I apprehend to be that, on
the casting down of Satan to earth, the power of Christ’s
kingdom is so far set up; but this leaves three years and a
half of the great rage of Satan, or the last half week-the
time of the two beasts’ characteristic power-the time when
the sacrice is taken away, and times and laws are delivered
into the beast’s hands.
e rapture of the saints is quite another matter. is
is not the kingdom: we are taken to the Father’s house (as
in Luke 9 the kingdom was displayed on the mountain)-
the church’s heavenly place, in the entering into the bright
cloud whence the Father’s voice issues. As far as this is
shown in Rev. 12, it is in the taking up of the man-child.
I do not attach great importance to the question of one
or two half-weeks; but I believe in the Revelation there
is only one. In the rst half the prince had favored and
deceived the Jews, but wickedly. But if so, the argument
in page 213, beginning “ nor does it seem to me,” down
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
193
to “ inhabiters of earth,” is without force. [Note to second
edition, 1868.])
And now I beg attention to the character of the
witnesses’ testimony. Christianity is withdrawn from Judah
and Jerusalem. e statement that used to be made was,
that there was not a Christian to be found in the Roman
earth, and that the wheat (Matt. 13) represented risen
saints in the earth, after their resurrection, and before
their ascension. is, however, is now given up, and the
matter stated very generally. (See page 143.) But at any
rate it is withdrawn from Judah and Jerusalem. And the
new character of testimony is this” ey will be able to
speak of the law broken; of restoration granted, only to
be forfeited again by aggravated transgression; of prophets
sent to be rejected; of the Son of God slain, hanged on
a tree; of the message of forgiveness through His blood
despised, and now withdrawn; of the day of His glory
with all its judgments being nigh, even at the doors,” etc.
Now have we not here, after the church is withdrawn, a
testimony to Jesus by the Spirit of prophecy? and who are
“ my two witnesses,” servants of Jesus as prophets? Is the
testimony not to Jews, not at Jerusalem, not about Jewish
hopes, and yet about Jesus, and Jesus slain, and Jesus to
come- and yet altogether Jewish in every sense? And how
then is it impossible that such a testimony can be without
the foundations of Christianity being gone? And if the
Lord Jesus has alluded to it, is this very wonderful? Or
if He has left a door open, in what He has said, to the
application of His words to it, when speaking of these very
times, is this very wonderful? ere may be More detail. It
may require patient submission to the word to connect it
all. But is it wonderful that, when speaking of Jerusalem in
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
194
the latter days, he should allude to such a testimony as this?
And what comes of statements made of their remaining a
people rejecting all testimony until they see the Lord, and
are converted by it?
But further, testimony (page 128) ceases on the earth
(during the three days and a half). Where then is the
church? But “ the time has come for the Son to quit the
throne of the Father,” etc.; “ and to be invested with the
power which now is nally taken from the hands of man.
e times of the Gentiles nish, and with them the mystery
of God.” is is really too bold; because after slaying the
witnesses, and even after their receiving the Spirit of life
from God, there is an earthquake, and very notable eects
ensuing on it.
67
en it is declared the third woe comes
quickly; and, as we have seen, it is only in the days of this
woe that the mystery of God is to be nished. In a word,
the statements of the author are in direct contradiction of
the plain text of scripture.
One thing is certain. If this secret scene in heaven
takes place in heaven before the seventh trumpet sounds,
it is perfectly clear that the Lord rises up and takes the
kingdom some time before the mystery of God is nished
on earth: for this is only in the days of the seventh angel.
Moreover, this celebration of the sovereignty of the world
being become our Lord’s and His Christ’s we nd again in
chapter 12 decidedly three years and a half before the end.
“ Now is come the kingdom of our God, and the authority
of his Christ.”
And now just see the reasoning of the author. In
chapter i i we nd, “ there were voices in heaven, saying,
67 Eects much more like the end of chapter 6 than chapter 19
is.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
195
e sovereignty of the world hath become our Lord’s and
his Christ’s “; or, e sovereignty of the world of our Lord
and of His Christ is come. We nd in chapter 12, with the
stronger expression “ now “-” I heard a great voice in heaven,
saying, Now is come … the kingdom of our God, and the
authority of his Christ.” In the rst (we are told) the scene
has passed in heaven of taking the kingdom, and the times
of the Gentiles nished, and the mystery of God, and the
time come for the Son to quit the Father’s throne; which,
we shall remember, ends the age altogether. In chapter 12
this assertion of power was as yet for heaven only. If it be
so (though it seems to me a mistake), then it is quite clear
that Christ takes in heaven the authority, and the kingdom
of God is set up for the blessing of the dwellers in heaven
three years and a half before it is on earth.
Again: “ It is the last of these trumpets, and will bring
alike upon Israel and on the Gentiles the nal blow-
administered by the Son of man Himself.” is is never
said. Nor does it seem to me to be a just interpretation
of the trumpets to make the coming of Christ a woe. I
know it is said that it will be to the inhabiters of the earth;
but it seems to me excessively strained so to apply it, or
to term God’s personal judgment a woe. Nor is it said to
fall on any but Antichrist and his army, who are not the
inhabiters of the earth. At any rate, if the seventh trumpet
ushers in the administration of this blow, again, I have to
repeat, Antichrist is not put an end to simultaneously with
the witnesses before the sixth closes. And, again, if it be the
nal blow on the Gentiles, the Assyrian, Gog, etc., are all
left entirely out, as if no prophecy existed about them: for
Gog comes up when the land is at peace, and Christ is the
peace when the Assyrian comes into it.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
196
I proceed to the notes. As to this new translation, I
conceive it is simple nonsense. What is the meaning of, “
In the days of the voice,” etc., “ when he should be about to
sound “? Are the days of his voice before he has sounded
at all? Tregelles has fairly enough translated it “ when he
should sound.” ere was to be no longer delay; the seventh
angel was going to sound, and when he should, in the days
of his voice the mystery should be nished.
What is stated about “ mystery of God “ and “ mystery
“ is eminently calculated to mislead. e church is not
called the mystery of God; nor do I believe the expression
refers to it,
68
but rather to the strangeness of the existence
of God’s sovereignty while evil was allowed and rampant.
But it is said “ this is a great mystery “-to wit, the union of
husband and wife; “ but I speak as concerning Christ and
the church.”
e church, therefore, its union At least with Christ, is
called a mystery. And of what is it the apostle speaks when
he says, “ the mystery of Christ, which, in other ages was
not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed
to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the
Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and the of same body,” etc.?
“ Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this
grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the
unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what
is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning
of the world hath been hid in God … to the intent that
now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places
might be known by the church,” etc. e church is not the
68 Unless on the authority of a various reading in Col. 2 Still
here it would be government, and not the church, which is in
question.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
197
whole of the mystery of God’s will. at is true. But this
is certain, that what Paul specially preached (and this he
identies with the doctrine of the church) was from the
beginning of the world hid in God. Here is his statement
of the mystery: “ at he might gather together in one
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which
are on earth; in him in whom we also have obtained an
inheritance,” etc. is he developed in the same chapter as
being “ head over all things to the church, which is his body,
the fullness of him that lleth all in all.” e mystery thus
includes Christ’s administrative headship over all things,
and the union of the church to Him as such, as His body.
is mystery was made known to Paul by revelation. It had
been hidden in God before. It is not a true representation
of the apostle’s statements to talk of the great “ mysteries
“; because he talks most expressly of “ the mystery,” over
and over again, as hidden previously from the sons of men.
us, in Col. 1:26, 27, the mystery hidden, or-if we are to
imitate the translation of “ the tribulation, the great one
“the mystery, the hidden one from ages and generations,
but which now has been manifested to His saints; to whom
God would (has willed to make known what is the riches
of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, etc. And
had not this (Christ in them) something to do with the
church-the breaking down the middle wall of partition,
and of twain making one new man in the body, the church,
united to the Head? So in Col. 2:3. If we read with the
margin (“ wherein “ as indeed I doubt not we should), we
nd the immense importance of this special mystery. So in
chapter 4: 3 we nd that Paul was in bonds for the mystery.
Compare Eph. 3:1 and chap. 4:1. Now I would ask, after
reading these passages, Is it a just representation of the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
198
apostle’s teaching to say, “ the great mysteries connected
with the ministry of the apostles “? Or why is it concealed
that there is a mystery, of which the apostle speaks?
I ask, too, whether saying neither the church of the
Firstborn nor the church in any of its parts is the mystery,
would not mislead? And when do we read of the parts of
the church in Scripture, save in the sense of members of
the body? Is not the great object of the apostle to insist on
its unity? And where it is said, that which has been stated
in the Old Testament, but allowed to remain there silent
69
-
is this, taking all the passages, what the apostle states, or
not? And if not, why this care to cover up his statements
as to this great mystery hidden from ages and generations-
hidden in God? Does it not show that there is just that in
it which the author’s system would not bear, the church’s
proper place as the body and spouse of Christ? A mystery
is not necessarily a fresh truth (he says) never before stated.
Does not the apostle say that the mystery had never before
been stated? Why this anxious eort to get rid of what
distinguishes the church?
As to “ make known by the
70
prophetic scriptures,” the
author would have very great diculty indeed to show
69 What is the meaning of stated and remaining there silent?
Was the mystery silent? If not, if it was stated in the Old
Testament, the Old Testament was not silent about it. But
the apostle states in Rom. 16:25, that it was not spoken of, or
stated-that silence had been kept about it: not that it had been
silent there, which has no sense. e translation is a wrong
one also. It is not “ kept silent “; but silence kept about it; and
therefore rightly, for the sense, translated “ kept secret.”
70 It is not the prophetic scriptures, but by prophetic scriptures;
and I have not the smallest doubt this applies to New (not Old
Testament) scriptures-a testimony withal of their inspiration,
if such were needed.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
199
that it meant the prophecies of the Old Testament. It is
impossible to arm it from the passage: but I shall not
contest it. But it is a strange thing to say that that which
had been kept secret or silent since the world (in all times
of ages), but revealed or made manifest now, was revealed
all along in the Old Testament (only kept as it were
silent there). Do we not nd the apostle quoting passages
constantly from the Old Testament prophets, to vindicate,
and prove, and make known what was not revealed at all
there, but which maintained certain truths when they
were revealed? As, “ He hath stretched out his hands to a
disobedient and gainsaying people.” “ Rejoice, ye Gentiles,
with his people; “ “ Whosoever shall call on the name
of the Lord shall be saved.” And, “ Lo, we turn to the
Gentiles; for so it is written, I have set thee for a light to the
Gentiles.” All these the apostle uses in making it known.
But surely they did not reveal the mystery. ey were found
accomplished in the mystery when it was revealed and so
used in making it known: but by themselves they never
would have revealed it.
And this was just the wisdom of God, to provide, while
leaving the Jews to their own proper responsibility, for a
system to be set up when they should fail in it (and which was
yet shown to be according to the previous purpose of God,
when once it was revealed in its time)-a system which was
set up when they failed in that responsibility, established in
fact, but suspended in revelation, till they had rejected the
testimony of the Holy Ghost to the exalted Messiah, as well
as crucied the humbled one; and thereon fully revealed,
and their whole system and existence for a while replaced
by it. For I avow unequivocally here, that all the objections
and all the diculties raised against it have only conrmed
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
200
me in the distinctive character of Paul’s ministry, set up
consequent upon the rejection of the testimony of the
Holy Ghost by Jerusalem in the martyrdom of Stephen. It
was the turning point of the whole proper present position
of the church. No one denies that the church was then
in Jerusalem. But no passage can be adduced to show the
revelation of its position to it as one heavenly body with
Christ, all dierence between Jew and Gentile being lost
therein. e case of Cornelius had shown that God would
visit them on earth, and take out of them a people (little as
it was understood, the nation having been preached to by
the Holy Ghost as still God’s people, and the disciples still
holding their place as Jews). But its proper place, as sitting
in heavenly places, was not brought out; nor does Paul ever
refer to the case of Cornelius as establishing the views he
taught.
Next, as to measuring the temple of God.
“ e rst two verses (we are told) refer to the time which
immediately precedes the last twelve hundred and sixty
days of Jewish tribulation.” e measuring clearly does not,
according to the author, as the next note shows. e temple
is measured for those days to be preserved. is makes
the distinction between the temple and the court. But if
the temple be Christianity and the court Judaism, does
the author mean to say that previously Christianity and
Judaism were one common system, as the temple and court
were? If it was, had not Christianity lost its proper church
character? It is not merely existence, which is recognized,
if anything is. ey are recognized as one common united
system (no doubt one exterior to the other), but still
united and identied in recognition. One perhaps might
be afterward trodden down and abolished, the other not.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
201
But till this happened, if represented by the temple and
its court as then previously existing, they were recognized
as one united system, both sanctioned in their place. But,
besides, the argument of the note is quite invalid. ere is
no proof whatever that the altar means the altar of incense.
I should say the contrary: because it is mentioned besides
the temple. e altar of incense was in the temple and is
called in the Revelation generally “ the golden altar which is
before God.” ere is no passage, I think, which mentions it
without some accompanying circumstance to distinguish it.
One may be discussed (chapter 14), but cannot be adduced
as proof. In the rest of the New Testament, altar always
means of burnt sacrices; and “ of incense “ is added the
only time the other is used. So we have temple and altar,
or altar and temple (house), distinguished as here, in Matt.
23 and Luke 11, where clearly the altar is that of burnt
sacrice. I think no one, examining the use of the word,
will doubt to which altar the word applies used alone, and
still more used as something besides temple-Greek naos.
And the temple being measured, measuring the altar of
incense added nothing. If this be so, the argument of the
author fails.
But, further, is it not strange that measuring means
casting out into dens and caves of the earth? Or was
Christianity as such (i.e., the church condition of saints)
now for the rst time distinctively recognized of God? I
say “ of God,” because it was not now publicly sanctioned
and settled providentially. For, according to the author’s
system, it is thereon banished from this world’s Eden, out
of the reach of the beast’s power, or hid in caves, Previously
to this it had had a publicly recognized existence; on being
measured it is driven out. It is clear that of God it had
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
202
been recognized for centuries. But if measuring is not
recognized of God, it means abolishing
71
(not being given
up to be trampled upon): why then does measuring signify
to “ recognize as our own “? Both existed before without
any measuring at all. Why is not measuring then abolition,
in the case of Jewish worship? Christianity was recognized
of God before. And, as far as the prophetic earth goes, it
is abolished by man now at this time of measuring it. Or
why, if Jerusalem and Jewish worship is Sodom, and utterly
rejected of God, and “ the court “ means their worship, is it
called the holy city, or symbolized by this expression? I see
no proof at all. Why is not the court and holy city symbolic
also?
I do not believe the twelve hundred and sixty days, here
spoken of, to mean the days of Antichrist’s nal power.
72
71 We must remember that according to the author, “ e chapter
before us supplies us with the history of Jerusalem during the
period which immediately precedes its nal visitation by the
Lord in glory.” Now Antichrist abolishes Christianity and
Judaism. How is this denoted by measuring one and not
measuring the other? If it be of God, how can Judaism and
Christianity be now in any sense outer and inner courts of the
same common building, which God has to consider, to show
which He will own and which He will not.
72 I have already corrected the thought of the two half-weeks here
recurred to. e general argument remains the same, except the
sentence beginning “ Nor is it to be imagined “ in text above.
e view of the author of the “ oughts “ criticized, which
insists on Christianity and yet excludes it, is contradictory to
the last degree. His object is to keep the church to the end
and have no Jewish remnant. Yet he holds it was withdrawn
from Jerusalem, and another testimony there, yet owned all the
while of God. e same question arises in pages 171, and 183,
where it is treated as a collateral question. I need not refer to it
again. (Second edition.)
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
203
Of this I have already spoken. Nor do I believe treading
under foot the holy city means abolishing it, or Jewish
worship symbolized by it. It seems to me the circumstances
of the witnesses are quite inconsistent with the state of
things under the beast during the last three years and a
half. Measuring the temple and the altar I cannot consider
as a secret recognition of Christianity, which surely could
be no new thing. Public recognition in the prophetic
earth it would just exactly then cease to have, according
to the system urged. And moreover, this chapter gives the
“ history of Jerusalem,” from which Christianity is wholly
withdrawn. Nor is it to be imagined how the saints are
to be secured and measured during the time they are
given into the beast’s hand to kill. And, measuring here
being contrasted with giving up to be trodden upon by
the Gentiles, how can its suppression by these Gentiles in
the limits of the empire be a contrast with that? Is it not
trodden down by them during this period, according to the
author? Moreover, Christianity is withdrawn, and ceases
to give testimony in the prophetic earth. It is still existing
outside the Roman earth, but not as a testimony at all. A
new testimony is to be raised up-new in character-which
subsists at the same time. And the position here assigned to
Christianity is said to be that of saints, whose blessedness
and delity characterize the church in such a way that
they alone are mentioned in the Revelation as in glory.
us Christianity is withdrawn, and gives no testimony.
e witnesses have power to destroy those that hurt them.
Who are the saints given up to the beast to kill?
We are told in the next note that “ its being said that the
Gentiles tread it down for the denite period of forty-two
months proves that they do not tread it down after this
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
204
denite period is over.” Nor of course before it commenced.
But then where is all the treading down during the time of
the Gentiles, from the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, as
insisted on by the author in his lecture on Luke 21?
73
Next as to the two olive trees.
Because there is a reference to Zechariah, they are
assumed to be the same thing, additional features of glory
being added in the Revelation. Can anything be more
unreasonable? I might as well prove the heavenly Jerusalem
to be the earthly, because there is a reference to Isaiah 6o.
e account is quite dierent. In \Zechariah there is one
candlestick. Here there are two. It is not an added feature,
but a totally dierent state of things. e feature is in
Zechariah as well as in Revelation. en we are told, “ they
will be in their own persons in heaven … what they will
enable others to be on earth.” What does this mean? Will
they be the church in its unity before God above, which is
what the author says is a candlestick? Or are the witnesses
in their own persons in heaven? I read “ they stand before
73 e whole argument and structure of that tract, which appears
to me manifestly unsound, is based upon an incorrect citation
of the passage, “ Before all these things shall they lay their
hands upon you.” In the English translation (which I have no
doubt at all is correct), it is, “ Before all these they shall lay,”
etc. e dierence being that the English translation refers to
a distinct specic set of things just mentioned; whereas the
writer generalizes it, and puts it before another large class of
events which have no connection, as he himself recognizes, with
the other. Now, all the statement of the tract depends on this,
the tract bringing in thereby the whole Christian dispensation
as in question. Now I believe most decidedly the English
translation to be right, and the author of the tract wrong. But
at any rate he ought not to give as a quotation what has been
changed, without apprising the reader, and giving some reason
for it, when the whole argument of his tract depends upon it.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
205
the God of the earth,” and I suppose it is on earth they are
killed. And then we are told that the petition of the mother
of James and John was doubtless grounded on this passage
in Zechariah! To be on the right hand and left of Christ,
as the two olive trees that supply oil? For what they sought
was to sit on the right hand and left of His throne. Can
anything possibly be more absurd?
We have then a long statement about a Greek rule,
which is totally and entirely wrong.
74
I will not enter into
a discussion of Greek here. I will only cite a few passages
which prove it wrong; I might add twenty more (Heb. 12:3;
5:5 Matt. 3:3; 10:4; John 12:1 Romans 8: 3; 1Cor. 7:10, 26;
74 ere are two parts in the rule: “ words … in the Greek rendered
by the participle, not by the indicative mood, and therefore do
not imply present time, but an abstract relation.” (Note here,
the participle is not of the present tense.) Now this part is quite
wrong; as John 5:11, 15; 1Tim. 6:2 (and this would be the
easier way of translating Psa. 1:3; Heb. 5:5), and an endless
number of instances prove. e other part is, that this rule as to
abstract relation is conned to the present and perfect middle.
And this is quite wrong too; as Matthew to: 4, and the passage
Rev. 11:4 prove. e truth is, the one part of the rule proves
the other part wrong. Because, if the participle is abstract, it
certainly is not merely in the present and perfect middle that
it is so used. Take chapter so: 3, where we have this form twice,
once the very same word, and see how either of the rules will
apply. Indeed, it is so entirely wrong, and so upsets every real
rule about time, which is governed by the tense and not by the
question of participle and indicative mood, that it is useless
to enter into further details. I should have to cite all the rules
of interpretation for the Greek tenses. Neither is the present
active with the article always abstract (as Matt. 8:10; chap. as:
9, where you have it twice not abstract, and once abstract). So
in the expression who were” Acts 11:1, and at the beginning of
Romans, 1Corinthians, 2Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians,
changing case and gender as needed. But I need go no farther.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
206
11:5; 1:31; 10:4; 2ess. 2:16, verse 4 also may be quoted
[perhaps also Heb. 2:9]; Gal. 1:4). But, not to quote other
examples, there is one which will, probably, surprise the
reader; and that is the passage itself on which the author
is commenting. is is a singular example to aord of the
condence which can be reposed in the critical accuracy
of this book. In Rev. 11:4 (“ which stand “) the passage by
reason of which he gives this rule, is an example that the
rule is quite wrong. It is the Attic form of the participle of
the perfect active.
We have, then, a more precise statement as to the
testimony of the witnesses. To the indel multitudes
around it will be the Lord’s coming in judgment, and the
sins which cause it to fall. But for those who tremble and
bow before their word (so that there are such), to such
they can promise protection through the coming res, “
and acceptance in Jesus after He shall have returned and
removed ungodliness from Jacob. Such anticipation of the
future, founded on the word of others, is something very
dierent from present faith and joy in the Spirit.” Now,
that this remnant will not have joy in the Holy Ghost
sent down from heaven, I believe. But let us consider it
according to the author’s system. During this period
Christianity subsists still in the earth-is professed over a
larger portion of the globe than the dominion of the beast.
e Spirit of God is there. e church is yet on earth, and
the Spirit abiding in it. At the same time there are persons
brought to own Jesus as Son of God-to own Him as the
one in whom they are to be accepted in a year or two, and
who will protect them till that time; but they have nothing
to do with the church, which is yet down here on earth,
nor with the Holy Ghost, which is here too. Yet they have
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
207
trembled at the word of God, bowed and been humbled,
and owned Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God; and
that previous to the close of this dispensation, the church
being yet upon earth, and the Holy Ghost as sent down
from heaven. Yet, though owning Jesus to be the Son of
God, previous to the church’s rapture, and counting upon
acceptance in Him when He appears, they are only to have
the earthly portion of Jews. Is it not singular that during
this dispensation persons thoroughly humbled, recognizing
Jesus to be the Son of God,
75
and acknowledging that He
was coming again, should not be justied (I read, “ by
75 is is the account given of their state, page 112: “ ey appear
to become gradually humbled, and at last, under the testimony,
I believe, of the witnesses, thoroughly broken-conscious
of the truth respecting the past, and correctly anticipating
the future: assured of preservation through the res, and of
subsequent blessing-but not as yet sprinkled with the blood
of reconciliation, nor possessed of the spirit of peace.” It is
curious that they should be assured of subsequent blessing, and
preservation for it, and yet not of the favor of God. at they
might know they were not of the church, if the dispensation
or time of the church were over, one might understand: but
to be assured of blessing by God’s favor, and that blessing “
acceptance in Jesus “ (p. 113), and yet not know God’s favor, is
strange enough. Certainty of acceptance in Jesus in two years,
without peace, is a state of soul perfectly impossible to exist. But
let that pass now.e statement in page is of the tract entitled
“ e day of the Lord,” is entirely contradictory of this. “ ey
will reject Him till they shall have been brought through the
terrors of that day.” Is assurance of acceptance in Him shortly,
and consciousness of the truth of what is passed, and correctly
anticipating the future (i.e. His coming), “ rejecting him
“? But it is really impossible to follow all the contradictions
and confusion into which following his own thoughts (where
Scripture and submission of mind to Scripture are departed
from) throws a writer.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
208
him all that believe are justied from all things “); though
acceptance in Jesus is a thing proclaimed to them, and the
church be still in existence, and the day of grace not over
elsewhere?
And the ground of this is still more singular; namely,
that “ such anticipation of the future, founded on the words
of others, is something very dierent from present faith.”
And what then is faith? is remnant is thoroughly broken
under the testimony of the witnesses; so that it is not
even mere head knowledge. But I thought that receiving
on the testimony of others was the peculiar glory of the
Gentiles, indeed of all faith. “ In whom after that ye had
heard “ is the way the apostle describes the blessed faith
of the church. e ancient patriarchs received individually
personal communications; the word of the Lord came, or
the Lord appeared. omas believed because he saw; but
blessing rests on him who believes without seeing, whose
faith as to the instrument rests on the word of others, but
that word received as the word of God. One would have
thought that anticipation of the future, founded on the
word of others, was wonderfully like present faith-” the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.” What was Abraham’s faith but seeing the promises
afar o, being persuaded of them, and embracing them?
is, it is clear, the remnant do; because they are “ assured
of subsequent blessing,” and that on this testimony, in
spite of all the present power of Antichrist. But here we
are told that it is something very dierent from present
faith. Compare the testimony in page 124 (by which they
are “ thoroughly broken,” and which consequently they
believe), and the assurance of what is promised (page 133),
and say what it is if it be not faith? Is it not exactly what
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
209
has been believed as to a Jewish remnant? only that the
author insists that this shall take place while the church
and the Holy Ghost are here below, without conferring the
blessings conferred there.
And I beg the reader here to remember that it is because
saints have believed that there would be such a remnant,
and that the Lord so spake as to refer to and provide for it
in Matt. 24, that so great a cry has been raised. Is there not
such a one? Is it not the only one in Jerusalem, according
to the author, during the last three years and a half? e
only dierence in principle being that some have thought
the church would be in heaven-the author puts them in
caves and dens of the earth, rendering no testimony at all
(this other new testimony being raised up while they are
there), though such is their glory, that the whole church is
characterized by them. I do not believe his dates, because
I believe it is impossible to place the witnesses in the last
three years and a half. I believe they close their testimony,
and the third woe still remains, which is a real proper woe,
coming on the inhabitants of the earth from the power of
evil let loose.
But however this may be (which I treat only as a very
legitimate question, on which I should be glad to hear what
anyone had to say), the principle of the question is as I have
stated it. And what comes of the outcry as to testimony to
Jesus, and faith of Jesus? Do not the witnesses, when they
promise future acceptance in Him, and declare His past
rejection, give testimony to Him? And do not the remnant,
when they trust this-are conscious of the truth as to the
past, and assured of blessing in the future in Him-believe
in this testimony? And yet they have not the Spirit, and are
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
210
not in the church. at is the other side the Euphrates,
76
or
hidden in dens and caves.
As to the Psalms, I cannot enter into them at large here.
I believe there are two periods at Jerusalem: one during
which the testimony is preserved; and the other when it
has been driven out. ere is a dierence as to these two
periods in the Psalms, I believe. Generally, I apprehend,
the rst book refers to the rst period, which has a strong
analogy to Christ’s ministry on earth. It goes down to the
end of Psa. 41e references to resurrection are very much
more frequent in it; still, proper Jewish hopes are there. It
is not the period of Antichrist’s proper power as such after
Satan has been cast down from heaven. is begins with
Psa. 42, but enters on a far wider sphere; because all Israel,
the bringing in the Only-begotten into the world, and
consequently the testimony to the Gentiles, and the nal
hallelujah of triumph, now open to view. But the hopes
are more exclusively Jewish, though a suering Christ be
found the center and the stay of each and every condition.
It is well known that the Psalms are divided into ve
books and I believe by distinct subjects, besides several
clusters of them which treat each a complete subject by
itself. But I do not believe any part of them describes the
church state as such (that is, the power of the presence of
the Holy Ghost in the unity of Christ’s body upon earth).
If a Christian, as regards his walk on earth or state of
soul, nds himself in the state any psalm speaks of, he has
certainly the sympathy of the Spirit of Christ there given.
And this is the proper force of the Psalms-Christ entering
76 Can any one believe that during the present period, the church
period, present salvation and presence depends (not by man’s
hindering the gospel, but by God’s sending another dierent
testimony) on which side a river a man is?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
211
into worldly sorrow, and the condition of His suering
people upon earth, instead of having what the rst two
psalms speak of. Now His earthly people will be there and
the Psalms will fully apply to them.
But the saints (the remnant according to the election
of grace), and the Gentiles graed in, followed Christ in
that place on earth; and therefore they nd the sympathy
and consolations of Christ in it. But then higher and
heavenly blessings have been revealed to them-their sitting
in heavenly places in Christ, to which (save some allusions
in reference to the heavens in the day of judgment) the
Psalms do not refer. eir own proper peculiar blessings are
not there. It is from Christ’s entering in them into worldly
sorrow, and the condition of His suering people upon
earth, that we nd in the expressions of His own heart (not
in prophecies about Him) prophetic statements of His
own condition. For He entered into them, not by a mere
divine sympathy above, but by being actually in them here
below; and this is what renders the Psalms so peculiarly
precious. But then He was on earth a Jew, though much
more than a Jew, and the literal circumstances always
identify themselves with that people. He does not rise up
to His heavenly place, save in general expressions, as “ the
heavens shall declare his righteousness,” etc. But though
Christ does not rise to the unity of the heavenly body here,
yet the members of that body have taken His place upon
earth; and therefore, when the shadow of His sorrow (for
indeed it is but that) passes over them, they nd it is His
sorrow, and so His sympathy in it: and this is very precious
to them, though it may bring them to the thought that
they do not rise up to their proper place with Him. What
He is in them is the everlasting manna of the saints.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
212
e next note requires a few remarks. First, we have
again their Lord, of those who witness when Christianity
is withdrawn-who do not testify of grace but as to come.
What was stated as to “ His servants “ was unfounded.
Further, Gentile nations are known by other likenesses.
It is merely those united to the beast, and when and as
so united, that are presented as any part of the likeness.
Gentile national churches are never called so at all. is
confusion of dierent things together is very mischievous.
Our part is rather to separate what is precious from what
is vile. e powers of Gentile nations are as yet ordained of
God: and Gentile national churches have never any such
name given to them at all, or any name that I know of in
Scripture.
“ e Spirit of life from God entered into them.” If they
literally revived, they literally ascended up to heaven in a
cloud-not in their natural bodies. Did Elijah go to heaven
in his natural body? Was it in his dead body unchanged
that Moses appeared? Was his dead body gloried? What
natural body had Moses when he was dead? Does appearing
in glory of those who were either dead or translated convey
the idea of a natural body? It would really seem that the
writer took pleasure in making strange statements.
e last note is still more unjustiable. e Lord God
Almighty taking to Him His great power and reigning “
is the resumption of the power delegated to the Gentile
monarchs.” And the language too, in the Greek, is emphatic,
“thy power, the great “-that great power. e reason of this
assertion is obvious. It is to make the sounding of the
seventh trumpet the time of the assumption of earthly
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
213
power by Christ
77
-at least God’s taking it away from man
to give to Him. But are all the consequences of verse i8
the exercise of Nebuchadnezzar’s power? Or is the solemn
testimony of God’s almighty and supreme power to be
thus dealt with, to secure the proof of a date, and prove
that the heavenly exercise of power cannot precede by any
interval the earthly? For this is the object here. I do not feel
it needful to discuss the remaining notes, though they do
not approve themselves to my mind.
CHAPTER 12
is chapter is of the last importance. I should have
hoped that the mere reading of it would have suced for
every saint to have rejected it at once. But in this dark
and gloomy day we begin to feel the eect of that word, “
When the Son of man cometh, shall he nd faith on the
earth? “ is chapter just acts upon the unbelief it nds in
the heart, and lowers the church from all its proper glory
and heavenly place.
Our mother (page 138) “ is yet to be paramount in
the earth, and to reign beautiful in holiness, supreme
over all nations. ‘ I saw a woman clothed with the sun,’
etc. Such is the vision of her coming glory in the earth.” “
is is our parent- the system to which we belong, and to
which … we give the homage of our hearts.” In proportion
as we “ consider the period when Christianity shall, in
77 Were it so, that God re-assumed now the power delegated
to the Gentiles, all the author’s system is confusion and
contradiction; because he has stated that the times of the
Gentiles and Antichrist’s reign close necessarily synchronously
with the testimony of the witnesses. Whereas the power is re-
assumed by God only after this, on the sounding of the seventh
trumpet-re-assumed even in heaven; while Antichrist’s reign
was already closed before this on earth.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
214
Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, be supreme in the earth.”
us, that which has the homage of our hearts is not only
to be supreme in the earth (itself a strange expression for
the heavenly Jerusalem, ambiguously stated as a “ divinely
ordered system of truth and power,” so that actual heavenly
place and glory are kept out of view), but it is in Mount
Zion and in Jerusalem that it is to be supreme. Its place of
manifestation and supremacy is quite clear; it is the earth.
ere may be the presence of the glory of Christ, and the
unearthly glory of the risen saints; but it is in and on earth
that it is all to be. And this earthly system has the homage
of our hearts! I must say no system has the homage of my
heart, but Christ. But my mother is “ Jerusalem above,” and
nothing on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem. And in page
14o, how are they the children of a parent so glorious?
It is the woman, the mother herself, that is the object of
Satan’s rage. In a very general and unapplied sense I might
reckon all as the woman’s seed, save the millennial saints
who are born in a time of power. But any application at
once takes it away from all this; and if taken in this sense
as Christianity, Christ can in no sense be said to be born
of it. As the expression of an idea, it may be applied to all;
applied prophetically, it cannot be Christianity and Christ
born of it. e object is to make one system from Abel to
the end of time; and this one system, what is now called
Christianity-a mere casual name at a given time:-a doctrine
which makes the various display of God’s glory indierent;
all that could act on the aections spiritually, indierent
(the bare fact of life being in man making all equal).
e statements of page 141 are such as we have
constantly to notice, unproved, or based on previous
statements assumed to be true without proof. ere is a
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
215
connection between Zion and the woman. Well, what is
it? Zion brings forth a child
78
without travail in Isaiah. e
only idea there being the speed of its birth without sorrow;
for all the rest that is said is imagined. In the Revelation
a woman brings forth a child with travail-it is said, to be
gloried in heaven; but this is all imagined too. And that
is the connection. e woman being never called Zion,
this is introduced by saying the woman’s glory will by and
by be identied with it, of which no proof at all has been
advanced as yet. e woman in the Revelation is never
called Zion, and all proof of reference is the fact of birth in
each case. Were the woman Zion on earth, we might see
some contrast.
I admit in no wise “ an unseen Israel.” e only possible
text to be quoted is “ the Israel of God,” in the Galatians,
which I do not believe is applied as a title to the church at
all. What is stated of it is all confusion. e reference in
Matt. 2:15, was to the old Israel, whose promises Christ
took up; but that was not the church. If the Israel, the new
78 ere seems to me much more connection with Mic. 5; but
this is too extensive a point to discuss here.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
216
Israel, commenced with Him,
79
then the Israel of God are
not all the saints from the beginning, nor any previous to
Him; and thus the idea sought to be established of the
Israel of God fails.
80
And what is the meaning of “ the
heavenly courts of Israel’s temple “? Is Israel used as a
symbol, or what, here? If it has any literal meaning, then
“ heavenly courts “ is nonsense; if not, then Israel means
79 But nothing at all could commence with Him down here
in the esh, because all Israel, as well as the Gentiles, were
unredeemed sinners. It is denying unwittingly the necessity of
redemption. Giving of life did not suce. He must come by
blood as well as by water; and this was what always straitened
the heart of Jesus. He had this baptism to be baptized with.
is was not a dispensational question, but a question of the
necessity of redemption for all, in order to the enjoyment of
the promises thereby. In the wisdom of God it could be, and
was, dispensationally extended to the Gentiles; but it was
essentially true that blood must be shed for all. As a Gentile, I
could withal have no part till this middle wall of partition was
broken down-no part in the promises: and if men are pleased
to call it the Israel of God, it is quite certain that Christ could
not begin it as regards Gentiles on earth-a Gentile could not
be of it. But, as regards Israel also, the sure mercies of David
are based on the resurrection of Christ. But “ that he raised
him from the dead, now no more to see corruption, he said on
this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.” So that,
though He might be individually worthy, and have the power
of resurrection and life in Himself, He could not commence
anything while on earth. It would be life and blessing, without
redemption, without blood. And such is not God’s way-we may
boldly say, could not be; for it is but asserting man’s universal
sin and untness.
80 And the reader should take notice that this-in which the
author entirely contradicts himself, making the Israel of God
begin with Christ incarnate (not risen), and, in the same page,
a system for which we and all saints have from the beginning
suered-is the main leading point of his whole system.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
217
nothing. “ Heavenly courts of Israel’s temple “ cannot have
much force in it. Further, in the sense of the church, it did
not begin even secretly with Christ alive. He would have
abode alone, had He not died. A living Christ is a Jewish
Christ. Lifted up from the earth He would draw all men.
e middle wall of partition remained, by the authority of
God Himself, till His death.
But here the author returns to his main theme. “ We
need not marvel if Christianity be here presented as
if bearing the name of Zion.” But it is not presented as
bearing the name of Zion. Nor has the slightest proof been
given that the woman is Christianity. en it is the holy
and blessed system for which we and all saints from the
beginning have suered, which we now name Christianity.
Here again everything peculiar to the church, the body of
Christ in this dispensation, is set aside. A system going on
all through got the name of Christianity, but that is all;
and when this system “ shall at last arise into its destined
supremacy in the earth, it shall be identical with Zion,” “
arising in the moral grace and dignity of its high calling
in the earth.” Is that your hope, Christian? And really
here it is too bold, because “ high calling “ in Scripture, as
everyone knows who can read Greek, means calling above
from earth
81
and therefore high calling in the earth is a
most thorough perversion, nullifying our calling above in
the use of the very passage which directly asserts it, and
making an assertion which neutralizes its known force to
the unconscious reader.
Nor can there be any mistake here. We are told “
Christianity can never have its rightful pre-eminence, till
the hour comes for the mountain of the Lord’s house to be
81 “ e calling up on high,” Phil. 3:14.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
218
established,” etc. “ Mountains and hills are the emblems of
authoritative power.” “ e mountain to which we by faith
are already come “ will be associated with the church of
the Firstborn in heavenly glory, so that the identication
between ourselves and Zion will need no proof. We speak
of Zion as our mountain. We belong to it as part, although
the heavenly part, of the Israel of God.
e only answer is, We do not; because the apostle
says, Jerusalem which is above is our mother.
82
e rightful
preeminence of Christianity is not in the earth, nor at Zion.
ere it will be Christ and the Jews in the earthly kingdom.
e saints will judge the world: but it is not to earthly Zion
they belong, if the apostle has taught us aright. And what
becomes here of the heavenly calling? e whole statement
from beginning to end is an elaborate denial of it. A high
calling in the earth, and identication with earthly Zion,
is certainly not a heavenly calling. I do not even admit that
they are the same principles which rule now, and then:
because now it is grace, then judgment in the earth.
“ Zion, morally,” we are told, “ is not deserted-the
blessed system of truth, etc., hereafter to be established
upon Mount Zion, is not deserted.” is “ etc.” is very
82 at we reckon Mount Zion, in contrast with Mount Sinai,
the place of Christ’s royal supremacy in the earth Son of David,
when all things shall be gathered together in one in Him, and
that this may be the nearest point of connection between
heaven and earth, is quite true. But to use this in order to bring
the church down there as its place of abode, and to take away
its calling above, and make it a high calling on earth-to make
that the rightful pre-eminence of Christianity, and the system
connected with it our mother-is to destroy entirely the whole
proper calling of the church, by bringing it down to earth while
seeming to admit its heavenly glory, because the heavenly glory
is placed there.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
219
convenient. e word added elsewhere is “ power “ (page
142). But is there nothing peculiar, then, in the system for
which we suer? Does “ truth and power “ or “ truth, etc.”
characterize suciently the church of God? How do we
suer for power? or are grace and power the same thing?
For “ grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Why is grace
so studiously left out all through this? Is not the suering
in grace now, as Jesus did (with which the millennial
saints will never have a part) the very condition which is
identied with our proper heavenly glory? Is it the way
that God acts on the faith of the saints, to leave this all out?
or, in a word, is not the whole proper system of the gospel
entirely excluded in all this?
en we are told “ that Christianity will at that period
be found in Jerusalem, is evident from Matt. 24, and
various other passages.” Would it not be well, on such an
important point, to have cited or given a reference to one
or two of these various other passages? But this we have
not. As to Matt. 24, we know how it has been called in
question, and I can hardly be expected to discuss it here.
It is possible Christianity may be found there in such a
profession of Christ as it made by the two witnesses, which
suits the kingdom (that is, as the author states, judgment,
and not grace; for such is the testimony of the witnesses).
But Matt. 24 does not speak at all of the church of God
as such. at the church may have used it, and use it still, I
fully believe. Just as Peter, in ministering Christ to the Jews
as a nation, and with no reference to the church, might
suer, and possess his soul in patience, he being doubtless
in and of the church, yet his ministry not apply to the
church, but to the nation; because Christ died for it, and
therefore the Holy Ghost must testify to it. So of Matt. 24
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
220
e church may have used it, and may use it; but its subject
is not the church, but what concerns the temple, the Jewish
nation, the age, Jerusalem, and the dealing of the Lord in
judgment on them, to bring in the close of the age.
So, if a testimony such as that of the witnesses be in
Jerusalem before the last three years and a half, which is
not the church position, I heed not whether men call it
Christianity or not (though it will not be what is now
called Christianity, and yet it will own Jesus to have been
the Christ), they might well use the directions given also.
e author considers them to preach that the Son of God
had been rejected (and therefore it is to be supposed that
they will own His words and instructions); and yet he holds
that Christianity will be withdrawn. I think it inconsistent
to place this under the beast’s reign, into whose hand they
say the saints are given. But whenever it is, those who own
Christ rejected may well use His words; yet Christianity
and the present church standing are confessedly gone.
Having said thus much on this point, I return to the
proper subject of the chapter, namely, the reducing the
heavenly calling of the church to the level of the earthly
Zion. We have the most distinct enunciation of it in page
145: “ ere is an appointed hour of Satan’s power; and,
until that hour is past, the place of the children of Zion will
not be sustained here. He owns them indeed as worthy of
the same name of excellency which will by and by be given
to those who shall be born of Zion, when she shall bring
forth before she travaileth,” etc.
Here there is no mistake. It is an honor to the saints of
the church of God to get the same name of excellency as
those who bear the future earthly glory. eir place is not
sustained here. at is reserved for those by and by born
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
221
without travail (that is, in Zion); but stilt they are counted
worthy of the same name of excellency. Is not Zion said
to be our place here? And, instead of some better thing
being reserved for us, and our suering here, because we
are not of the world as Christ was not, being the road to
that better and heavenly and eternal weight of glory in the
heavenly Jerusalem which is our mother, we are allowed to
hope (though we have not the earthly Jerusalem sustained)
to have as good a name, nay, to bear it as if that honor of
sustained Zion belonged to us. Is this the church’s place?
at, as regards their sojourn on earth, and the kingdom,
they may for a season have mysteriously taken Zion’s place,
and be counted for Jerusalem’s children, is very possible,
and I believe it: but to make it a high calling to be there, and
our special privilege to get as high in excellency of name as
those that belong to it on earth hereafter, is nothing more
nor less than to deny the heavenly calling entirely. It is in
vain to add it is a better glory than the mere glory of earth;
because this is only to say they are better than Babylon.
ey will be taken to have the glory of God. But what is
this? Ruling all nations with a rod of iron. Be it so. We
know from the promise to yatira, that the church will
have this glory. But, though the church participates in all
the display of Christ’s glory-even that in which He shall,
according to the decree, sit on Mount Zion, as King, ruling
all nations with a rod of iron, is this our portion, our city,
our excellent name, rightful pre-eminence, our parent who
has the homage of our hearts?
Again, we nd, “ Nothing can more distinctly show
how all the features which marked the morning of our
dispensation in Jerusalem continue unchanged on to its
dark closing hour. is generation shall not pass away,
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
222
until all be fullled.” What is the meaning of this passage
introduced here? “ We nd Christianity still bringing forth
with sorrow in Jerusalem, still watched against by the same
great enemy, and her children not allowed to grow up, and
prosper in the earth.”
Now is the character of the church, judged of according
to the heavenly calling as preached by Paul, bringing
forth in Jerusalem? Earthly Jerusalem? Did this continue
unchanged? or was it all broken up and dispersed, and
another ministry called out for the Gentiles, or not? It
is in vain for opponents to say, Paul preached the same
gospel. As regards the doctrines of salvation and eternal
life, no one ever raised a question on it unless themselves.
But is bringing forth in Jerusalem the characteristic of the
heavenly calling of the church? “ All the features which
marked the morning of our dispensation in Jerusalem
continue unchanged.” It is quite clear that the special
ministry of Paul is entirely set aside.
Either the author must admit that the Pentecostal
church was Jewish, or he must admit that Jerusalem had
nothing to say to it, nor any other mountain; and that
bringing forth in sorrow in Jerusalem was not a feature
which characterized it- the only feature which is mentioned
here. Further, he holds that our dispensation continues
on till Christ rise up to judgment for the destruction of
Antichrist. But then, during the dark closing hour of the
three years and a half, Christianity does not bring forth
in Jerusalem at all. It is withdrawn. So that even so, his
statement is all contradictory. And what generation is not
to pass away? e Jewish unbelieving generation? But
what then? No one thinks it will. Still, testimony is to be
withdrawn from them-nay, as such (as Peter preached to
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
223
them in Acts 3) withdrawn from them long ago. At the
end a “ new testimony “ is raised up to them, though
the church be yet upon earth. So that the relationship of
the church with that generation (which must be what is
meant here by the morning of our dispensation continuing
unchanged, and this generation not passing away, if it has
any meaning at all) is quite changed and ceases altogether,
before all is fullled. e features that marked the morning
of our dispensation are entirely changed, according to the
author himself, before all is fullled.
e truth is, the associations of Christianity with Israel
or the Jews-founded (if I may venture so to speak) on
the obligation the Holy Ghost was under in virtue of the
promises of God and the intercession of Christ-ceased
within the period of Scripture history. Wrath was come
upon them “ to the uttermost “; it was no longer discipline,
that is, in hope they might bend their neck. It could no
longer be said, “ It was needful that the gospel should be rst
preached to you, and seeing ye count yourselves unworthy
of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” e “ to the Jew
rst “ has ceased: no one now applies it, and very justly.
ey do not deny it; but it has had its accomplishment.
And Acts 28 closed this solemn and wonderful history of
the patience of God with His poor sti-necked people,
beloved, yet disobedient, so that wrath should come upon
them to the uttermost; and the “ Lo, we turn to the Gentiles
“ has its large and full accomplishment.
e patience of God was perfect, but the features of
the dispensation are entirely, yea, I may add, confessedly
changed, and in that particular part of it (which is here in
question) had its accomplishment. at the Jews will be in
the rst line again as regards the church, I do not believe.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
224
It would be reversing the judgment and ways of God
pronounced upon them. We know neither Jew nor Greek,
but grace towards all. But in the latter day testimony it will
be so. ere will be bringing forth (at any rate testimony)
in Jerusalem, with reference to the setting up of Christ’s
power there-to the kingdom-to His sovereignty in power
over the world; and here the Jews and a “ certain standing
in Jerusalem “ will be in prominency. We believe it: but
a certain standing in Jerusalem was not certainly Paul’s
testimony. Hence I do not believe that this is properly a
church testimony, nor as such a church standing, for this is
not a certain standing in Jerusalem. Whether it be called
Christianity, I do not insist on; because (at any rate for the
rst three years and a half) Christ will be owned by the
witnesses to it, and yet it will not be Christianity such as
we speak of now.
“ e man-child, born in Jerusalem,” is not the church
calling, as taught in Paul’s epistles, though they may be
mystically reckoned her sons. But further, judgment
83
begins to be executed because of Satan’s dealings (not the
beast’s) against this testimony (which thus precedes the end
by three years and a half), which is a new sort of testimony
to the earthly kingdom and glory in Jerusalem,
84
“ testies
to the near coming of the kingdom of God “ in that place.
is is not the case now. It is the time of grace, and the day
of salvation -the time in which the accuser of the brethren
is not cast down. So that we have the whole scene and
manner of God’s actings changed, in consequence of a new
83 Page 4 “oughts, etc.”
84 I do not say the witnesses (though I am disposed to believe it
is), because the author puts them in the last three years and a
half, and I am here reasoning on what he admits.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
225
testimony and Satan’s actings in respect of that testimony,
at least three years and a half before the end.
e statement seems to me to vary from the chapter; but
I take it as it stands. I say “ vary from the chapter,” because
the author speaks of “ Satan’s bringing the power of the
ten kingdoms against the man-child, born in Jerusalem “;
whereas he is only watching by the woman to devour it,
and it is taken out of the way, and he then persecutes the
woman. He is not allowed to do anything with the child,
or bring any power against it. He is against the woman,
though in vain.
But note further: the woman “ denotes Christianity.”
e male child representing Christians as heirs of a certain
standing in Jerusalem, and the remnant of the woman’s
seed, may be Christians any where or in any circumstances.
“ e man-child is evidently an emblem denoting peculiar
position,” “ and that in Jerusalem.” So that we have here a
peculiar position diering from “ Christians anywhere or
in any circumstances,” and that a position in Jerusalem, “ a
standing lost “ or “ not occupied on earth,” but “ occupied
in altered and more glorious circumstances in heaven
“-founded on a special testimony at that day, a testimony in
Jerusalem, and acting principally at any rate on Israel; and
to this Matt. 24 specially refers (I add from that chapter
that the gospel of the kingdom will go out to all nations
before the end come); but it is dierent from “ Christians
anywhere or in any circumstances.” So that it is not here
(very clearly) the common church position taught by Paul.
For it is quite certain that this did not testify to the man-
child in this peculiar position born in Jerusalem.
Further, we have (considering the known arguments,
and the arguments of this same page on the point) this
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
226
singular statement, that, “ If we were to apply this passage
to past circumstances, we might say that when the
Pentecostal church was scattered, the man-child (although
then allowed a little to increase in stature) was taken from
the earth, but the remnant of the woman’s seed continued-
scattered and persecuted.” It has been said, ‘ Truth is mighty
and will prevail.’ e Pentecostal church then was in a
peculiar position, and that in Jerusalem. Its standing was
lost, or at least not allowed to be occupied on the earth,
they being heirs of a certain standing in Jerusalem. Well,
what else has been alleged as to them but this? But then,
if this position was not allowed to be occupied on earth,
and this man-child of the morning of our dispensation in
Jerusalem was allowed indeed to increase in stature, but
then taken from the earth-how, even as to this very point,
for so it is, do all the features which marked the morning
of our dispensation in Jerusalem continue unchanged on
to its dark closing hour? What it began with was all put
a stop to- was “ not allowed to grow up,” or at least only “
a little to increase.” It is resumed (this peculiar position in
Jerusalem) at the end, but surely not continued unchanged.
We nd it not “ still,” but “ again.”
I do not believe that God will again by the church set
aside the condition and heavenly calling out of Jerusalem,
into which it thus passed when the peculiar position and
standing in Jerusalem ceased, in order by it to set up this
standing again. But there will be before the last three years
and a half such a peculiar position and standing taken
in Jerusalem, in title and testimony dierent from the
present standing and testimony of the church, of which
in certain respects (while admitted to be itself the church)
the Pentecostal church was an example. I believe that in
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
227
the Pentecostal church (though God had begun and fully
recognized the church in it) God still lingered in mercy
over the associations with Jerusalem, and that founded on
the prayer of Jesus on the cross. He was willing to consider
they did it through ignorance, as Peter testies, Acts 3.
Hence the associations were not at once broken. But they
rejected this mercy, and the church passed distinctly into
its own proper heavenly place as the body of Christ, of
which the ministry of Paul is the great expression-I mignt
add, the only direct revelation, as it is its grand topic. He
calls himself minister of the church to fulll (or ll up,
complete) the word of God. I do not believe that we, as
the church, having and knowing this standing, are to go
back to the peculiar position and standing in Jerusalem,
though God may have lingered over it. But I believe that
when the time comes (known to Him), God will raise up a
testimony in the midst of His ancient people, referring to
this standing in Jerusalem.
But the question is, Is the church to give up its standing,
and to take this peculiar position connected with the
earthly Jerusalem, or hold that which it has had as born
of Jerusalem which is above, since, by the scattering of the
Pentecostal church, the position of the man-child ceased
to be occupied on the earth? It is a serious question. I trust
the saints may understand now what the dierence about
the heavenly calling is. Can they in faithfulness surrender
that which places them properly and exclusively as their
city in Jerusalem above, and descend to Jerusalem on earth,
as belonging to it, and having a peculiar position and
standing in it, as born there, as millennial saints will be?
I confess I nd the language on page 147 painful.
To talk of God holding power, in virtue of the sacrice
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
228
of Christ, to be the friend of the accused, is speaking as
Scripture never speaks. at He could not receive the guilty
consistently with His justice otherwise, every Christian
fully and gladly owns: but to talk of God’s holding power
in virtue of anything-and I would say specially of Christ’s
sacrice, as if it were not the fruit of His own common
counsel alone-is oensive, I judge, to the spiritual mind
and ear. e author does not talk of consistency with
justice, for he goes on to say, “ He hath not yet put forth
in acts of vengeance, not even against Satan himself.” How
does this question of justice apply here? Is power to cast
out the accuser in virtue of Christ’s sacrice? at sacrice
is the answer to his accusations while he is there. All this
is in order to conne it to the idea of the accuser (when
accusations would doubtless, though often false, have truth
enough to condemn us justly), in order that it may not
appear that Satan was cast out of heaven entirely as to his
authority of prince of the power of the air. But the dragon,
that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan (i.e., accuser
and adversary), was cast out of heaven by power and his
angels with him. If he were setting aside accusation, then
indeed it would be in virtue of Christ’s sacrice. But it
is power; and holding power is not in virtue of Christ’s
sacrice. And it is expressly said, that as serpent, dragon,
devil and adversary, he and all his angels are cast out to
the earth by power-angelic power. Of course, thereby the
accuser was gone, and the joy of those concerned in it is
declared. Nor is it said “ Christ’s brethren,” as the author
states. I do not say they are or are not; but I say he has felt it
necessary to change what the chapter states. But all this is
the eect of having a system. How is it that righteousness
and justice permit Satan and his angels to be in heaven?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
229
and what change is there in righteousness and justice, the
church being yet upon earth, as the author holds, which
causes him to be cast down? What is meant by the souls of
the righteous being cognizant of circumstances in heaven?
Of the departed righteous, or the living? And what is there
in chapter 7 about it? Chapter 7 contains the hundred and
forty-four thousand sealed, and the great multitude come
out of the great tribulation.
And now I would ask the reader to examine pages 144-
146, and say whether he can say here in page 143 what are
the Christians and Christianity persecuted when Satan was
cast down. e Christians are the man-child; but where
is the persecution of the man-child, in the chapter, after
Satan was cast down? Yet in pages 145, 146, it is this. But
the man-child was not there at all. We have already seen
that no proof at all is given that the woman is Christianity.
But we may note here, that if it be, it is allowed no home
in the Roman earth. It is driven to the distant desert, in the
bosom of uncivilized darkness. Yet, rst, it was the earth
helped the woman and swallowed up the ood the dragon
cast out of his mouth. Further, it must be remembered
that according to the system of the author, there is Russia,
which is Christendom, the United States, and Sweden, and
the far greater part of Germany, Prussia, and Poland (not to
speak of Scotland and Ireland), which form no part of this
civilized Roman earth. So that this uncivilized darkness is
rather poetry than fact. But there is another diculty. We
have been referred to Matt. 24 But then the direction is, “
en let them which be in Judea ee to the mountains.”
How is this a chasing out of the civilized Roman earth? It
is just ight to the mountains, because of what is set up in
Jerusalem bringing the days of tribulation and vengeance.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
230
Finally, Jet us remember here, that the Pentecostal
church had a peculiar position analogous to that of the
man-child, which “ is a symbol which would not,” says the
author (page 153), “ I think, be used of any Christians out
of Jerusalem; nor of them except in peculiar circumstances,
both as to unity, power of testimony, and bearing on their
nation. It is only in Jerusalem that the child of Zion can
obtain its proper standing of strength.”
85
Let us remember
“ that when the Pentecostal church was scattered, the
man-child was taken from the earth “; and, further, that
this man-child is to have, according to the author, this
place in Jerusalem again (though Scripture says nothing
of this), and that it cannot be used of any other Christians;
and we shall see how far the attacks on the statement
of the Pentecostal church having a Jewish character, are
reasonable. But, what is much more important, we shall
also see that, this Pentecostal church being scattered, and
something to arise again which cannot be used of any
Christians, out of Jerusalem, there is clearly a standing
and place proper to us in the interval distinct from this,
which knows nothing of Jerusalem nor of Jews-a heavenly
standing which leaves aside all those questions altogether,
has a heavenly Jerusalem for its mother, does not even
know Christ after the esh; and that question is, Are we
to give up this, our proper heavenly place, which God has
given us, as testied and opened out to us by the apostle
Paul, for that which cannot be used of Christians out of
Jerusalem and bears necessarily on the nation of Israel? For
my own part, through God’s grace, I surely will not. But
this is the question.
85 I ask, in passing, Can that be said of the church of God, as
Paul speaks of it?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
231
is is what it is sought to lead us to.
86
As to the notes. “ A woman.” is statement is quite
unfounded in the general way in which it is given. Cities
are called women in and out of Scripture-Jerusalem, Tire,
Babylon, and so on: and when a system is attached to a city,
the name may pass to the system. But that does not prove
that, when Scripture says a woman, it means the moral
system of a city: though cities may be sometimes called
women, women do not therefore mean cities. us Hagar
and Sarah are the two covenants; Rebecca, I doubt not,
the church: and so of others. Woman as a type means a
principle on which a system is formed; as man is the actor,
faithful or not, in that system.
But be it so, that the woman is to “ be regarded as the
expression of the glory of that system which is by and by
to be the earth’s system, through and in Jerusalem.” Is
the glory of the earth’s system in Jerusalem the church’s,
or, if you please, Christianity’s place?-Christianity’s as it
belongs to me? Here is the grand question. Heavenly glory,
in a word, the distinctive heavenly calling, is taken away.
at is not to be at all the earth’s system in Jerusalem.
Is Jerusalem to be in heavenly glory? Look at it, prosper
under it, it may; but it is not to be in it. And see how it is
all swamped in one. “ To say that it represented the glory
of the church of the rstborn merely, would be too limited.
86 I think it quite impossible for any one, seriously reading in the
Lord’s presence, Rev. 12, not to see that the casting out of the
dragon, the old serpent, from heaven, and the celebration of
the victory, as a past thing, of the brethren, not only by blood,
but by testimony, so that heaven and its inhabitants were to
rejoice, and the dragon thereon begins to persecute the woman,
implies an entire change in the condition of the saints, and
testimony of God.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
232
To conne it to the glory of Israel on the earth, would be
too narrow likewise. It represents the glory of a system of
truth, government, order, etc., wherewith the church and
Israel are alike connected, although the earthly medium of
its manifestation will be Israel in Jerusalem.” Let us only
remember that the woman is Christianity too.
But here it is not heavenly glory, being like Christ. It is
a system of truth, government, order, the church and Israel
alike in it; and the earthly medium of its manifestation is
Israel in Jerusalem. I suppose the world will not know in
Christ’s glory given to the saints that the Father sent the
Son. But if it is through and in Jerusalem, and Israel in
Jerusalem, that the glory of the system which “ we now call
Christianity “ is to be manifested, with which the church
and Israel are alike connected; what becomes of the church
and its distinctive position? Are saints really prepared to
receive this, to give up absolutely and entirely the proper
manifestation of heavenly glory in the church?
But, further, to conrm this we have the sun and stars
compared. e star is distant and unearthly glory: the sun
is what is prepared for earth. But then, rst, it cannot be
the church and Israel at the same time in the same and like
glory.
But “ consequently, when Christ rst appears in the
fullness of divine glory, in the glory of the Father, His own
glory, and the glory of the holy angels, He is symbolized
by a star. I am the bright and morning star.” “ It is to esh
and blood terrible glory, and in it He will exercise the
destructive judgments whereby the day of the Lord will
be ushered in.” How unceasing and assiduous the eort to
exclude the church from any proper separate and bridal joy!
It is t to make one weep, and wish one’s eyes fountains of
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
233
tears, to see the unweariedness of the eort to destroy all
this.
So the day star arising in our hearts
87
means the executing
terrible judgments on the adversary. “ I am the bright and
morning star “ (harbinger, I should have thought, of joy,
and light, and blessing, after a dark and gloomy night) are
destructive judgments. But where is it said (to come to its
proof) that the star is Christ appearing in the fullness of
divine glory? Or where is it said Christ appears as a star?
Or is it not strange that a star should be the fullness of
divine glory, and the sun a sort of inferior earthly glory to
eclipse by the coming in of day that fullness of the divine
glory? And how, if it be a distant and unearthly glory, the
glory of the Father, and His own, etc., is it shown in the
exercise of destructive judgments upon earth? I suppose
it is not distant or unearthly when He shall stain all His
garments in blood. And is our distant and unearthly glory
to be destructive judgments, and His glory in Israel to be
gracious and benign? Where is this system leading us?
When Israel washes his feet in the blood of his enemies,
and the tongue of his dogs is red through the same-when
the praises of God are in his lips, and a two-edged sword
in his hands-when He makes Judah His goodly horse in
the day of battle, out of whom come the battle-ax and
every weapon of war-when He has bent Judah for Him,
and lled the bow with Ephraim-when they shall grow up
as calves in the stall, and tread down the wicked under the
soles of their feet-when his horn shall be iron, and his hoof
brass, and Zion shall break in pieces many people; what
glory do they share in then? Is that distant and unearthly,
or the gracious and benign display of glory? Did the writer
87 I reject utterly the attempt to change the translation here.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
234
take the trouble of reading only the passage he has quoted?
If not, I will cite it for him, and for those who may follow
such statements without giving themselves the trouble of
doing so: “ But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun
of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye
shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall; and ye
shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under
the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do (this), saith
the Lord of hosts.” And this is the passage quoted to prove
that benign and gracious glory belongs to Israel as under
the inuence of the Sun of righteousness, and destructive
judgments to the church as having the bright and morning
Star!
Yes, the bright and morning Star does belong to the
saints, and its glory is distant and unearthly. But destruction
and terror upon earth are not distant and unearthly, though
they be terrible to esh and blood, and not so till they come
sudden and near. e Sun of righteousness shall heal Israel,
but shall place the power of righteousness and judgment
there, according to the principles of God’s association with
them. But the bright and morning Star is not terrible. It is
the sweet and blessed sign to them that watch, that the day
of blessing is coming in. It anticipates the day; it is joy and
gladness rising in the heart that has watched, whether in
hope or possession. And such is Christ before He appears.
e Sun will arise on the world, and men will stand in the
light, for blessing or for judgment. For the sun is always
supreme glory, under whatever circumstances. e star is
before the day, the joy of those who watch. e un-wakeful
world, who sleep in the night, see it not. Where is it ever
said that Christ appeared as the star? or where is a star
connected with judgment? And if it be His Father’s glory,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
235
where is it ever said that He will give us that? He that is as
the light of the morning is to be just. I can conceive nothing
more painful to a saint than to know that destruction is to
be his share in glory; grace and benignity Israel’s.
Further, while the woman is clothed with the sun
(supreme glory, certainly, however near), she is crowned
with the unearthly glory of the heavenly city: but then it
is a mere distant and comparatively obscure thing. It is a
wonder, if the sun be there in all its gracious and benign
glory, that the stars are wanted to give eect to the holy
system of truth and power- I suppose as inferior agents to
the supreme glory of Jerusalem.
“ Truth and power paramount in the earth “-but, after all,
grace is not to enter into their service. Terrible destruction
ushering in the day is their part; the grace is reserved for
Israel and Jerusalem.
e rest of the note will be to be discussed elsewhere.
It is secretly laying down a principle, which, received as
here in the mind, will serve to prove something elsewhere.
But proofs must be scriptural, or it is but man’s mind at
work: only one remark is needed here-that it is in nowise
drawn from Scripture. It is not true, in fact, absolutely; but
if the systems are the governing powers before Antichrist,
and the systems are represented by the heads, it is quite
clear the writer is all wrong if we follow Scripture, because
Antichrist does not sweep away the heads at all. It is a
system of the author’s (which may have a certain element
of truth in it), not of the Apocalypse.
What is the meaning of the next note? Does the fell
sweep of the dragon’s power cast down from heaven those
who are to be there prospectively? Or when cast from heaven
to earth, if it be the saints, what does it mean? Or what is the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
236
encouragement? For it is never said they get up again. It is
said, called to suer. But how is casting down from heaven
by the dragon’s tail suering? But stars being saints in a
distant and unearthly character, not inferior authorities or
powers, as usually taken; all this unaccountable confusion
must be added, in order to be consistent.
e next note I have suciently treated. Only it is quite
clear that it is not the church’s place in unity, heavenly unity,
if it cannot be used of any Christians out of Jerusalem. Nor
do I see how a child seen born in heaven, and caught up
to God and His throne, signies Christians persecuted at
Jerusalem.
Where does the Scripture state that the casting down
of Satan is consequent on his interference with the
progress of Christianity at Jerusalem? So says the author,
It appears. Where does it appear? Not in Rev. 12, because
his persecution of the woman is consequent on his casting
down. He is seen above, ready to devour; and, the child of
power being prepared and caught up, war begins in heaven;
but there is not a word about Jerusalem there. ere is not,
that I can see, the slightest appearance of such a view here,
but quite another order of things. e divine mind, seeing
the purpose of the dragon, and having prepared the man-
child who is to wield the power, whoever that be, begins
to execute its purpose; though it may leave the woman on
earth awhile, the object of Satan’s ineectual malice.
“ e priesthood of Christ will not cease to be exercised
for us when our accuser is cast down.”
First, it is not said our accuser, but “ the accuser of our
brethren.” And are we not to have the place of those in
heaven, when all this special scene goes on at Jerusalem
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
237
about symbols which cannot be used of any Christians out
of Jerusalem?
And surely the casting down of the accuser must make
an amazing dierence in the exercise of Christ’s priesthood.
ey are supposed no longer to have to overcome him by
the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony-this
they had accomplished. And why are the dwellers in heaven
called upon to rejoice so? Who are they? e inhabitants
of the earth are hardly the church as such, i.e., in its proper
heavenly character as sitting in heavenly places; otherwise
it would be worse o by the casting down of Satan. e
victory over him, thus celebrated, would be a woe to it. eir
brethren had overcome him in trial, and this is celebrated
with joy. is can hardly mean that they were in a much
worse case down here, with the same spiritual conicts
continuing. And such is the supposition of the author. ey
have still to wrestle against the spiritual wickednesses,
and, besides that, they have, if they be not now clear from
Satan as dwellers in heaven,
88
woe increasedly upon them
down here. Further, it is said, we shall not “ cease to wrestle
against evil spirits when he is cast down,” etc. “ We are not
said to wrestle in heaven against evil spirits; but to wrestle
against evil spirits who are [now] in heaven.” Is it ever said
we are to wrestle against them on earth? But what an entire
inapprehension of the force of all the apostle’s statements,
and how constant the eort to undo the proper heavenly
position of the church! How can we wrestle against spiritual
wickedness in heavenly places when there are none there?
88 I do not say that no saints may be among the inhabiters
of earth, for I do not doubt some spared, and therefore not
rejected of God, and elect, will be mixed up with the earth in
that day: but they are not dwellers in heaven, as the church is
called to be.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
238
It is in vain to say they are as bad when on earth. Worse,
if you please; but it is not the same state of things. God
has begun to act in judgment, and cast them down from
their high estate, from the place where they dwelt in power,
and where the church’s place and glory and blessings are
stated to be. is wrestling is spoken of in the Ephesians,
where it is said that we are blessed with spiritual blessings
in heavenly places in Christ-that we wrestle with spiritual
wickednesses in heavenly places. Can these two things be
thus contrasted when there are no spiritual wickednesses
there? We sit in heavenly places in Christ. We are a witness
to principalities and powers in heavenly places of the
manifold wisdom of God. All has its own character and
place-the mischievous power of Satan in heavenly places,
and our blessings there. And we are told that his casting
down thence will make no dierence! And why is “ now
“ added? e statement is characteristic in Ephesians:
our spiritual blessings are there; our spiritual enemies are
there. Supposing I were to add spiritual blessings (now)
in heavenly places, its incongruity would be seen, because
it is manifestly characteristic, and not merely a matter of
time. And the expressions are identical: the introduction
of “ now “ makes it a mere matter of time, as if there were
nothing characteristic in power in Satan’s being there with
his angels. But this is a manifest perversion of the passage.
And when it is said, “ Satan will still continue to be the
prince of the power of the air,” it is not a perversion, but a
denial of Scripture: for he is said to be cast into the earth,
and therefore he is not prince of the power of the air.
I am at a loss to know how the liberality of the day
tempered the attack on Christianity at the French
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
239
revolution. However, it is immaterial, as there is no question
here.
I have considered suciently elsewhere the testimony
“ of,” or “ to,” Jesus Christ. I only recall that the spirit of
prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. e spirit of prophecy
is not the gospel; but that is the way the testimony of Jesus
is considered in the Revelation.
89
see also 3John 3, 6.) I may add from Herodotus (2, 18),
my witness
for the counsel. Grammars give this; but I suspect it is
an instance of another principle. ere is an additional
conrmation of this (even if
Corinthians I: 6 were so taken) in the beginning of
the Apocalypse, where Christ sent and signied what He
had received of God, and the prophet bears record of the
word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ. Here
it cannot, I apprehend, be doubted that the testimony of
Jesus Christ is the testimony which He gave or sent and
signied: and this is conrmed by the “ all things [not ‘ and
all things ‘] that he saw.” is testimony of Jesus Christ was
the same thing as the spirit of prophecy. It was one and the
same testimony. e spirit of prophecy was the testimony
89 As to the critical remark, I am again obliged to say that it
is more than questionable. I had not examined it particularly
previously, so that I should have been disposed to let it pass as
immaterial. But, being stated here, I have examined it. ere
is no example that I can nd of a witness to a person being
used with a genitive of the person. It is almost always used
with the preposition “ peri.” When this preposition is left out,
it is the dative, of which there are some examples in theNew
Testament: for the genitive of the witnesses and peri of the
subject of witness, they are too numerous to quote. It is said,
John bore witness to the truth; and Demetrius hath good
report. (John 5:33; John 12;
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
240
of Jesus Himself, in whose hands soever it might be. So that
I have no doubt that it is of, and not to, Jesus. is would
be so far material, that it would show that the testimony
alluded to in these passages was the prophetic testimony.
No doubt the gospel was the testimony of Jesus. He is the
truth, whatever the subject or instrument of testimony.
But the general thought here was the prophetic testimony.
Nor do I think it otherwise even in verse 9, because of the
words “ kingdom and patience.” But I do not insist at all on
this, because all true testimony is Christ’s testimony. e
only ground I can nd at all for reading “ to Jesus,” is the
exceptional ground that the preposition peri is sometimes
left out, and the genitive retained. Of this I have found one
example in a case of witnessing:-when they call Homer as
a witness of, etc., leaving out peri. But I think it will hardly
be alleged that this exception to the habitual use of the
word is uniformly followed in the Apocalypse, in face of
the evident force of chapter I: I, 2. Wahl gives as certain
what I have here alleged.)
CHAPTER 13
I should have thought that on certain points, such as the
four empires, I may say universally received among those
who have studied prophecy, no remarks would have been
called for. But here also, by the unparalleled carelessness
of assertion which characterizes this book, almost every
statement is wrong. I suppose it arises from the author’s
mind being so absorbed by the Antichristian empire, and
thus forming a system as regardless of geographical facts
as we have found it to be of Scripture statements, and
grammar itself. I do trust this will not be considered harsh,
but I say the simple truth when I arm that I never met
with a book like this in its assertions.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
241
e prophetic and Roman world are not at all the same
things. About half the prophetic earth (conning that term
to the four empires) is outside the Roman world; besides
which (though I have no objection at all to this distinction
of the prophetic earth treated of in Daniel, because it is
connected with the times of the Gentiles, and the giving
power to them during the disowning of Jerusalem), it is well
to remember that a vast portion of the prophecies apply to
other subjects and other countries: so that we must not
suppose the prophetic earth to mean the earth of which
prophecy treats, but merely that portion of the earth given
up to the Gentiles during a certain prophetic period, in
which Jerusalem was set aside, and the power of the house
of David broken-that rod despised as every tree. If we do
not recollect this, the whole book of Ezekiel, for example,
will be left out of prophecy. Nor is it all by any means that
would be. ere are Nahum, Jonah, Amos, and a very great
portion of other prophets, which are occupied with other
countries, or with Israel or Judah under other aspects.
Further, it is a great mistake to say that the prophetic
earth is situate geographically round the Great or
Mediterranean Sea. e rst two empires only just reached
its borders
90
in their utmost conquests; and the body of their
empire was far, far away from it. Nor, though Emmanuel’s
land be the center of the prophetic earth, can it be the
center of the Roman earth, if the coasts of the Great Sea
90 In a subsequent tract, by another author, it is said that these
beasts symbolize a monarchy bordering on the Mediterranean
and having Jerusalem under its dominion. is, though strained
as to the Mediterranean, may be all very true. But morally it
has nothing whatever to do with it; because, in Daniel, the
beasts come up from the sea, which the rst two certainly did
not from the Mediterranean. And see page 177.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
242
be its boundaries; because it is situated at one extremity of
it. How is the Roman world “ the birth-place and center “
of Persia as an empire? Persia never was in it at all. And the
limits assigned to the Roman earth by the author leave out
half the city of Babylon, and a great part of the province of
Babylonia, and all the richest part of its territory (among
the rest, I apprehend, Shinar). Nineveh also was outside it.
e commencement of the grandeur of the prophetic earth
(that is, Babylon) had no connection with the Great Sea.
e next empire was further east still; and the third, which
had its origin not far from the Mediterranean, pushed all
its conquests eastward from it, as far as Judea, and never
held but that extremity of it which had been in the hands of
the Persians. Four-fths of the Mediterranean were never
visited even by the third or Grecian empire; the Romans
alone surrounded it by their conquests and power. So that
the whole statement is wrong. at it is now a principal
scene, though it can hardly be called the center (for there is
not a single dominant power which can be said to be seated
on its coasts) of the world’s energies, is very true.
Nor is it true that God has never interfered to hinder
the onward progress of human counsels. e irruption of
the northern and Germanic hordes laid waste the Roman,
without substituting another, empire. at it accomplished
God’s counsels there is no doubt; but that it destroyed for a
thousand years the European and all civilization, and, save
for one reign (Charlemagne), all concentrated empire, is
equally certain; and the latter is not to this day restored.
So that, while I do not doubt that man will set himself
up against God, this setting up of man in admiration of
his unhindered glorious progress from Nebuchadnezzar
onward, is unfounded. It is astonishing how anyone could
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
243
state (when we consider the barbarous subversion of the
Roman empire, when no one knew what to count on a
moment, and the eects of which last to this day), that
from the days of Nimrod the onward progress of human
counsels has never been hindered. at there will be a
man of sin, who will concentrate the energies of man and
the power of Satan, all who would be interested in these
pages believe. Still I nd no such account in Scripture as is
here given of him; nor do I believe that this high colored
exaltation of him comes from God. at men will be given
up to him, we know from Scripture; but it will need strong
delusion, so that they should believe a lie.
Let the reader take any part of scripture, and see if the
beast or the man of sin be presented by the Spirit of God
in this way. I do not doubt that the faculties of man will
in him be in many respects in their highest exercise. It is
natural to suppose that it will be so in one who exercises
such extended and paramount inuence; though, indeed,
this in its worst aspect they are led to do by another agent
and mouth-piece of the enemy, almost overlooked in this
chapter, and yet far more deeply mischievous in what he
does. “ If we can conceive- the intellect of statesmen, poets,
and orators, such poets, etc.- all varieties of intellectual
power, etc.-we may form some conception of the glory of
this great one of the earth.” Why are we to conceive all
this?
Where does Scripture thus present the beast? at
certain characteristics of the three preceding empires
were found in the last is true. But I am not aware that
this fascinating power is anywhere attributed to him; and
it seems to me a serious thing to ascribe to anyone as
aording him this fascinating power, without the authority
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
244
of the word of God-what cannot be used without God’s
permission to exalt any. I see the fascinations of Satan
connected with his coming; but this is attributed, in the
chapter we are considering, to another person, the second
beast or false prophet, and not to the rst beast or imperial
power. Deceivableness of unrighteousness I nd in them
that perish. But where is it said that the scattered intellect
of former ages will be centered in the imperial beast, or
its head, the man of sin? I do not see but that this is the
creature of the writer’s imagination. Great things, war,
blasphemies, are attributed to him in Rev. 13 and Dan. 7;
self-exaltation, doing according to his will, utter disregard
of God, dividing the land for gain,
91
in Dan. 11 Setting up
to be God in the temple of God, opposing and exalting
himself, Satan’s working, powers, signs, lying wonders, will
be there, and all deceivableness of unrighteousness. I say, “
will be there,” because it would seem from Rev. 13 wrought
rather before him than by him. And delusion from God
will be upon those who did not receive the love of the truth
that they might be saved. Such are the serious statements
made concerning this man of sin, this son of perdition.
But though I do not doubt his great capacities for the
scepter and the throne, and using probably all the arts which
such persons may be supposed to use to atter and amuse
the passions of men; still, strong and energetically drawn as
the picture of this “ individual man “ is in the “ oughts,”
I cannot recognize it in Scripture, and this is what I seek.
If there be such a one, where is it? I do not exactly nd the
91 “ Dividing the land for gain “ is rather the Antichrist, false
Messiah, or second beast of Rev. 13 But the identity of the
Antichrist and man of sin with the rst beast was assumed by
all when these remarks were written. e same remark applies
to page 175, 176 partially.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
245
soberness which can judge of this, and which I believe the
Spirit of God gives, when I read (page 160), “ fallen man
is but a poor weak thing apart from Satan,” and in page
155, the chapter beginning “ ere is a wonderful energy
in unregenerate man.” I do not mean to say that there may
not be explanation,
92
and a reconciling by explanation
of these two statements. But there is a haste in making
the two, which does not savor of quiet scriptural inquiry.
Besides, in this picture of the man of sin, not one single
scripture is quoted, except for Satan’s delusions, which is
only an accompaniment. So that when it is said that “ the
glories of intellect and taste, of war and conquest, of the
genius as well as the majesty of sovereign rule, are found,
for the rst time, in perfect and harmonious combination,”
a picture is drawn by the author, not by Scripture: and I
doubt very much indeed that God permits in evil any such
perfect and harmonious combination. At least there is
92 In page 155 it is stated, “ I might perhaps say given by Satan,”
but in page 160 it is positively asserted that he is but a poor
weak thing apart from him. In the rst passage the wonderful
energy is seen in unregenerated man, stimulated and aided,
perhaps given. Instead of energy, it is asserted positively in
the second that he is very weak. All I complain of here is
the uncertainty and haste of the statement within ve pages’
distance.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
246
none such in Scripture: no proof is given.
93
e characters
given there are much darker and more evil-evil, deadly evil.
“ e elegance of the rened Greece “ was not even to be
found in Macedon, whose leopard wing passed over half
the world, faster almost than the ight of man’s ambition
would have led it, to a goal where there was nothing left to
conquer. Nor have the children of light who have received
the love of the truth anything to say to the delusions by
which the disobedient world is seduced. ey are not sent
to them.
When the author says that “ this is he through whom
the dragon makes war with the remnant of her seed,” it is a
statement entirely unsupported by Scripture.
I believe that we get, chapter 17, not an earlier but a
more general history of (not Antichrist, but) the beast. For
it is unwarrantable to call the beast absolutely Antichrist,
though Antichrist may wield his power at a given period.
Being more general, it is true, it does not conne the
history to the latter period of his being, as chapter 12, but
93 I feel that morally this is a very important point. To exalt the
instrument of Satan in the most glowing terms, ascribing to it
the perfect and harmonious combination of every faculty God
has given to man, without scripture warrant, is a very serious
thing. e evil and impotency of Satan is what is usually spoken
of in the New Testament to God’s children. When spoken of
elsewhere, the colors are very dark-blasphemy, oppression,
pride, unrighteousness, connected with Satan’s lying power,
and setting up to be God: these are the characters attached to
the beast in Scripture. Nothing of this is found in, the author’s
description. Nor do I think it seems quite a just expression
to say Satan’s peculiar hour, without explanation of the hour,
which is the consequence of his being cast out of heaven
forever, so that all belonging to heaven rejoice in it. at it is
the hour of his great wrath on earth is true.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
247
shows who the beast was that was there; and so far is earlier.
Chapter 17 is a description, not a history, and includes all
his closing history
94
as well as the rest. e connection of
chapter 12 with chapter 17 in historical time is therefore
quite unwarranted. It would be absurd to connect them in
such a way, as to suppose a dragon with seven heads and
ten horns, and a beast with seven heads and ten horns at
the same time. But they are not at all so brought together
in Scripture. If the ten horns had not given their power to
the beast (Antichrist) yet, he had not the virtual power of
the Roman empire. Satan had not yet given him his power,
and his throne, and great authority. If Satan held it himself
and afterward gave it to him, they did not hold it together.
Besides, if the seven heads of the dragon were crowned,
that is, if he hold the power of the systems, then (the beast
not being in the exercise of his power with the horns)
how does he, the beast, hold the systems uncrowned, not
himself uncrowned, but his heads? e systems can hardly
be crowned and uncrowned at the same time. It is not the
dragon crowned and the beast not, but both having seven
heads and ten horns, and the heads crowned on one and
not on the other. And this is explained in the note as the “
systems ruling,” “ during the time the systems are crowned
“: so that putting them crowned on the dragon, and
uncrowned on the beast at the same time, cannot stand.
Besides, the horns and the beast are to have their hour
together: the power and authority are not yet given to the
94 Indeed, as far as historical existence is attributed to the beast,
it is only the closing period as in chapter 13. e ten horns
have power one hour with the beast, in chapter 17: 11-14. e
“ yet is “ is the time in which he is presented. I might give an
account of Napoleon as lieutenant of artillery before Toulon;
but the Napoleon I am describing is Napoleon the emperor.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
248
beast as such. He is not even yet called up out of the sea,
according to the author’s system, for that is his character
here given. And in chapter 17 he is so far from possessing
virtual power (for we have seen manifest power was not yet
given him), that the woman rules him-he was the governed
party.
Further, seven heads are seven systems. Why? Here
is the only answer I can nd: “ Systems are ruling now,
and will through the whole Babylonish period, until,” etc.
But this is merely explaining the author’s views of present
things by using the statements of the Apocalypse for them,
and not expounding the Apocalypse. e seven heads are
seven mountains. Are mountains systems in symbolic
language? “ And there are seven kings.” Are they systems? “
Mountains are the emblems of authoritative power “ (page
143). I might say, perhaps, seats of power; but are these
systems authoritative powers? ey may exercise a very
great inuence on those who hold power, but they are not
in themselves authoritative power. Supposing systems now
rule. Why are the dragon’s heads systems?
Besides, the author has elsewhere made out six,
lamely enough, I think (page 239)-political, military, civil,
religious, commercial, educational systems-where, note,
the word is used in quite another sense; for these words
are merely generally characteristic. ere might be ve
political systems, and so on. Besides, some political system
predominates always, and some civil; so that there is no
sense in giving it as peculiar that a system should govern.
But let that pass. Of these six systems one turns out to be
the woman, who rides the beast and governs him, so that
he does not wield its power: nor is it a very intelligible
system to make seven crowned heads together, and one
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
249
of them as an exclusively dominant system governing the
whole. At any rate, there is not one word to prove that the
heads are systems, but that the author says systems rule
now. But there is more than this.
e dragon does not call up any one from the sea at
all. It is attributing providential power to Satan. Further,
it is well that the unlearned reader should know that “
he stood “ upon the sand of the sea, instead of “ I stood,”
though declared summarily here to be the right reading,
is rejected by Griesbach, Scholz, and Tischendorf. Mr.
Tregelles’s system may be right: but the question can hardly
be disposed of thus. To raise a system of interpretation
on a reading hitherto rejected by those who have most
elaborately examined it, and that with dierent systems of
recension, must at least leave grave doubts in the mind of a
considerate person. Further, the expressions used in Daniel
for the great sea are not at all the same as the Great Sea,
when the Mediterranean Sea is spoken of. I do not believe
that the expression is ever used of the Mediterranean. at
is called great in Josh. 1:4, etc. Daniel employs the Hebrew
word (Rab), meaning, I think we may say, a multitude of
waters: and in this general sense of the great sea, it is used
without any article-the four winds of heaven striving upon
great waters. e Great Sea is used with the article-the
Sea, the great one (Heb.-ha yarn ha gadol). And it is quite
evident that the passage in Daniel (to which I dare say the
passage in Revelation refers, though not at all to any where
the Mediterranean Sea is spoken of) speaks of the origin of
these empires from the sea of unformed peoples. We have
already seen tnat at least two of the great empires did not
commence near the Mediterranean at all. So that the sense
here would not at all be calling up from the Mediterranean
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
250
a formed known power, not one of which ideas are found
in Daniel, nor here. Satan gives him his authority when he
rises up out of the sea. But this is all that is said.
I have already remarked upon the leopard. It is the
swiftness of Alexander’s conquests, and not the civilization
of Greece, that is in question. Is it true that the renement
and elegancies of civilization have found no home but in
Greece? And if in chapter 17 neither the leopard nor bear
nor any likeness be found, the time is found when the
horns reign with the beast. At any rate the whole system of
being called by Satan as a known suited power from west
to east, is totally foreign to the statements of the chapter,
or any idea contained in it.
I do not see on what ground it is said that the beast
and Satan are to act together in parity of glory; nor do I at
all like the spirit of page 166. But I examine the accuracy,
rather than judge the spirit of this work now. ere is
plenty of evil, no doubt, in saints mixing up with what the
author alludes to. Does it not seem a rude thing to say
that Christianity is one of the heads of the beast, which
head being healed (not another substituted for it), all the
world wonder after the beast, because the wounded head
was healed? Is it a scriptural way of stating things to say
that the substitution of Antichristianism for Christianity is
healing the head of the beast? Christianity having been that
head? Besides, then the wounded head is the second beast.
For this is the new ecclesiastical inuence. And, further, it
would be the dragon who wounded his own head; for the
systems were crowned on his heads, and he as yet has not
given the power to the beast; and he it is who destroys and
drives out Christianity. (See page 148.) And the mischief’
is done to this head before Antichrist rises (see note to page
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
251
167): so that it was really his own crowned head the dragon
slew. If so, the war against Christianity is clearly not merely
at Jerusalem, nor the scene in Palestine; because neither
the ten kingdoms nor the seven heads are in Palestine.
e locality of the second beast I do not doubt; but this
is not the question here. It is well to remember here that
the author separates entirely the seven kings of chapter
17 from the seven heads. If there be any connection, his
system is an utter absurdity from beginning to end.
95
And,
bad as the Greek superstitions may be, to say that they are
as bad or worse than Rome-this constant palliating Rome,
or making anything more important, I do not believe to
be of God: nor representing the evil (for evil there is)
which may be going on in the East now, as being a more
developed form of the mystery of iniquity in its religious
forms, than popery, or what is acting in the West.
96
It all
clearly misleads the mind from the growing evil, which the
rest is evil as tending to.
But there is another very material objection to all this
system of heads, etc. at is, that this religious system
being one of the heads, and evidently (according to the
statements we are discussing) an eminently important
one, it is now one of the ruling systems, and governs the
kingdoms, and will do so through the whole Babylonish
95 So impossible, that, on that supposition, theocracy is a head
of the beast. For theocracy in Israel is one of the seven kings
which have hitherto been supposed to answer to the seven
heads.
96 e truth is, the most active agent in the East, as in the West
at this moment, is popery. In schools and colleges supported by
France in the Levant, to maintain its political inuence; and
by multitudes of priests sent to India and China; and other
analogous eorts in central Asia, every catholic has thereby the
rights of a French subject in the Levant and Asiatic Turkey.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
252
period. e systems are what are crowned, not the horns
(page 177); they regulate the kingdoms (page 162). But
(page 175) “ these are principles little suited, even to this
incipient Babylonish period, as we may see if we watch the
present relation of the crown of France to the popedom.
e crowns of the ten kingdoms will assert their supremacy,
and the religious systems that are respectively under them,
whether Greek, Roman, or Anglican, must have to fall
into the second place.” Now, this is not during the reign of
Antichrist, because he rises with his head already wounded
unto death (page 167); that is, Christianity has been
destroyed, “ is gone “ entirely, and all religious inuences
swept away, as far as our present subject is concerned. So
that it is during the Babylonish time that they must learn
to fall into the second place. But if the crowns of the ten
kingdoms, during this period, will assert their supremacy,
and force the religious systems to fall into the second place,
how is it that they are not crowned at all during this period;
and that the very principle of the period is, that the systems
are crowned (of which this religiousness is one, and a most
important one) and govern them? Page 175 subverts page
177, because it really is the exercise of man’s mind on the
present state of things, and occasional passages adapted to
it, and not the explanation of Scripture itself.
I have already spoken of ‘ the habitable world’ being
translated the Roman world, and the earth being used for
a larger sphere (both assertions being quite unwarranted),
and the inconsistency of its use here with the assertion, that
the period of the churches was entirely past. It seems to me
also, that the statement of page 172 is quite unfounded, and
moreover contradicted by the note to page 164. e lion,
leopard, and bear do not act on, though they may have the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
253
principle which increasingly prevails, and will “ during the
whole Babylonish period,” for which men are educating,
and under whose inuence men act now, and which “ are
the objects of modern pursuit.” e tendencies “ of the hour
“ clearly are not what “ fall under the symbol of the lion,
the leopard, and the bear.” And though in the note to page
164 it is said that Antichrist will not destroy the utilities,
yet in page 258 the whole system is destroyed. At all events,
what is cultivated now is not what falls under the symbol
of the lion, the leopard, and the bear. If the lions’ dens, and
the mountains of the leopards,
97
in the Song of Solomon
mean Antichrist, or his system, how is it the place of our
present sojourn, or applicable to the church now, when the
leopard does not yet exist?
I believe myself that the seven heads are the completeness
of power in dierent forms, which are seen in the worldly
power of Satan. When the beast is in his last form, there
is division, into ten kingdoms, which give their power to
him. But as to those ten kingdoms several things are to be
remarked.
First, Antichrist rises as a little horn after the others,
becomes more haughty looking than all, and subdues three
of them. is itself is a proof that the accounts we have in
the Revelation are more characteristic than historical.
Next, Dan. 8 proves nothing about it. e division into
four is mentioned; but nothing is said as to the latter day
of them, beyond the expression of the latter time of their
kingdoms, and a little horn came out of one of them. But
I do not at all believe this little horn to be Antichrist. I do
97 Or what is the mountain of elegant Grecian civilization? for
that is the leopard, from which the bride is called in the Song
of Solomon.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
254
not make any objection to anyone’s believing it; but it is not
proved here, and I am entirely convinced it is not. Nor do
I think Dan. 11 allows of the two chief monarchies being
viewed as under Antichrist. ey make war as kings of
South and North upon him. Next, the quotation of chapter
9 makes me suppose that the assertion here is based on
his taking away the daily sacrice. But I apprehend the
marginal reading in chapter 8 to be indubitably the right
translation-” from him,” and not “ by him “; and in that case
“ him “ refers to the prince of the host. And this is entirely
conrmed by the expression, “ the place of his sanctuary,”
which is certainly not the little horn’s.
e Hebrew is certainly properly “ from him.” e only
case in which it is used for “ by “ is quite another sense; as
we might say, “ he died from eating poison,” or “ by eating
poison “; but otherwise the word means “from” and not
“by.”
98
e study of Daniel has convinced me that we are in
more ignorance as to the historical details of Antichrist
than we suppose. As to his moral description, it is plain
enough in Scripture. I do not believe any one competent
to make such a systematic statement as is attempted by the
author. It saves the mind a deal of trouble, as all hypotheses
do; it has only the misfortune of not being true. e fact
of the subduing of three horns alters historically the whole
98 I should translate the next verse, “ And the daily [sacrice]
was given over to an appointed time of trouble, because of
transgression.” But I leave this to more competent judges.
e change of gender in verse 11, “ he magnied,” is much to
be noted. “ It” agrees with the little horn again in the middle
of verse 12. Verse 11 and half of verse 12 are evidently a
parenthesis. But I have discussed this elsewhere.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
255
matter, and a good deal the moral system too. It is not
noticed in this chapter.
e progress of a general absorbing system into the
Roman empire, of what composed it, at least the Western,
and acting on the Eastern, I suppose is generally received;
but still it is untrue of part as to fact, as it is unwarrantable
to say, “ so will it be with Turkey and Syria very soon, and
Babylon will be their head and center.” I strongly doubt this
in many parts of it. It ought to be proved and not asserted.
ere are many reasons which render me doubtful of the
absorption of the Grecian and Eastern part into the body
of the beast. It would certainly seem that they are treated
independently in the book of Daniel, and other prophecies.
“ e Assyrian,” for example, occupies a very much more
prominent place than Antichrist in the prophecies which
precede the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
As to the next note, it is strange to say, “ he is symbolized
merely by a little horn.” Is nothing said about this little
horn, nor about more than its insignicant rise? His look
is more stout than his fellows, and he casts down three
horns. If Rev. 13 comes after, then clearly the ten horns
never historically give their kingdom to the beast, for there
remain but seven.
“ A leopard.” e fourfold division of the empire is here
incorrect. After the various wars between the generals, the
death of Antigonus (I pass over Perdiccas, Eumenes, etc.)
the fourfold division was Greece, race, Syria, and Egypt.
Asia Minor was not one. If Egypt and Syria are excluded
by chapter 11, they are excluded from subjection to the
beast also. But I have already said I do not believe Dan.
8 applies to Antichrist. But this is to be discussed as the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
256
fairest subject of inquiry, on which, for my part, I should be
glad to hear all the author, or anyone, had to say.
In the next note Dan. 7:23 is a misprint for 8: 23, of
which I have just spoken. I have to add that I do not believe
Dan. 11:41 applies to Antichrist, but to the king of the
north. I feel pretty clear upon this; but as I once supposed
myself that it was Antichrist, I cannot be surprised that
others do. I am pretty condent that both I myself was
and that the author is wrong. But it is a point on which
everyone can inquire and judge. As to Zech. 1 agree.
As to days and years, I will not enter into this controversy
here. e author steps very easily over it, saying, “ the
passage that has been commonly quoted.” He must be very
ignorant of the controversy on the subject, or have a very
treacherous memory. e grand hinge of the controversy
rested on Dan. 9-the seventy weeks: a diculty out of
which the adversaries of the year-day system have never
been able to get. It is very certain, and nobody denies it,
that the ordinary word for weeks is there used for weeks
of years.
en, as to “ facts “ and “ principles,” the author is clearly
wrong; because John says, “ Even now are there many anti-
christs, whereby we know that it is the last time “: so that
this great fact of the close is applied to facts and persons
in the apostle John’s day. And I suspect we shall nd a
good many facts used for the latter day which certainly
had an accomplishment in facts in a measure in the Old
Testament, as Babylon, Solomon, Sennacherib, and many
others. But then this is another question. Symbols are not
exactly facts; and it is quite possible that they may express
principles fully embodied in certain ultimate facts, and
partially in certain others; and that is the way John uses
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
257
the term Antichrist. Historical accuracy is not found in the
Revelation; for we learn from Daniel that three horns fall,
of which there is not a word said in the Revelation, and
therefore the principle, the basis of the author’s reasoning,
fails. He has no right to call symbols facts. He may apply
them to facts. He may be right or wrong in his application;
but that is a certain use he makes of these symbols; but
the symbols are not facts. Antichrist is never mentioned
in the Revelation: I do not doubt there are symbols which
apply to him, but this is another matter. So there is no
little horn in Revelation-another historical fact which is
not found. We get, on the other hand, an eighth head,
which is of the seven, which is the beast. While, as we
have seen, three horns historically fall in Daniel, in moral
principle and system the ten horns have power one hour
with the beast. So that the statement here insisted on is
a misconception of the very nature of the Revelation; I
do not at all doubt its accuracy, or its fulllment in facts:
but on the technical rigidity of the author it cannot be.
We have seen its impossibility in the trumpets-making a
star called Wormwood make the waters bitter, settled by “
waters and all that they symbolize will be found to be bitter
“; and how the darkening the third part of the sun made it
not shine for a third part of the day, not settled at all.
e word of God will not lend itself to the narrow systems
of man’s mind. If a system was required for Antichrist,
either it did exist (or else John was wrong in saying there
were many), or else we must come to the conclusion that
the mere rigid arrangement of the author as to Antichrist
and his system is unsound: which is, I do not doubt, the
solution of the diculty. It is a question between the
author and the apostle’s statement. When the author talks
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
258
of Antichrist’s own peculiar system, and his destroying
another, it must be remembered that he is only speaking of
his own peculiar views about the matter. e insuperable
diculty is one of his own making. He assumes the beast
to be literally Antichrist all through, and, therefore, he
cannot exist only during the twelve hundred and sixty days.
at is, if he be literally Antichrist
99
all through: but then,
this is exactly the question. No doubt, when the contrary is
assumed as true, the diculty is insuperable. For my own
part, I do not admit it at all. Nor does the author, because
it is a well known inuential power, who has had one of his
heads wounded, etc., who is set up, and sets up the system.
So that the beast is not the Antichristian beast all through.
And his history (call it principles, or facts, as you please)-his
history does extend in the Apocalypse beyond the twelve
hundred and sixty days: • how far, I do not inquire here. As
to “ his tabernacle,” I have only one remark to make; that
is, that the dragon had been dwelling in heaven, and now
was cast out of it.
We now come to 2ess. 2, and more new translation;
to which I decidedly prefer the English, the only decidedly
faulty word being worse in the new translation. I will give
a translation I made myself, without reference to this
controversy, as aording in the shortest way my judgment
of the passage. Some words will be found dierent from
the authorized version, where the sense is the same. It
being for my own accurate study of Scripture, of course, I
did not follow the English translation.
99 I do not believe the rst beast to be the Antichrist, but as
the twelve hundred and sixty days apply to the rst beast, the
argument remains valid and the same.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
259
“ But we beseech you, brethren, by the coming-or
presence (parousia)-of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
gathering together to him, that ye may not be quickly
unsettled in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by
word, nor by letter as of us, as if the day of the Lord was
here. Let no man deceive you in any manner, that [it will be
so]
100
without the apostasy’s coming rst, and the man of
sin’s being revealed, the son of perdition, the opposer and
exalter [of himself] above everyone called God, or object of
veneration (sebasma). So that he
101
shall seat himself in the
temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do ye not
remember that, being yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth
102
so that he should
be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness
is already working: only there is a withholder at present
until he be out of the way. And then shall the lawless one
be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus
103
shall destroy
104
with
the breath of his mouth, and abolish
105
with the appearing
of his coming.”
Now, as to the critical dierences, I do not attach very
great importance to the translating the Greek huper ‘ “
by “ or “ concerning.” But I think the English translators
undoubtedly right. ere is no doubt at all that it is a
regular known use of the preposition. e truth is, it is its
commonest use. I do not mean that in this common use
it is always used with words of entreaty, but that it is used
with them in its most ordinary sense, that is, “ on account
100 Or, as usually pointed, for [it will not be].
101 Some copies read “ as God.”
102 Or the hindrance.
103 Some copies omit “ Jesus.”
104 Some copies read “ consume.”
105 Or “ annul.”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
260
of “; which, with words of entreaty, we generally in English
render “ by “ meaning “ by reason of.” “ I beseech you, on
account of the coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering
together unto him.” When it is a motive, we say “ for the
sake of “; but the sense is really the most common usual
sense of huper, to which the English word “ for “ most
nearly answers, adding idiomatically “ sake of “ in certain
cases.
And now I will put the question in another shape.
When huper is used with words of beseeching, as it is here,
is not its natural regular sense “ by “ or “ for the sake of “?
106
Whereas it is quite certain from many examples that the
preposition used for concerning with erotao, to ask, is peri,
and not huper. See Luke 4: 38; 1John 5:16; John 16:26,
and several times in chapter 17. I suppose that no one will
dispute that its regular sense with a word of beseeching is “
by “; and therefore I conclude that the English translators
were right, and the author wrong.
As to having to choose between “ on behalf of “ and “
concerning,” it is perfectly ridiculous.
e only plausible ground to make “ concerning “
allowable is its use in 2Cor. 12:8, where the word however
106 ere is a case where it is probably used in the sense of “
instead of,” though Wahl takes it in the sense of beseeching
“ by “; but as I doubt his correctness, I do not use it as an
example to contradict the author. Wahl was led, no doubt, by
the known fact that it is the regular sense of huper with words
of beseeching, as the translators have taken it. But the presbeuo
huper seems, I apprehend, to control it in 2Cor. 5:20. So that
“ I beseech you for Christ “ means “ in Christ’s stead,” as in
the English translation. If not, it is a case in point. e passage
is in 2Cor. 5, “ we beseech for Christ.” One of the Gregorys,
however, uses this identical expression for “ we beseech you by
Jesus.” e author formerly insisted on “ on behalf of.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
261
is not erotao (to ask). Nor do I think that huper could
be used with a long subject stated, about which he was
entreating them. It would be peri: whereas, after stating
the subject, huper toutou I can well understand. Finally, “ by
“ is the regular translation of the Greek. us Luther also
translates it. It may admit of discussion; but I believe the
English translation right.
e remark on chapter 5: 2 is utterly futile, because in
English we do not say unsettled “ from “ your mind, but
“ in “ your mind, where it is a question of quiet stability. “
Shaken from your understanding “ is not English: that is
all.
e next remark, on verse 2, is subtle enough, that the
essalonians were wrong in expecting the Lord or the
end immediately; and we are told that the word is used
“ in connection with wrongness of expectation of the end
being immediate.” Now the sentiment against which this
remark is directed is, not that the end is immediate, but a
distinction between the Lord’s receiving the church, and
the end; so that the church may be always waiting for the
Lord, though it ax no date to the end. See 2ess. 2:2.
“ Be troubled” is used in Matt. 24:6 and Mark 13:7,
exactly as it is used here-that present troubles should not
make them think the end near, or the day of the Lord come.
It is not wrong expectation in either case, but trouble from
present circumstances alarming the mind, and taking away
its security, so as to give it fears as if the day of the Lord
were there. “ When ye hear of wars and rumors of wars,
see that ye be not troubled.” It was clearly a trouble arising
from disturbing causes actually and sensibly in operation.
Further, the word “ set in “ is given as the literal meaning
of the word, and “ present “ as its secondary sense, in order
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
262
to furnish the idea of a setting in out of sight and absent,
which might be supposed in the mind. Now rstly we
have seen that the Greek for to be troubled, is used in the
passages cited in connection with actually present alarming
circumstances, which they heard of as then going on on
earth. And, moreover, I deny totally the expression “ set in
“ to be a literal or any translation of the Greek which in the
English in 2ess. 2:2 read at hand or present. “ To stand
in “ is the literal sense, as we say of a month “ the third
instant “ meaning the present month: and, secondary or
not, it is perfectly certain that it is always used in Scripture
for “ present “ in contrast with future or absent. ese are
the passages where it is found: Romans 8: 38; 1Cor. 3:22;
7:26; Gal. 1:4 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 9:9.
107
Anyone can examine
these passages and see what present means. And, as the
author says, “ ere is no example of this word being used
to signify the approach of anything that is not yet existent
107 e writer states that “ it is frequently used in the Apocryphal
books and always in this sense.” I nd it from an extract of
Trommius used six times in the Apocrypha; two, from
circumstances, I cannot nd. [e rst is by Trommius given as
“ 3 Esdras 5: 72 “ (and by Schleusner as 47). It is really i Esdras
5: 46, which reads “ when the seventh month was at hand (not
near, but) come.” e second is in the same book, chapter 9: 6.
‘ All the multitude sat trembling because of the winter then
present,’ not merely approaching however near.] e other four
are: 2 Maccabees 12: 44-where it means existing or subsisting;
2 Maccabees 3: 57, the same thing, the grief ‘ he had now at
heart,’ present then; 2 Maccabees 4: 43, there was a judgment
or trial (or was instituted); 2 Maccabees 52: 3, ‘ as if no ill will
were existing.’ “ Present “ or “ existing “ is its regular force.
Sometimes “ set in “ might answer, as winter is set in, that is,
is actually or fully come. It would be curious if “ standing in,”
which is its etymological meaning, left the question unsolved “
where “?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
263
“-and I add, that is not present. Now if it was only set in
in heaven, it was just its approach to them, which this
word cannot mean. And I apprehend that the Greek for be
troubled and be shaken in mind, as in 2ess. 2:2, would not
be used of persons in tribulation, who “ had been taught “ “
that they would be delivered as soon as the Lord descended
into the air.” Is the comfort and joy that would produce,
if even unwarranted, expressed by these words? It is quite
certain that ‘ be troubled’ is used for the alarm occasioned by
present things, not by joyful expectation, where it is used
in Scripture.
As to the apostasy, I agree it must not be confounded
with the mystery of iniquity: though its principles are at
work therein, so that it may be morally called so very justly;
and Scripture speaks in a way analogous to this. See Jude.
“ ese are they,” etc. But it is much more unwarrantable
on the other hand, to say that it will not take place apart
from the personal manifestation of the man of sin. ere
is no scripture whatever for this, nor any proof that it is
true. at it is the apostasy of man as man, I do not deny,
because that is true of man as man already, and it will then
be fully manifested; but it is not what is meant by apostasy
at all. It most clearly and evidently refers to Christianity,
and nothing else; but as the others will be manifest, I need
not discuss this further.
As to criticism, “ And ye know that at present,” etc. I have
no hesitation in saying that it is quite wrong: the original
statement in 2ess. 2:6 is most certainly not the Greek
for “ ye know what now hinders,” but for “ now ye know the
hindrance,” or “ what hinders,” as the English version has
rendered it. e “ now “ of the succeeding verse 7 is quite
another word, in Greek (` arti ‘) meaning at present, or, for
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
264
the present, with which the “ then “ of verse 8 is in contrast.
Moreover, if I were to say “ at present,” or “ now you know,”
emphatically as to them, it would no way imply that in
future they would not, but that they had not in time past.
108
Moreover, in the Greek of 2ess. 2:6, there is no ellipse
at all. It is as plain a Greek sentence as can be well written,
saying and meaning “ and now ye know what hinders.” Nor
do I understand what all this mystication of Greek is; for
the doctrine that there was now a hinderer which would
be removed, and then the lawless one be manifested, is
very plainly stated (v. 7, 8). And I know no reason why
there is so much about this, unless the author is jealous of
the essalonians knowing well what we, as to the literal
application, are ignorant about. I believe the wisdom of
God threw it purposely thus in mystery, though I do not
say spiritual intelligence may not nd His thoughts about
it in the word.
e next note, on “ that which holdeth fast,” is entirely
wrong. e Greek does not necessarily imply what the
author states. For the unlearned reader I quote two
passages that will clearly show it. Acts 27:40, “ made
toward shore.” Luke 14:9, “ thou begin with shame to take
the lowest room.” I suppose that was not “ holding fast.”
It means just possessing, as 2Cor. 6:10, holding, keeping,
and hence, if there be danger of losing, holding fast. But “
the exercise of forcible or violent power “ does not the least
enter into its meaning. I may keep things by that, of course,
in some cases. Here it is just simply, what it is translated,
withhold or restrain. e author has not understood the
opinion which he combats, and which I am not going to
defend here. If the church remains here, and the Spirit of
108 Only just apply the author’s rule to John 17:7.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
265
God consequently on earth, God does, and does by the
Spirit as a Spirit of government and providence, restrain
the world from being given up to Satan. e powers that
be are maintained, which are of God; whereas it is Satan
gives his throne to Antichrist. is falls in with the idea
of the primitive Christians, that the power of the empire
was the restraining thing; for which reason they prayed
for its preservation, thinking that when it fell, Antichrist
would come. As to the church, and the Spirit in the church,
remaining in the exercise of their proper powers until the
end of the age, that is just the point in question, and cannot
be therefore stated as a proof- especially by the author, who
holds that in the sphere here treated of, “ their scene of
earthly service will be closed,” Christianity withdrawn, and
a new testimony raised up where the church and the Spirit
in the church had been. So that the church and Spirit do
not act in testimony where this Antichristian power is. It
is the time of apostasy, when another witness is raised up.
As to Zech. 5:8, it is not said “ he cast on the mouth of
the ephah again” at all. It was then put on the mouth of the
ephah, which was transported to the land of Shinar. Now
this makes all the dierence. e lead was not lifted up to
show the woman to the prophet; that is, it was not an evil
long restrained by something existing all the while to keep
it down. It was then shut up to carry it elsewhere, to set it
on its own base. It might have had a fair name before; but
now it was to be built at Shinar on its own base, not go on
in the land. But all this has neither more nor less to do with
2ess. 2-incorrect as the statements are in themselves.
As to this passage itself, the essalonians, who were
suering sore persecution, had been bewildered, or were in
danger of being bewildered by some one; not as if Christ
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
266
was there, or they with Christ, which is what they had been
taught to expect (and by which, or concerning which, the
apostle beseeches them) but “ as if the day of the Lord was
come “not approaching-but come, present. Now the day of
the Lord is constantly used for a time of trial and trouble,
from which the coming of the Lord and our gathering
together to Him is to exempt us. e day will not come on
us unawares: we are of it.
Let the reader take a concordance and search for
passages under the day of the Lord, and he will nd them
terror and dismay, judgment calculated to trouble and
shake the mind; and further, that this expression by no
means implies the presence of the Lord. I do not doubt
that this will be the full accomplishment of the thing itself.
But the judgments of God, inicted by instruments of His
hand as scourges, are constantly called the day of the Lord.
And the Old Testament prophets take various occasions to
awaken this alarm in the minds of the people. us Joel,
for example. Now it is perfectly intelligible that these false
teachers, instruments of the enemy, should have given, or
sought, to give, this color to the trials and persecutions
under which the essalonians were lying.
e day of the Lord being set in in heaven would not
have disturbed them in this state, for it was to be their
deliverance and rest. But the false teacher’s interpretation
of the trials might be very well connected with the way the
day of the Lord is always spoken of in the Old Testament.
e thought of gathering together unto Him, to which the
apostle refers, would at once dispel the delusion. at this
being shaken or moved by the tribulation, was clearly the
danger of the essalonians is evident, as we see, 1ess.
3:3-5. e enemy had tried to work on this, not by excited
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
267
hopes, but by excited fear and uneasiness. e day of
the Lord is not used in the preceding epistle, as alleged
here. e whole statement at the commencement of page
183 is inaccurate. e day, moreover, will not commence
secretly in heaven. is is never called the day of the Lord
in Scripture, in any form or manner whatever. e day
of the Lord is always what happens to man in judgment
down here. e Greek word in 2ess. 2:2. cannot refer
to such a setting in, because it means “present”-present to
the persons concerned, by which they were beset. We shall
know what is in heaven, as to the Lord’s presence, by being
caught up to meet Him there. It is not a sign down here
we have or want: our blessed sign is being there ourselves
with Him.
Having changed “ present “ to “ set in,” and “ set in “
being interchangeable with “ commence “ we have now
the author’s own translation changed to suit his object
better, given in inverted commas. I believe that day will
not commence till the son of perdition be revealed, because
that day is judgment on the earth, and he that above all is
to be judged, must surely be there; but nothing that passes
in heaven is ever referred to as the day of the Lord. If so,
let the passage be cited. All this is merely the confusion of
the author.
Furthermore, God has not “ made known by His servant
Daniel that it would be the blasphemy of the last apostasy
that would cause His throne of judgment to be set in
heaven.” ere is no such statement in Daniel, but quite a
dierent one. After setting the thrones, it is said, “ I beheld
then, because of the great words, etc.-I beheld till the beast
was slain.” Moreover, there is another serious point in this.
If the day commences by the secret setting of the throne in
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
268
heaven because of the blasphemy, it is certain that it is after
the setting of the throne that the Son of man is brought
before the Ancient of days. So that the day of the Lord,
though its power may be exercised by Christ afterward,
exists previous to His receiving the power. I would refer
the attentive reader to the distinction in Dan. 7:22. “ e
Ancient of days came.” But the truth is, the use of the day
of the Lord for something passing in heaven is a totally
unscriptural use of it.
I have omitted to state that the words, “ as if we had
said that the day of Christ had set in,” are a pure insertion
of the author. eir object is thus to attribute the feeling
exclusively to some testimony of the apostle as to what
passed in heaven, and not to a false interpretation (pretended
to be of him) of the circumstances the essalonians were
in. It is just simply an addition to the word of God. And,
moreover, it presents a totally false idea of the passage in
general; because certainly “ neither by spirit,” and I think
probably “ neither by word,” do not apply to Paul; whereas
the author makes all rest upon what Paul might have said,
which alters the whole sense of the passage. ey were not
troubled by spirit as if Paul had said. A pretended letter
might allege his statements; but a pretended or false spirit
would be acting on the present state of the essalonians’
circumstances.
On the whole, the translation and the criticisms of the
author on this passage, as well as his interpretation, I have
no hesitation in saying (and the reader has the proofs), are
entirely wrong. e meaning of the Spirit of God in the
passage seems to me very clear. Save the word “ at hand “
for present, of which the passages I have quoted (and they
are all in which the word is used in the New Testament)
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
269
will enable the reader to judge, the authorized English
translation is a perfectly satisfactory one of the passage;
unless you except the insertion of “ will let “ (v. 7) instead
of saying, “ Only there is now (or at present) a letter (or
one who letteth),” which does not the least alter the sense.
Whereas the author’s translation entirely changes the plain
sense of the passage, by unwarrantable meanings given to
words, and supplying ellipses as he understands them, and
inverting the plain order of the words themselves.
One point I admit he may fairly discuss, though I do
not agree with him; that is, if huper means “ by “ His coming,
or “ concerning.” He is quite wrong in conning us to the
choice of meanings he does; because “ beseeching by “ is a
regular known meaning of the word; but he may of course
adopt a meaning which the Greek bears perhaps, though
others may judge it wrong.
CHAPTER 14
I have already spoken of the supremacy and glory of the
Gentiles up to Christ’s coming to earth.’ e unqualied
statements as to it seem to me unfounded. ey have been
smitten, sorely smitten of God; commerce destroyed-
that is, the whole system on which it is based, according
to the author. ere have been wars, earthquakes (public
overthrowings, I doubt not), as well as literally men’s hearts
have been failing them for fear, and for looking for those
things that are coming on the earth, for the powers of
heaven will be shaken: days in which men will seek death,
and not nd it, and desire to die, and death depart from
them, nation rising against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom. at the Gentiles will be pre-eminent, and the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
270
oppressive and warlike willful king have
109
a host of willing
followers as of oppressed subjects, is true. But the picture
drawn is not scriptural. Besides, this lingering Christianity
embraces all Christendom except the Roman empire,
according to the author’s system, which is just the coasts of
the Mediterranean Sea. So that this undisturbed supremacy
is a very conned one. I do not desire to weaken the idea of
the wickedness of this lawless one, nor his ascendancy by
various motives over the minds of those who are given up
to his power. is is every way dreadful. But his pretensions
do not secure the glory and peace of the earth. As regards
Israel, the seat and scene of these statements, according to
the author, we know that there shall be great tribulation,
such as never was since there was a nation, no, nor ever
shall be. Israel, by the uniform testimony of the prophets,
‘Shall be in the utmost distress in general. It is the time of
Jacob’s trouble. I might refer to chapter after chapter, but
will quote only Isaiah chapters 18, 24, 27 to 33; Deut. 32:6;
Lev. 26 Zech. 11:16, 17; Joel 3:1-7. Even as to Gentiles,
Luke 21 does not seem like great prosperity and comfort,
though this may be towards the close of the period- Isa.
24:6; and verse 4, where the Hebrew word Tebel (earth) is
used, and therefore I apprehend it must go beyond the land
of Israel. ese statements seem to show a dierent state of
things from what is alleged about Antichrist’s reign.
But to proceed. e scripture “ reveals the earthly seat
of that new and heavenly power whereby the earth and all
things therein will be ordered.” But where is it taught that
the heavenly power has an earthly seat? I know it is sought
to settle it there. Scripture has given the heavenly Jerusalem
109 is assumes the identity of the beast and Antichrist, which I
note as before. It does not aect the argument in any way.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
271
as the seat of the church’s glory, not earthly Jerusalem.
is latter, or Zion, which as to this is the same, is not the
mountain of God for the heavenly church, nor the church’s
seat of authority; but of Christ as Son of David.
“ e purpose of the Lamb in again visiting the earth is
to bring into it, and nally to establish in it, the glory and
the holiness and the happiness of heaven.” Again, “ yet it is
in this world that the glory and holiness and happiness of
heaven is to be manifested and established.” I hardly know
why or how it should be called the glory and happiness
of heaven, if it is to be established in the earth. It may be
alleged that in the new heavens and the new earth, when
Christ has given up the kingdom, and God is all in all,
the blessing of the human redeemed family made perfect
with Christ will take place, or that there is no longer the
same distinction, and even contrast. e beginning of Rev.
21 and the expressions in 2Peter 3 may be alleged, with
possibly some others, for one or other of these thoughts. I
do not arm or deny either here. But in any case, Christ
will have given up the kingdom, and that is not the thing
in question here. at will be a new earth and must not be
confounded with this; and the Son will then Himself be
subject, having subdued all. It is not what He establishes,
nor properly speaking in this earth. And certainly the
seat of the holiness and happiness of heaven is not on the
earth during the kingdom, as it is stated here. “ Even in
the millennium “ “ there is one spot in the earth where the
righteousness and joy and blessedness of heaven will be
perfectly found, and that spot is the height of Zion.”
Is the reader prepared for this? Is the joy and blessedness
of heaven to be perfectly found on earth? its seat there?
For it is not that individually they carry the happiness in
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
272
their hearts, because serving God’s glory, when going to
the earth from the heavenly city. According to the author,
the whole hundred and forty-four thousand, the church as
such, is found on Mount Zion, and the joy and blessedness
of heaven perfectly found there. Are the golden streets
transparent as glass there? Is it there they walk with Christ
in white? Is it there that the Lord God and the Lamb
are the temple and the light of the blessed inhabitants of
that city, which has the glory of God, and descends out of
heaven? Is it there that they see His face? Is it there Christ
has received them to Himself, that where He is, there they
may be also, meeting Him in the air, and so being ever with
the Lord? Alas, alas! where are we come to? But indeed
it is no wonder, when we read in the notes, “ Just as Peter
and James and John, on the mount of transguration, were
just as blessed, and as secure as Moses and Elias.” I suspect
Peter and James and John had another thought than that,
about their comparative blessedness, and that what they
saw awakened desires which seem to me sadly dimmed in
these pages, and which the presence of the Holy Ghost did
not diminish when Peter wrote his epistle, and referred to
it.
Fellowship with the royalty of the Son of David is not
the heavenly glory of the saints: nor indeed, though they
share in the power which He exercises over the nations
when seated in Zion, do they ever share His earthly royalty
as Son of David, though we delight in it, and minister
ourselves on earth.
Further, the statements are a string of mistakes. ere
is no statement in Scripture, that Jerusalem is to be built
around Mount Zion. Indeed the statement in Isa. 66 as
to the carcases in Hinnom would render it impossible. As
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
273
to the note about citadel too, I suppose, no one can doubt
it is wrong. e castle in the Acts (chap. 21: 34, etc.) was
undoubtedly the castle of Antonia, adjoining the temple,
and was not on Mount Zion. I do not know that it has
much to say to the matter. Its importance is only to show
that the whole tissue of statement, page after page in this
book, is the mere fruit of an unbridled imagination.
Who ever heard of seeking the protection of Sinai?
Or “ the tents clustering round it “? It is true neither in
fact nor in spirit. ey were forbidden to approach it, man
or beast, but to keep afar o. e glory is over Zion, and
people dwell in it. See Isa. 4 Or how were the people “
disappointed in that shelter “ of Sinai? And where is Zion
“ spoken of as the place of manifestation of the better and
abiding glory “? Nowhere in Scripture. “ We are come to
Mount Zion “; to the place of Christ’s royal grace, the
undying Son of David; and not to the ery law of Sinai.
But it is never hinted that this is the place of manifestation
of the better and abiding glory of the church-nowhere. e
heavenly Jerusalem is distinguished from it in the passage,
and that is where the church’s abiding glory is seen. at
this glory may be specially over Zion and Jerusalem, as the
cloud and light covered the camp, is very possible, as in Isa.
4 referred to. But this supposes Zion the dwelling place of
men, not the seat of the abiding glory of the church. I see
no intimation of Zion’s being miraculously exalted above
the hills (i.e., physically). In page 143, these same words are
used as the emblems of authoritative power, and explained
as the rightful pre-eminence of Christianity. Besides, the
truth is, it is not Zion that is spoken of, but the mountain
of the Lord’s house. And everyone knows that this was not
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
274
Zion. “ e house of the God of Jacob “ was not in Mount
Zion at all.
All this is one string of mistakes. at the glory of the
Lord Jesus will be manifested in Mount Zion-that it will be
the scene and seat of His earthly rule, I believe; for Scripture
is plain enough as to it. at there will be hence a peculiar
connection there between heaven and earth, I do not at all
deny,. and special glory. at is not the question, but the
church having its seat there-the glory, joy, and blessedness
of heaven being perfectly there. In the Psalm where Sinai is
spoken of as in the holy place, i.e., angelic glory, the temple
at Jerusalem is spoken of, and His excellency is over Israel,
and His strength is in the clouds. at the Lord dwells in
Zion, I doubt not, and at Jerusalem. e question is, does
the church? As to “ one grade of glory to another-appear
in Zion before God “-is the valley of Baca a grade of glory?
Can there be a more thorough perversion of a passage? Is it
not Israel, plain, eshly, though now returning Israel, going
up to Zion?
And now as to the chapter itself. ese hundred and
forty-four thousand stand with the Lamb in Mount
Zion; they are associated in the Spirit’s thought with the
suering of Him who is then gloried as the royal Son of
David, made Jehovah’s rstborn, higher than the kings of
the earth. If they learn and repeat, it is not for others to
learn from them; for none could learn it but they. But while
dierent gures may be used for the church, as bride, sons,
body, and so on, yet it seems very strange if these hundred
and forty-four thousand are the church who sing in heaven,
that they should be learning from those who sing there. A
new song is sung before the throne, the beasts, and elders,
a new occasion of joy and praise being given; and these
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
275
one hundred and forty-four thousand, who are there above
these very beasts and elders, in another place are remarked
as alone able to learn it. I do not believe the same persons
are described by dierent gures in dierent places, in
heaven and earth at the same time, and learning in one
character, and remarked as being alone able to learn what is
celebrated where they are in the highest place, in another.
It seems clearly a dierent class of persons. Nobody doubts
that heavenly feet will tread this lower earth. at this is the
scene here revealed is another question. It is not treading
the earth as Moses and Elias, but the “ better and abiding
glory “ of the whole church which is stated to be here
revealed. “ It is in this world that the glory and holiness and
happiness of heaven is to be manifested and established.”
at they are in contrast with those who receive the
beast’s mark, I believe; and just in this marked as a special
class. is is not the church’s place; Christianity, according
to the author, is withdrawn during the beast’s reign from
the Eden of this world. But these are in contrast with the
beast’s followers; they are associated with the lamb-like
character of Christ. But then, when it is said that “ such
are the new persons into whose hands the authority of the
earth is transferred,” it is a mere invention of his own: there
is not a syllable about it in the chapter. We do not nd in
them the new and living center of the earth’s power. ey
are the rstfruits from the earth thus heaved up to God.
But evidently the rst-fruits and the harvest are connected
(i.e., the judgment of the earth down here).
e general idea of the chapter in page 200 I have
nothing to object to, only remembering that the connection
of the rst verses with it so very plainly proves that the one
hundred and forty-four thousand belong to this scene, and
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
276
have therefore nothing to do with the church at large. e
character of redeemed from the earth as rst-fruits to God
and the Lamb shows their connection with the new world,
though as rstfruits oered to God from it.
Further: “ and to every nation and kindred and tongue
and people “ is clearly more than the apostate earth. e
dwellers there, save the elect, were worshippers of the
beast, and apostate; but that was not true of all nations.
As to the period not being xed, as to a day or a date, it is
not; but, morally, it clearly is. “ e hour of his judgment
is come.” So that it is just before the close-a further proof
of what the one hundred and forty-four thousand are. And
the statement of the writer, that it is the apostate nations
who are preached to, connes it at any rate to the last three
years and a half. It is clearly a new testimony in mercy, not
conned, I believe, to the earth, for the understanding of
which the order of Psa. 95 to 100 (here referring to Psa. 96
particularly) will furnish us with a good deal of assistance.
It might be supposed that I should have diculty as
to what is stated as to verse 13. But, though the manner
of its expression is, adapted to the theory of the author,
yet I believe this verse does designate the time when the
killing power of the beast being to be put an end to, the
whole company of saints can enter into their proper place
of reward. So that in general I agree with the statement. It
is not the rapture of the church, for it only concerns those
who die, a condition which now closes; and ‘hence the
harvest of the earth which follows has nothing to do with
this, for the Lord does not reap the dead upon the earth. It
is quite another thing, the harvest of the earth-that earth
from which the one hundred and forty-four thousand had
been redeemed as rst-fruits.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
277
As to the everlasting gospel’s being the opening of
exhaustless grace, unshaken and unchanged throughout
every age, the answer is simple. e gospel that the angel
carries forth is, “ Fear God, and give glory to him: for the
hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”
at there will be deliverance and mercy for them who
listen, I doubt not, when the judgment announced arrives.
But surely this is not what we have to preach to sinners.
ough we admit fully its truth, there is something more
than this. Is calling from idols, because the Creator God is
just going to judge, that which characterizes the heavenly
gospel of redemption which we preach? ere is not even
mentioned what nds its necessary place in what is most
like it, the preaching of Paul at Athens. ere Jesus and the
resurrection form the topic which gives its weight to his
discourse, and which tells on the assembled hearers, and
brings things to a point with them. Here there is nothing
of it.
e writer is then obliged to contradict himself and
the chapter too, because of his system-himself, because
the apostasy “ will not take place apart from the personal
manifestation of the man of sin “ (page 125). But during
the time of the man of sin, no such testimony is allowed,
Christianity is withdrawn, and yet (page zoo) this testimony
is among the apostate nations, and consequently during
the manifestation of Antichrist who allows no professed
Christianity at all. Yet, if it be among the apostate nations, it
cannot be in the period which precedes the full development
of the Antichristian blasphemy, because before that the
author says they are not apostate. It is contrary to the
chapter, because the angel could not say “ the hour of his
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
278
judgment is come,” when the thing to be judged was not
yet manifested. But it was necessary to his system, because
he cannot allow the gospel during the apostasy; though
here (except that other people had so applied it, and the
unwillingness to allow any gospel other than the church
testimony) there be no reason why he should not leave it
(as he does, page 203) among the apostate nations, at any
rate in part. e mention of Babylon also afterward makes
it necessary to his system.
I know not why the author makes this statement as to
Babylon a prophetic statement. In page 201, “ e events
follow in the order in which they are stated “-this therefore
among the rest. Nor is there anything that I see at all to
contradict the statement, which seems to me very plainly
the case. ere is the testimony-the fall of Babylon-the
warning not to worship the beast-Babylon being then
set aside, which was the previous snare, and judgment
approaching; then a period or close put to the death of
the saints-then the harvest-and then the vintage, which
closes all. It is very evidently from one end to the other
the closing scene of the earth. ose redeemed from the
earth-a testimony against idolatry, the hour of God’s
judgment being come-Babylon fallen-a closing warning
not to worship the beast, because of the torment that
awaited him- the death of the saints put a stop to, and
the rest of those who had died announced-the harvest of
the earth-and the vintage of the earth. It is earth’s closing
scene.
I suppose the testimony as to Babylon is made future
in order to urge such a testimony now. Whereas, if it be
the announcement of events according to page 201, all
this falls. I confess I think page 201 more right than page
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
279
203. It is clear that, if it be merely a prophecy of the future
which ought even to be going on now, it has nothing to do
with the order of events.
If there are saints under Antichrist, and Christianity
is withdrawn, and chased into uncivilized darkness, and
that the obedient have escaped according to Christ’s word,
there are saints who have the faith of Jesus who are not
Christians, at any rate Christians not having on earth the
place of the church and Christianity according to the mind
of Christ; for that has been driven away, and the sphere
of its testimony is gone. at there will be such saints, I
doubt not; though the faithful will be kept from the hour
of temptation which shall come upon all the world to try
them that dwell upon the earth-a passage which the author
himself applies to the latter day.
e author then goes on to urge that the judgment of
the harvest does not apply to the prophetic earth at all, but
to Christendom. But rst, the harvest of the earth and the
vintage of the earth apply to the same scene of judgment,
and also the testimony to the dwellers on earth. But these
two apply to apostate Christendom, or the prophetic earth.
en we have merely “ the earth was reaped “: no gathering
up into the garner stated here, as in Matt. 13
e author states that “ the wheat-eld will not
represent those who will, when the Lord returns, be found
in the open rejection of the name of God and of Christ,
and worshippers of a man.” But Jude states the contrary.
After speaking of false brethren crept in unawares, he
says, “ these are they “denying the only Lord God and our
Lord Jesus Christ-perishing in the gainsaying of Core-
hard speeches they had spoken against the Lord-and they
had men’s persons in admiration- twice dead-though they
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
280
feasted with the saints. In a word, the apostle, or rather
the Spirit of God, identies absolutely and positively the
tares, those who were sown while men slept, who crept in
unawares, with the judgment of blaspheming apostates.
Enoch prophesied of these. e statement of the author
seems to me to be contradicted in terms by the express
testimony of Scripture; and with it his whole system of
judgment and of the earth, and of Christendom (his very
names of things) falls entirely. I believe the harvest here
a much more conned thing, not involving the heavenly
saints at all. ose who had been killed under Antichrist,
and who are certainly, according to chapter 20, to have
a part in the rst resurrection, had been disposed of in
verse 13; and then comes the harvest of the earth, and
the earth is reaped; discriminating judgment is executed
then to introduce (when the vintage is nished) the feast
of tabernacles. And is it not singular that the vine of the
earth, which has ever been the symbol of God’s plant on the
earth, should haw nothing to do with such a scene? at it
is apostate and under Antichrist is clear; but still they must
have some analogy, some pretense to be, or be historically,
the people of God, though anything but that really. e
great king of the earth is Antichrist, we are told. But then,
of what earth is the harvest? ere are other details here,
which I leave, because we shall meet with them again.
To turn to the notes. We have here the express statement
that the one hundred and forty-four thousand learn the
song of heaven from themselves, that is, they learn on
earth from themselves in heaven. Is this a reasonable
interpretation? ere are grades of glory which belong to
Christ, but is it scriptural to suppose that the church is
with Him in these grades, or that it has its own? Does
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
281
it vary its glory, and have sometimes earthly, sometimes
heavenly? Is it not more simple to suppose that there are
dierent bodies in these dierent glories of Christ, when
such dierent bodies are spoken of? It is certainly true of
Israel. It is never said that we are joint-heirs of Christ’s
glories. We are gloried together with Him. But we are
not united with Him as Son of David: we are not sons
of David-and this is the place of Christ in Zion. And the
church has not its center of government on earth. It belongs
to the heavenly Jerusalem. “ It would be very strange,” we
are told, “ not to nd the church anywhere represented in
connection with Zion, the seat of power.” Well, I suppose
then this is the only place in Scripture; but then it must be
proved to be the church. And it is just a confession that the
church is nowhere said to be in the seat of earthly power.
e author may think it strange; but there are those who
are content with their heavenly place of power, and better
blessings too, and who do not seek to nd Scriptures to
bring the church down to an earthly seat and center of
government, because they know God has given it another
and a better place. And to say that man in this mortal body
is “ as blessed “ as in glory, and to insist on nding some
earthly place for the church, is just in a few words, as here
plainly stated, the whole gist and object of this book.
First-fruits of the earth is not the church’s title; and the
harvest of which this was the rst-fruits was of the earth.
Besides, though I do not believe it is here the whole body
of the nation of Israel, yet Israel is called rst-fruits; Jer.
2:3. Nor is there the least possible analogy with Sinai, save
by way of contrast: and to talk of “ heavenly persons on
the earth admitting into their presence persons who yet
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
282
were in earthly bodies.” Is that a description of Sinai? what
heavenly persons admitted them?
As to the article, while I admit that the Revelation in the
instances given uses the article or omits it, as other Greek
authors do, because it would make nonsense otherwise (as
when I say, the house fell, it is clear I mean some house
spoken of to which I refer; and so if I say, the one hundred
and forty-four thousand, I mean some one hundred and
forty-four thousand already mentioned, or no one would
know what it meant), yet, though thus far speaking as usual
so as to make sense, the Revelation is very irregular as to
the article, as it is in every part of grammar, as every Greek
reader well knows. I do not say reasons may not be given
which show it to be the mind of the Spirit, as is to me clear
in the case “ thou art the wretched and the miserable and
poor and blind and naked “ (chap. 3: 17); but as to chap.
4: 7, “ having the face as of man,” I understand the phrase;
but no one can say it is the regular use of the Greek article.
So compare chapter 4: II, chapter 5: 12 and this latter with
verse 13. As to the grammar in general the reader may
read chapter 7: 9, which is by no means a single instance;
chapter 8: 3; so chapter 9: 15. But I need go no farther.
However, I admit the dierence of the hundred and
forty-four thousand. When the author speaks of men
serving God in the earth where we have failed, we shall
serve Him in the earth again; but in Scripture that is
connected with the heavenly, not the earthly Jerusalem.
e passage is merely using human feeling to divert from
direct divine teaching.
A heavenly character is thus given to Zion. But Zion is
not heavenly, nor ever represented as heavenly in Scripture,
anywhere or in any manner; nor is a passage adduced to
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
283
prove it, in which Zion is mentioned. Our hymn-books are
quoted; that is, we are led back to that confusion of Old and
New Testament hopes out of which God in His mercy had
delivered us. at the song is heavenly, I do not deny: but
it could not, I repeat, be learned by those that were singing
it from themselves. As to the next note: the hundred and
forty-four thousand are represented as a female company.
It is just nonsense for anyone that has read the passage.
We have only to compare the rest of the note with page
77 to nd one of those incessant total contradictions of
self, which it really (when occurring at nearly every page)
is a miserable task to follow. Here it is the earthly state
and glory; there it is the full excellency of a heavenly
calling, maintained and manifested on earth. If it be not
a contradiction, then a heavenly calling is nothing at all,
because its full excellency is on earth as to glory, Messiah’s
glory, when the church is not mentioned but in another
character in which the earthly Jerusalem is not at all. I do
not agree in the interpretation of virgins her companions. I
judge they are cities of Judah, or at most of Israel. But this
is only a matter of interpretation, as to which I am ready to
listen to anyone taught of God.
e note on “ worship him that made heaven,” etc., is
a most strange departure from sound interpretation, in
pursuance of the author’s false system as to the Psalm He
quotes a Psalm as after the Lord has come and forgiven
Israel, which the apostle expressly quotes as addressed
to them, for fear they might fail of entering into the
promised rest. But such is the eect of a system. And it
may be remarked that it is in the following Psalm we have
announced what answers to the everlasting gospel here
commented on. I understand that the author may found
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
284
himself on those being forgiven to whom the apostle writes:
but such a plea would, I confess, to me, make the matter
worse. e apostle addresses those who professed to look
for the coming of the Lord, and believe that Jesus was He,
proving to them that they should endure in trial because a
rest remained to God’s people, and therefore exhorts them
to hold fast as others who had not received the promises.
But when the Lord has come, and forgiven Israel, would
such an appeal to hold fast because the rest had not come
yet, or they would fall in the wilderness, like Israel of old,
and not get the promise, have place? It is either singular
a want of spiritual understanding in the interpretation of
Scripture, or a most bold deance of the apostle’s use of
Scripture.
“ Who die in the Lord “ (Rev. 14:13), I believe to be, not
the whole church, as the author says (because we shall not
all die), but all, as a class, who die in the Lord. It prescribes
the time of blessing, not of dying. e Holy Spirit gives
such a testimony to the then realized blessing of those
who die in Jesus, that they could be called from that hour,
blessed, even supposing they died after this moment. I do
not say they will: but the passage pronounces nothing on
it. As the author has said elsewhere, it denotes the abstract
fact, and has no reference to time.
From the author’s system of the apostate earth and
Christendom, etc., I dissent entirely. It is an assertion,
like so many others, of which no proof is attempted to
be given. at there is an apostasy we all recognize. at
there is a man of sin, and head of the beast, we all own.
at the Roman earth will be the scene of especial evil
and judgment, all hold. It is not the exclusive sphere of it,
even as to the prophetic earth; because the whole image
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
285
becomes like the cha of the summer threshing-oor, by
the blow that smites the feet. Moreover, Gog, I have no
doubt, is Russia and its dependencies, and is not in the
Roman earth, or what is included in the four beasts of
Daniel-but it is in the prophetic earth in the full sense
and in Christendom. If this be so, the whole system
falls; because the author thinks as I do, that he comes up
after. Yet he would have had to be previously judged as
Christendom or of the prophetic earth. Further, we have
already seen Jude arms the direct positive contrary of the
author’s theory. And it would suppose that ripe tares had
ceased to be tares at all-that that mystery of iniquity which
was working in Christendom, secretly sown of Satan, when
grown up into open apostasy and wickedness, had ceased
to be the tares ripened for judgment. Teaching errors as
Balaam for reward, though not the position in which they
perish, leads on to the gainsaying of Core, in which they do.
And Jude arms that they are the same identical objects
of judgment.
Besides, who says that Christendom is the kingdom?
e author does, I know: but would it not be better to prove
it in some way? In the sense in which he exceptionally uses
it, I deny it entirely. e eld is the world. In the same
scene in which they were sown the tares were reaped when
they were ripe. Such is the plain statement of the parable.
It is monstrous to suppose that their ripeness makes them
cease to be tares. 2ess. 2 and Jude both identify the
earliest work and nal judgment as one progressive matter.
Besides, it is a great mistake to suppose that the harvest
of Matt. 13 is a momentary act. It is no such thing. “ In
the time of harvest “ the Son of man says to the reapers,
Gather together rst the tares in bundles to be burned. is
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
286
in page 207 the author is careful to omit, and puts the tares
last as cast into the burning, and the wheat rst gathered
into the garner, omitted the rst gathering the tares.
Now see how this applies to his system. Christ has
the tares gathered out of His eld into bundles rst, so
that He disposes of the whole eld, as thus mixed, by
rst separating the wicked into bundles, whatever that
means, and then deals with the wheat thus left clear.
But, according to the author, no such process takes place
at all in the apostate Roman earth. It is in vain to give a
vague idea that the harvest is a gathering in of saints, who
could be smuggled (so to speak) out of the dens and caves
where they are supposed to be hid, and then say it is from
Christendom that the harvest is mainly gathered. is is a
wholly incorrect representation of the matter, and merely
slurring it over to suit his views. In the harvest of Matthew
it was not merely gathering from. e rst thing done was
gathering the tares. Is that done in the Roman apostate
earth? I suppose it will not be denied that this dealing
with the tares applies to the wicked on the earth who were
growing in this world. Christendom, we are told, is His
kingdom, and to that the harvest applies. But then it does
not apply to the Roman apostate earth, and not to wheat
more than tares. It is not the eld which is the subject
of the harvest at all. e harvest in Matthew is a dealing
with the eld, and the state of the eld-not the judgment
of individuals according to the secret knowledge of God
who judges the heart; and therefore, to speak of Christians
belonging to a geographical division, and apostates to
another, and to be picked out by the secret judgment of
God when the eld is not judged, is a subversion of the
whole object and statement of the parable; which is that
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
287
He would let indeed both grow together until the harvest,
but that then He would clear the whole eld, and rst deal
publicly with the tares, then take in the wheat and burn
the tares in their day. Ripened apostates having ceased to
be tares, there is no harvest for what is now the eld where
they grow, though wheat may be hidden in it.
Further, it must be remarked, that according to this, the
tares in Christendom (i.e., ripened
110
wickedness of men) is
judged on the earth before Christ comes at all, and before
He appears; according to the system of the author, burned
as tares in the re. For Antichrist is destroyed by His
appearing. Moreover, the church is taken away before His
appearing, at least from Christendom, where the harvest
takes place-it does not appear exactly when: consequently,
also, before Christ rises up, for then the age ends, as we
have been previously told; and, as I have already remarked,
the harvest is the end of the age. So that really it is not
Christ’s judgment at all, nor does He come to receive us. In
page 204, it is said, “ He comes in glory and divine majesty,
seated in the clouds.” But then, “ whenever [page 1 i] the
Lord Jesus quits His present place on the throne of God,
our dispensation ends, and the new age begins.” So that
the age is already quite ended in the harvest in Revelation-
for He is come. But it was in the end that the harvest in
Matthew takes place. So that the two harvests cannot
be the same at all. And moreover, on the other hand, the
judgment of the wicked on the earth must precede Christ’s
coming, not be His judging at all as Son of man: for then
God is acting on the throne for Him, that is, till that age
ended. All that can be said is that the contradictions are
110 ough indeed they are not ripe in Christendom-that will be
true only in the beast’s dominions.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
288
endless, because the author has framed a system which is
not Scripture at all.
He says (page 205), “ neither will the wheat eld
represent those who will,” etc. e wheat-eld is the
world, not people. But this is put to avoid the plain evident
revelation of a judgment on the earth, which clears the
place judged from tares in order to take in the wheat. For,
if once it is a judgment of the eld, it is clear all his system
is wrong, because the hidden Christians left in the Roman
earth would not be gathered up, or else the Roman earth
would be judged in the harvest.
It is indeed, on account of the time by which he closes
the age, quite clear that on the author’s system the harvests
in Matthew and Revelation are dierent. ere is no vintage
in Matthew, because the harvest is a general thing, the
result of the Son of man’s and Satan’s sowing in the world.
And to suppose that the Son of man’s kingdom, when He
executes judgment, coming as King of kings and Lord of
lords, is only what professes His name previously in the
earth (i.e., what has continued to do so where He was not
showing His power) is perfectly fallacious. He has no right
as King to more than His kingdom: and where do we learn
that Christendom is the kingdom of the Son of man? It is
not what is given Him in Dan. 7 and in the parable. It is
carefully taught that the eld in question is the world. We
may fail in making it good, or maintaining it by the power
of the Spirit; but when He comes to assert His title, it is
not limited to that. He asserts it to the whole eld. And,
“ all things that oend and them that work iniquity,” is
universal. Were this the judgment of Christendom merely
as such, we should have no inhabitant left at all in those
countries.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
289
e writer says that “ Matt. 13 and 25 are especially
devoted to the history of Christendom.” As to Matt. 13
I leave it aside here. I have said sucient on the parable
referred to. e rst three parables are; and, perhaps I may
add, the last. But then the writer must remember that he
has described the leaven as working in the Roman earth.
But Matt. 25 most surely does not. e rst two parables
may be, in a certain partial and particular sense, perhaps,
said to be so (that is, to consider certain things which will
take place within the sphere of Christendom, or apply to
Christians, real or professing); where, note, the going out
to meet Christ during the night, as coming to the wedding
(to Jerusalem down here, if it be followed out) is what gives
the virgin character to the church, whose only thought was
meeting the Bridegroom, being ready for Him (though
they might forget it). Service accompanied it, but that
was settled when He returned. It was the display in glory,
owned-fully, blessedly owned-but an inferior thing. It was
reckoning with servants. Innite honor to be His servant!
It will be recompensed with rule and honor. It will be joy
with his Lord to the servant. But it is not exactly going in
with Him to the marriage. I do not mean here that both
may not be to the same person; most surely they may. We
ought to wait, and we ought to serve: and to separate one
from the other is evil. But the rst thing the Lord has
put forward is waiting, yea, going out to meet Him. He
Himself is the object; and it is joy. May those who wait for
Him be found serving!
To say that the rest of Matt. 25 is the judgment of
Christendom, is so throwing away everything which
brethren have been taught, and such a reckless rejection of
all his own views by the author, that it is dicult to deal
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
290
with it moderately. “ When the Son of man shall come
in his glory, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory,
and before him shall be gathered all nations (or all the
Gentiles), and he shall separate them,” etc. Now, rst of all,
is it not a strange thing, when the word of God says “ all
the heathen “ (for “ nations “ is the very word from which
“ heathen “ comes), that the author should have a class “
III heathen countries,” which are not these, but another
class which alone comprises the sheep and goats of the
parable, to the exclusion of the heathen? It may be alleged
that he uses heathen in the moral sense of idolaters. But
it is his assumption that there are such at the time of this
judgment. e plain express word is all the Gentiles. Next,
Christ is sitting on the throne of His glory when He is
come. Hence it is clear that it is not the church living then,
because it is not called up with the living wicked professors
at all; but, being changed, is identied (Jew or Gentile)
with the raised, and they go up together, quite apart from
the wicked, to meet the Lord in the air, and so are ever with
the Lord. e living wicked are not brought up before the
throne at all (if throne it is to be called, in the air, for the
scripture never calls it so (we go to meet the Bridegroom,
or stand before His (bema) judgment-seat), as the goats are
here), nor the dead wicked either. Further, He is now King.
It is not the Bridegroom receiving the church, but the King
when He is come. Moreover, the moment Christ quits the
Father’s throne (we are told) the former age ends. But, we
have often remarked, the harvest is the end of that age; so
that the saints of Christendom have been caught up before
the King is on His throne here, for He is come. Moreover,
again we may remark, the tares are gathered rst in bundles.
If this be the same judgment, the sheep are addressed
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
291
rst. We may repeat the remarks as to the destruction of
Antichrist by the sudden appearing of the Lord: whereas
here the King is quietly seated on the throne when He is
come. So that if it be Christendom, it would be judged,
and the saints received, after the destruction of Antichrist
by the brightness of His coming, when we know they are
received before, and come with Him. In ne, it is quite clear
that a gathering of all the nations (clearly living nations,
for so the author holds) before Christ to be separated
(and, as the author moreover holds, individually) is not the
resurrection of the dead saints, and the changing of the
living to be caught up distinctly by themselves as a body.
But this last is the portion of the saints in Christendom;
and therefore the application of the parable of the sheep
and goats to Christendom is as unfounded as it is contrary
to all the saints instructed in prophecy have learned. It has
really no foundation at all, but the necessity of supporting
a system, which can admit of no saints but the church in its
present standing till Christ appears, and which sacrices
everything to this error.
I will add here what seems to me the evident structure
of these chapters. Chapter 24: 1-31 gives the consequences
of the Lord’s rejection as to Judah and Jerusalem, and
directions to those who listen to Him, till He comes. In a
word, it gives the history of the Jews, with instruction for
the disciples in their relationship with them, to the end
(the gospel to the Gentiles being merely given as a sign
and necessary preliminary to the end). is is in two parts:
general, verses 1-14; details at the end, verses 15-31: all as
instruction to the disciples. Christ comes in great glory,
and gathers the elect Jews, or rather Israel, from the four
winds. en come moral remarks. ey are to learn certain
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
292
things. And on to chapter 25: 3o we have instruction for
the disciples, in which their proper condition relative to
Him (not to Jerusalem) during His absence is brought out
in three parables, which follow the warnings. All these are
a sort of parenthesis, and relate to the heavenly people. And
then His being come (taught in chapter 24: 31) is resumed
(chap. 25: 30) in reference to earth; and, as He had treated
the Jews and Jerusalem before, and the church’s position
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
293
in the parenthesis, now the judgment of the Gentiles is
given.
111
111 I have run through the “ oughts on the End of the Age,” published
since on these two chapters. I cannot answer here in detail a tract of
near forty pages; but I examined it to see if there were any answers
to the objections I have stated briey here. But it only makes the
matter a great deal worse. It is taught there that those who depart
as cursed into everlasting re, prepared for the devil and his angels,
are to come out of it again to stand with the rest of the dead before
the great white throne mentioned in the Revelation, and be judged
according to their works (Matt. 25 being no more a judgment than
any sinners dying). (See pages 22, 23.) I would only ask any person
taught of God to read the passage referred to, and see how truth
is dealt with to maintain a system. It is well to mention here that
everything is changed in the teaching of the author. e wheat were
risen saints staying, however short a time, on the earth previous to
their ascension; now they are living ones in Christendom. e saints
were to be in the tribulation, and it was a blessing from God to be
prepared for it. e consciences of the saints well know this. Now I
read of “ escaping the tribulation as the saints will “ (page 25 of the
tract)-a statement which led me to make these remarks. We were to
be on earth till Jesus appeared, and to go up to meet Him when we
saw Him; and 2ess. 1, and the Greek word for rest, or respite, as
it was alleged (another unfounded criticism, by the by), with other
passages, were quoted to prove that the tribulation was closed for the
saints by the Lord’s appearing. ey then got respite. All this is given
up, though many saints are still under the inuence of this teaching.
e tribulation,, properly speaking, they are not in. And in fact they
do not await His appearing at all, Christendom being reaped, and the
saints caught up before the judgment of Antichrist, in which as a ash
of lightning He appears in destruction. Judgment, we are told, begins
at the house of God. e reader must not ask me to reconcile this with
other contradictory statements which subsist. ere seems to me no
attempt at consistency in the author’s statements, more than with the
point he is at the moment upon, though here, perhaps, I am wrong. I
suspect the secret of a good deal is that, having made his system, and
having been forced to correct particular parts year after year because it
was evidently contrary to Scripture, it ceased to agree with the other
parts of his own system. At least this would explain a good deal of the
contradiction. But this is the eect of having a system to maintain.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
294
I cannot enter here into the inquiry of the scene or
scenes (for it is evident, I think, that there are more than
one of the judgment and destruction of the nations) this
being one particular judgment called the vintage. I do not
think the vintage at all the only judgment. It is properly and
peculiarly that of the positive apostasy. e use of the same
terms in Joel 3, where Jehoshaphat is spoken of, proves
nothing, because it is also called harvest there, which the
author does not apply here. ey are merely general gures
in Joel. In Isa. 66 we have a judgment which would seem to
include the vintage, though there is no reference to it here.
Several escape, and declare the glory they have seen-the
carcasses of the slain being in a sort of Hinnom.
In Isa. 63 we have the winepress connected with Edom.
is judgment in Idumwa is spoken of as the grand one in
Isa. 34 ere is, besides this, evidently the judgment of the
Assyrian in Mic. 5, where Jesus Messiah is already their
peace, and, if it be distinct, Gog also. Zech. 14 would seem
to connect itself with Joel. As to Edom, see also Psa. 83 It
is because of the evident extent of this subject, that I do
not pursue it here. e vintage has its own proper place-
apostate Israel, and Antichrist with his followers. e
attempt to explain with a forced literality the gure used
seems to me, as is many such examples, only injurious to
truth. at there will be dreadful carnage and destruction
of sinners, I do not doubt; but “ blood came out of the
winepress “ merely says it is a question here of men that are
trampled in fury. Because it is clearly not a winepress; and
as to owing from the valley of Jehoshaphat, it is not said
in the Revelation to be there; and if it were, a river of blood,
deep and wide, would not (let it be ever so exaggerated) “
really “ meet the case, because it must ow sixteen hundred
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
295
furlongs, that is, two hundred miles. I confess it seems
to me only degrading Scripture, to force it in this way-
making all absurd to make half accurate, according to the
narrowness of man’s mind, and the rest consistent neither
with the other part nor with anything else.
CHAPTERS 15, 16
I agree with the general purport of this, as one vision:
only “ at present acting for Christ “ has nothing to say to
it, because the author holds that the Apocalypse is all yet
future. What follows is again without any attempt at proof,
and no such connection is given in this chapter. I quite
admit that after God has closed His preparatory judgments,
to which men refuse ultimately to bow, but rather harden
themselves against them, Christ comes forth to execute
His wrath. But then this is not sending the rod of His
power out of Zion, for He has not been yet set up King
in Zion. e rod of His power is here sent out of heaven.
Christ as King in Zion is not known in the Revelation.
e judgment of the beast may introduce His reign there,
but it is passed over in the most general terms possible,
connected with the resurrection and binding of Satan, and
the heavenly Jerusalem described. But besides, after the
announcement of the destruction of Babylon, with which
the vials close, but the accomplishment of which is given
in chapter 18, another event takes place, wholly overlooked
here, and which surely ought to interest us-the marriage of
the Lamb. It is after this heaven is opened, and the rider
on the white horse comes forth, and the armies which are
in heaven follow Him. All this is an entirely dierent scene
from the rod of His power out of Zion. Yet He has left His
Father’s throne before either of these events takes place.
at is, the whole of what is stated in the Revelation, all
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
296
that concerns the blessing of the church, and the glory
of Him who comes forth as King of kings, and Lord of
lords, is entirely left out in a book professing to describe
its contents.
“ Commission to act is given to Christ,” says the author,
“ as soon as the ministration of the vials ends. He will then
quit the throne of His Father; the rod of His power will
be sent out of Zion, and He will rule in the midst of His
enemies.” Such is the statement of the order of events,
as set forth in Revelation. And the author continues “
accordingly in this chapter,” etc. showing the exactitude of
the statement, adding, “ the day of Christ begins when the
vials terminate.” Now, is it not strange that neither of the
events spoken of in the above extract is mentioned in all
that follows, but a large series of most important events
which are entirely left out in it? It is never said that Christ
is on the Father’s throne here, nor that He leaves it, nor a
word about the rod of His power going out of Zion; but
between the end of the vials and the possibility of the rod
of His power going out of Zion, all that relates to the full
accomplishment of the heavenly blessing of the church
with Christ, and His coming forth with the saints from
heaven. In a word, all that relates to the heavenly blessing
and glory of the church with Him is brought fully out
in the Revelation; and no place is given to it at all in the
arrangement of events by the author. His arrangement is
a denial, by its silence, of all that it is the object of the
Revelation to reveal as to this.
is is clearly very important. It is the key to the whole
system of the author, which is nothing more than the
exclusion of the church from its own blessings. Further,
when it is said, “ Behold, I come as a thief: blessed is he that
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
297
watcheth,” we surely get an intimation that He is coming,
not to the church, but for the day of the Lord. Because that
day does not overtake us as a thief. e day of the Lord
comes as a thief in the night; but this has nothing to do
with the church going up to meet Him, raised or changed.
e day does not come on the church at all.
As to the “ symbolic scene of chapter 16 “ being “ evidently
laid in Egypt.” I do not doubt that there are allusions
to Egypt and Pharaoh. “ e song of Moses “ leaves no
question of this. But it is just an example of the rashness of
those systematic generalisings which feed the imagination
and withdraw the mind from the statements of Scripture.
First of all, I nd in page 227 that it is not symbolic at all.
“ e declarations of this chapter will be minutely fullled
“ … “ e sea throughout the appointed sphere will become
as the blood of a dead man.” “ I expect also that Euphrates,
the river,” etc. So that it is not a symbolic scene; and, if it
were, how is Euphrates, and Babylon, a symbolic scene laid
in Egypt? Or even fountains and rivers of waters, where in
Egypt are they found? Or the appointed sphere of the sea?
e sun is the nearest, for it shines there as elsewhere. Still
it is dicult to say what happens to the sun is a scene laid
in Egypt: the scene is not Egyptian, and (if I am to believe
the author elsewhere) not symbolical. It is just imagination
outrunning all Scripture. An allusion to a place puts the
whole scene there, when there are positive statements
quite dierent. e earth, sea, rivers, sun, are all smitten,
symbolical or not (all are the wrath of God on the earth);
and then, descending to particulars, we have the throne
of the beast, Euphrates, and Babylon; and all these are a
symbolical scene laid in Egypt.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
298
at Antichrist will rise up against the Lord in a
manner analogous to Pharaoh, I do not doubt; nor that
Pharaoh is in many respects a type of Antichrist: but this
is all. I do not attach very great importance to the idea
that they are gathered at Armageddon, and that the battle
is elsewhere. ey are gathered to the battle, and they are
gathered’ there; and the allusion, I have little doubt, is to
Deborah’s song; Judg. 5:19, 20. Armageddon is a mystic
name, an allusion: as indeed is Jehoshaphat in another
way, meaning the judgment of Jehovah, or, whom Jehovah
judges, as some explain it. is I do not dwell upon, though
it be a statement, like so many others, without any proof.
But, as to those standing on the sea of glass. ey are as
usual the heavenly part of the Israel of God. Now it is quite
certain that they are exclusively those who had gotten the
victory over the beast, from the presence of whose power
all obedient ones had ed through the persecutions of
the dragon. For we must take in both Rev. 12 and Matt.
24, or else the author would seek to conne the aair to
Jerusalem. But in Rev. 12 the civilized Eden of the earth
has no place for them. But this is the Egypt in question,
so that the church will not have been there. It was not “
their calling “ (page 218), “ to be on the Lord’s side against
all His enemies.” ey were called on to ee, and another
testimony was raised up-” the sphere of their earthly service
was closed.” Indeed the whole of this is a confusion of the
imagination, because the Red Sea closed all service against
Pharaoh and his hosts; and hence, as a type of Antichrist
and his armies, all idea of Christian testimony perishes
here in all and every sense of it. And therefore there is
no application of any subsequent being on the Lord’s side
except in glory. But with Egypt they were not to be on the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
299
Lord’s side in any testimony. e command (see page 97)
was too express and denite for any who were obedient
to the Lord to avoid. So that there was no such place of
identication with Him in service as His host during
the Antichristian Pharaoh’s time, nor after. e Red Sea
closed Pharaoh’s career. e service for the Lord of hosts
came after. Here, if there were such, the service must come
before: but, even so, the sphere of earthly service was closed
for Christianity. Just in the dominions of this new Egypt
a new testimony had been raised up. I have no doubt that
the sea of glass mingled with re (quite a new element)
showed that these had come through the tribulation, to
be saved from which had been a positive promise to those
that kept the word of Christ’s patience. ese had been in
the tribulation. All that is said of Ezekiel is quite beside
the mark. ere was a throne above there, not on the
rmament: and what had the sea of glass to do with the
rmament which was over the heads of the cherubim? I
would just remark here the neutralization in this system
of all distinctive position which the book of Revelation
carefully shows forth. e elders are in the circle of the
throne. e great multitude worship day and night in His
temple. ese are on the sea of glass, which was not in
the temple. All this is obliterated, and this though it is
positively said here that it was one special peculiar class.
As to the church of the rstborn emerging from that
last abyss of Egyptian darkness, what we have already read
in the book shows it to be all wrong. First, the church had
been reaped in the harvest in Christendom, outside the
sphere of Antichrist’s power. So that they do not emerge
from this at all. ey come back to the execution of it with
the Lord. We never emerge from this abyss. It seems to me
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
300
clear that this triumphal song refers to chapter 14: 9-12. At
least, that is the last formal testimony on that head.
e writer then speaks of the nations yet un-smitten
as analogous to Edom, etc. But the saints are not to smite
these, nor are they to evangelize grace to them. at is done
by those that escape the carnage on earth. (See Isa. 66).
And therefore all this, being on the Lord’s side against all
His enemies, ends with “ with these prospects we shall look
down from the sea of glass, the place of our sanctuary, and
contemplate the results of the power of Him,” etc. Was ever
greater confusion? And then the author just slips into “ It
will be the hour of Israel’s triumphant history commenced
anew “commenced in whom? Or who is “ Israel “ here?
“ Separated unto God according to the life-giving power
of Him, who is the Son, consecrated for evermore, they
will not again nd the words of triumph die upon their
lips, nor disappointment blight their expectations.” Who
are “ they “? Can we talk of disappointment when we are
in heaven and heavenly glory? Yet it is we who look down
from the sea of glass as from the border of the Red Sea; or
have we our triumphant history commenced anew? If it
be said, Nay, it is Israel’s history that is commenced anew,
not ours; then how is it our triumph on the sea of glass?
It is an absolute identication of the suering but now
gloried church, and Israel on earth, or it has no sense at
all in any way. It is a complete confounding of the heavenly
and earthly hope.
Further, we are told, “ But now we must turn from the
heavenly scene, in order to consider the hour of Egypt’s
strength and of Egypt’s judgments, out of which they
come who stand upon the sea of glass mingled with re.”
But how does the church of the rstborn come out of the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
301
hour of Egypt’s strength and Egypt’s judgments? Will the
church of the rstborn come out of Egypt’s judgments?
Or how, even out of the hour of Egypt’s strength? e
writer has taught us that they are not to be in it. at
those who are on the sea of glass have passed through the
hour of Antichrist’s strength, is true. But this proves that
they were not on earth in the proper place of the church
of the rstborn. For those who kept the word of Christ’s
patience were to be kept from the hour of temptation; and
the disciples were to ee from Judea, not to be in it, and,
therefore, I suppose were not in it elsewhere.
112
And now as to Israel and the earth being brought unto
the heavenly temple long ago: where is the proof of this?
Had they been converted, surely times of refreshing would
have come from the presence of the Lord, and He would
have sent Jesus. But what is there of being brought to
the heavenly temple in this? In speaking there he says, “
the heavens must receive till the time,” etc. It is a simple
assertion again of the author, without the smallest iota of
proof.
Further, we are told that Paul preached the same gospel.
Now, speaking of these subjects, did Paul preach the gospel
which Peter preached here to the Jews (and that is the whole
question)? Never. “ If,” says the author, “ Jerusalem had
listened to their words, the Lord Jesus would have come.” I
agree to this; but Jerusalem did not listen, and Jesus did not
come. And therefore it was not the same testimony which
was continued, nor which another extraordinary apostle
was raised up to bear, but quite another testimony on these
112 See the “ oughts on the End of the Age,” more recently
published than the “ oughts on the Apocalypse.” We have
“ instead of escaping the tribulation as the saints will! “ (page
25).
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
302
points, which lifted up the church into union with Christ
as His heavenly body, always in God’s mind, but hid in
Him, and now brought out by revelation.
Where are golden girdles the excellency of divine
power? ese bowls had not surrounded the golden
altar. ey were given by one of the four beasts. All the
arrangement and statements on the subject in this page
are the imagination of the author. In page 227, of course,
everyone must judge whether it is literal or not. I would
only remark that, when it suits the object (page 171),
113
earth is of wider extent than world (Roman world): here it
is exactly Roman world, though the use of it be identical.
But what is the appointed sphere in which the sea becomes
like the blood of a dead man? and what is literally the blood
of a corpse like? Surely sea is contrasted with earth here.
And what is every living soul dying in the sea? And indeed
“ the sea “ is used most generally; and why is it omitted
to notice that the rivers and fountains (I suppose in the
Roman earth) become blood as well as the sea-blood as of
a corpse? And if the sun scorch men literally with re, the
contents of the golden bowl must be poured literally upon
it. And if “ the kingdom of Antichrist be full of darkness
and anguish, so that men will gnaw their tongues for pain,
and blaspheme the God of heaven because of their pains
and their sores, and that they have nothing but blood to
drink “-how is it that after this they “ rest (being gathered
by devils) in all the proud consciousness of undisputed
greatness “? or how is it the fairest scene of collected glory
that the earth had ever witnessed-” the beautiful clusters
of earth’s fairest plant “? ese poor creatures, full of pains,
113 In all the rest of that chapter the earth is treated as Roman
earth.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
303
sores, and anguish, smitten of God, their kingdom plunged
in darkness! And how in undisputed greatness, if the king
of the south has pushed against him already, and the king
of the north with chariots, and horsemen, and many ships?
Let the reader remember sailing in what sea. e truth
is, this book is nothing but the indulgence of the most
unbridled imagination making a system of its own.
at unclean spirits will go out, I doubt not; but that
they go out at the bidding of Antichrist, etc., I do most
entirely. “ First to Armageddon, and then to the battle,”
is not scripture. As to Babylon, we will discuss it when
the subject is completely before us, when we shall nd
statements as unfounded as on everything else.
To turn to the notes. “ Whenever angels are mentioned as
being the agents, it is a sign that the present dispensational
period in which God is acting for Christ has not yet
terminated.”
e reader will recollect that this is the church period or
dispensation, and that it closes with Christ’s rising up from
Jehovah’s throne. It is, I suppose, clear that Christ has risen
up when He comes to receive the saints to Himself in the
air. Now turn to page 204, where we have the description
of the harvest in which the saints of Christendom are
gathered into the garner. “ He (the Son of man) comes in
glory and in divine majesty.” “ We are not here taught as
to the means employed by the Son of man to give eect to
that power here symbolized by the sickle. But from another
part of Scripture we learn that the reapers are the angels.”
Again (page 207) “ so as soon as He descends into the air,
and the earth is spread before Him, to receive the hour
of its visitation, His rst act will be to judge that which
is bearing His name, ‘ judgment begins at the house of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
304
God.’ He will send forth His angels, and they will separate
the tares from the wheat,” etc. I believe the author has
misinterpreted and misconceived the whole ways of God
as to this, from beginning to end, in identifying Matt. 13
and Rev. 14, and I might add Joel 3: but I am examining
here the details of this book. Now it is clear here that the
Son of man employs the angels, that He is descended into
the air, and therefore, I suppose, He has left the throne of
His Father. In the note before us the employing of angels
is a proof that the present period in which God is acting
for Him is not closed. e writer is wrong in all-wrong
in attempting so to dene the period, wrong in the way
he interprets the employment of angels, and wrong in the
way he connects the two. His whole system is wrong, and
statement after statement made just as it suits the idea of
the moment, and the point sought to be proved. Look at
Matt. 24:30, 31, and see what such a statement as that of
this note comes to.
Does anyone allege what is said (page 204), “ but He
comes still as the servant of the Most High God-and
therefore an angel comes forth from the temple that was
seen in heaven,” to show that it was the Most High God
that was acting for Christ, as if He were still sitting on
God’s throne till His enemies were made His footstool?
I can only say such an attempt to cover the inconsistency
would be worse than the inconsistency itself, and a mere
attempt to maintain the credit of a system at the expense
of the known contradiction of Scripture, and this book’s
statements about it. “ He comes in glory.” He is not
therefore sitting on God’s throne-that throne acting for
Him till His enemies be made His footstool. Servant or
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
305
not of the Most High, I suppose when judgment begins
(page 207), it is the Son of man Himself that is acting.
e rest of the note is confusion. God acts by angels for
His wrath. Be it so. en comes the wrath of the Lamb,
and then He will sit down “ upon His throne “; and then,
instead of angels for wrath, saints, attended by angels, will
issue from the temple. But do not saints come forth with
Jesus, when He “ comes to execute wrath,”
114
as in chapters
17: 14 and 19: 14, all which, we are to note, happens after
He has judged all Christendom? e marriage indeed of
the Lamb had come, so that on the author’s system it must
be so, the harvest being of Christendom, and the beast not
in it at all. So that He had come to receive the saints, judge
all the wicked in Christendom, casting the tares into the
furnace, before heaven opened for Him to come forth to
judge Antichrist.
And where is it said that saints will be attended by
angels when they issue from the temple? ough their
issuing indeed from the temple is an idea not found in
Scripture.
Again, how is re living holiness? It is judicial holiness-
killing holiness therefore. Our God is a consuming re.
e re tries every man’s work what it is.
Again, where are the waters of the sea used as an
emblem of destructive power from God? ey are used
sometimes as the rage or overowings of the people (which
114 is single consideration upsets all the author’s statements
about the harvest (absurd enough through the notion that
ripened tares are no tares at all): for on his system the angels
only are with Him when the tares are judged, which he
considers (contrary to Scripture) to be a momentary act. But on
all this head one of his statements is only more contradictory
than another.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
306
no doubt destroy), great and tumultuous actings of men,
and hence trial also; but where as destructive power from
God blotting out of the land of the living?
And what is the meaning of “ purication unto life
“? Where is such an idea in Scripture? at historically
waters did destroy, is quite true: but waters are not used for
destruction. at waters purify, is true too: but purication
unto life is quite an unscriptural idea. at we, without
being the Israel of God, shall enjoy nal deliverance and
priesthood, is most sure.
As to the note on “ King of nations.” e reading seems
to be adopted by all; so I have nothing to say on it. But
the principles of the note are to be examined. For they
are of much importance, and tend (as everything in the
book) to the depreciation of the church of God, or rather
of the grace of God to the church-” that he might show in
the ages to come the exceeding riches of his grace in his
kindness towards us by Christ Jesus.”
I do not dwell on the alleged suitableness to the song of
Moses. e song of the Lamb is forgotten in the explanation.
If the next page be consulted, it will be found that “ just
and true are thy ways,” which is here connected with King
of nations, is interpreted in an entirely opposite manner
to what is made of the song of Moses here; and that what
is said of Moses’ song here is attributed to the other part,
“ Great and marvelous are thy works,” as being just what
the saints have therein said. But this, though showing how
little moral reason there is in all these assertions, I pass by
as assertions that involve no important principle.
e rst thing I have to remark is again the oft-
recurring expression of the Israel of God, as being the
whole body owned of God in heaven and earth. is has
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
307
been repeated so very very often, that the reader will have
got the habit of using it in this sense in his mind, and so
lose the sense that it is quite unfounded. e expression is
used once in Scripture, and with no possible connection
with the subject, or the millennial state at all. It is found in
Gal. 6:16, where, false teachers having sought to introduce
Judaism among Christians, the apostle (having closed his
reasonings and exhortations on the subject, and shown
what was really valuable, namely, the new creature) says,
“ As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on
them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God “-evidently
in contrast with eshly Judaism, which the false teachers
were seeking to introduce. But they were those then and
there owned of God as His Israel; and there is not an idea
of the millennium, nor any gathering of all into an Israel of
God in heaven and in earth. Such a thought is never found
in Scripture anywhere. It is well to remember this-that it is
merely an idea, an unscriptural association, of the author.
e church is proved “a constituent part of the Israel
of God.” And symbols or expressions prove it. is Israel
of God, of which the church forms a constituent part, is
a dream of the author’s. It is a scriptural expression, but
not used as he uses it, so as to make the church a mere
constituent part of some other body. It certainly is not thus
that Scripture ever speaks. e church is the body of Christ,
and not a constituent part of anything, save (with Christ
as head) of the redeemed universe in the time of its glory.
And then what is the proof? Why, that Jewish things are
used as types, or symbols as the author calls them. And what
then? Who denies it? Why does the use of circumstances
of the eshly Israel prove that the church is a constituent
part of another Israel? We keep the paschal feast typically
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
308
or guratively. Well, and what then? I repeat. What does
that prove? “ Sons of Aaron.” We are priests-everyone owns
that: and if it be merely that, in the whole creation, to all on
earth, and I add even ostensibly to the unconverted during
the millennium, we hold the place of priests: nobody will
deny that. We are the children of the heavenly Jerusalem
which is above. And what does that prove but just that we
are a separate people, having a Jerusalem of our own? As to
children of Abraham, and branches in the Abrahamic olive
tree-I have already considered it. It is of more importance
than the others, which really are of none.
ere is one general principle, owned of all who believe
John 3, that for earthly blessings as well as for heavenly, a
man must be born again, must have the new creature. But
it does not follow thence that if this be necessary for all
association of man with God, even in the lowest place, that
there can be no special place of glory. It would as much
set aside degrees in glory as anything else, and I should
pretend to be necessarily as exalted as Paul, because I was
born again. But this is not so. e principle is quite false.
ere is a dierence, and every man shall receive his own
reward according to his own labor, though all be saved and
born again.
But, branches in the olive tree and Abraham’s seed Well,
how are we Abraham’s seed? By being in Christ: that is,
that we take the place of the promises down here, as Israel
especially will hereafter, and therefore succeed them, and
they us, as heirs of promises down here. Yet still God had
reserved some better thing for us. We do so in virtue of being
in Christ, who is in the highest sense Abraham’s Seed. But
we are in Him in a way that makes us His body, His bride,
as His own esh. And it is quite clear that the principle
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
309
alluded to has nothing to do with our highest privileges,
because it is, as I have already remarked elsewhere, the own
olive tree of the Jews, the seed according to the esh, loved
even in their unbelef for the fathers’ sake.
Further, it is a principle which is false in another way.
It is only their own olive tree as descendants of Abraham
specially called out as father of many nations down here
before God. Now all the saints before Abraham will, I
doubt not, be in glory. Yet they were not of this olive tree, or
else the Jewish question never could have been raised. e
question of Rom. 9; 10 and 11, is the Jewish question, and
so in Galatians, and to which the Israel of God evidently
alludes. at the saints will be in a certain relation to Israel
yet dwelling in the earth, everyone who has received the
doctrine of the Lord’s pre-millennial advent believes. But
the author leaves the reader here to draw some important
conclusion from it as to his system: whereas it proves
exactly nothing, and is believed as much by those who
utterly reject his system, and believed more accurately and
more scripturally: that is all. But it is true of all the world
as of Israel. Yet here again this does not put Israel in the
same place down here with all the world, because all saints
will be born again. Nor does this latter truth set aside the
special distinctive promises made to Israel, no more than
the far more important distinctions which are true about
the heavenly church.
When it is said, Israel will not be of the earth any
more than the church of the rstborn, it is partly true and
partly false. Israel, as Israel, will be of the earth, and Isa.
65 proves that some will be wholly so, though such will
be cut o when manifested. But the spared remnant, and
all who really enjoy millennial blessedness, will be born
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
310
again, and that life which they receive will not be of the
earth. It will be the new creature. But it is true of everyone
else then and now, and has nothing particularly to do with
Israel. But the very passage (if passage were needed) which
specially proves it calls this whole state of things earthly, in
contrast with heavenly things which belong to the church;
and therefore, though they have a life which is not of the
earth, their whole condition and state will be then earthly,
in contrast with what is heavenly.
Nor is it at all true that the moment when the
church receives its actual, Israel will receive its virtual,
deliverance. ere is no connection in Scripture between
the actual placing the church in its heavenly glory, and the
quickening of individual Israelites, which is their virtual
deliverance; nor is this latter the placing Israel as a nation
or a body in the place of their earthly glory as purposed
of God. e statements we have already considered as
to the Jews-Ezek. 20 as to Israel, Isa. 66- all prove the
contrary, as indeed do Ezek. 36 and 37. It is never said that
Israel are to be individually born again at the coming of
the Lord to receive the church; nor all individually born
again at the same time; nor all restored at the same time, if
public manifestation be referred to; but the contrary in the
chapters I have cited. at they have their life from Christ,
I do not doubt. at the resurrection of Christ secures to
them the sure mercies of David, we are expressly taught in
Acts 13. But it is never said they are of the one body, nor
the bride of Christ in glory. ey
115
are not His body, the
fullness of Him that lleth all in all.
at all things will be headed up in Him in earth and
heaven, all admit, and thus far they will have one center; but
115 I speak here of the millennial state.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
311
so will all creation; and earthly and heavenly are denitely
distinguished in this very passage-we having part in the
heavenly.
Besides, this statement is a contradiction to itself. In
the beginning of the sentence, Eph. 1 to is applied to the
millennial state of the Jews. In the end of the passage it
is said to be a dispensation which is not then yet come,
and in which the millennial arrangements cease. In the
beginning the author, speaking of the millennium, says, “
they will have one center (for all things have been headed
up in Him) “ referring to Eph. 1:10, and a few lines lower
down, “ when the dispensation of the fullness of times has
come, and the millennial arrangements ceased.” It is rather
too bad to have two opposite explanations in the same
paragraph. It is in vain to say it is in both, because the
passage is treated as speaking of a time not come, during
the millennium, and in which the millennial arrangements
cease.
I do not believe that the passage applies to the post-
millennial state, which cannot properly be called a
dispensation, for it is eternity; and the heading up all things
to be administered by Him in whom we have received
an inheritance who have rst trusted (or pre-trusted) in
Christ (that is before His manifestation in glory), evidently
speaks of the special time of Christ’s administration as
the gloried Man, and our association with Him in that
glory. e fullness of times itself is not an expression for
eternity. at would not be called “ times “ or “ seasons,”
and the heading up all things in the man, as administrator,
is not God being all in all, and the Son subject, as in 1Cor.
15, Rev. 21; and this view of the passage is completely
conrmed by verses 22, 23. at Christ will be the center
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
312
of all in heaven and earth in the millennium is clear; but
this does not hinder the church being in the proper, special,
peculiar place of the bride, the body of Christ, the fullness
of Him who lleth all in all when He is in glory. Israel
moreover has its place as Israel, distinct, and in many
respects in contrast. “ ey are “ not “ together engaged in
the government of the earth.”
Nor is it ever said that Israel will govern the earth at
all. at they are the favored glorious nation on the earth,
where the government of Christ is placed which extends
over the earth, is true: but they do not govern nor judge
the earth. It is the heavenly saints who do this. ey are
governed by Christ, who will be “ great to the ends of
the earth,” and “ all nations call him blessed.” at they
will celebrate the ways of God in justice and judgment,
I fully believe. But what then? ere is nothing at all like
the knowledge, the anticipative knowledge, of the mind
of Christ, and of His glory, which we nd in verses 9-11.
When the things are accomplished, they will understand
them and celebrate them.
But the peculiar character of the church’s place is to
know and celebrate them before by faith-not to know
the justice and judgment merely which are the habitation
of His throne, but His counsels and thoughts. e mind
of Christ is more than the works or the ways of God
in judgment. It is all His counsels in Christ. Who hath
known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?
But we have the mind of Christ. “ Eye hath not seen, nor
ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the
things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, for the
Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
313
us it is we have the mind of Christ-as Joseph yet un-
exalted was the interpreter of the revelations of God. And
Christ is the wisdom of God, and the power of God. Power
will be displayed hereafter; we have but samples of it now,
the display of which conrmed faith. But Christ is made
unto us wisdom: and if in inrmity we know only in part,
still, as regards the object of knowledge, and the source of
knowing, the whole wisdom of God is in Christ, and we
have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things-
we have the mind of Christ. But it is never said that Israel
has the mind of Christ. ey will see the displays of His
power, recognize and celebrate them. But is that having the
mind of Christ as we have it? e Egyptians knew what
Joseph knew, when the things came: but had they the mind
of Joseph?
e Holy Spirit will be poured out on all esh in the
millennium. ey will prophesy and see visions; but, ‘
though the lump is holy, it is not that separate consecrated
rst-fruits. e Holy Ghost will enable them to enjoy, but
will not in identity with the suerings of Christ make
saints the vessel of the outgoings of His heart in the sorrow
of a groaning world, nor in the joy of its deliverance by
power, as the day when their love is answered. ey will
prot by the answer themselves, but they will not as in
the love which has thought of others, though in it itself
“ according to God.” is place they will never have, they
can never have. It is reserved for us who have gone before
the day of His power, and fore-trusted in Him. Blessed
privilege! If sovereign grace has given it us, shall we disown
or depreciate it?
“ In all essential blessings (we are told) the calling
of Israel then so nearly resembles that of the church of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
314
the rst-born now, that they may truly be said to be its
successors. We are the rst-fruits, they the lump.” e
passage is clearly misapplied. ey as to calling on earth
were the rst-fruits, and we the lump. ey are not the
lump of which we are the rst-fruits in heaven; for in the
time of glory we are in heaven, and they are on earth. Nor
will they even be gloried together with Christ, whatever
their eternal blessedness may be. ey have not suered
with Him. is may seem a triing thing to the author. It is
not to the Scriptures, nor I believe to the saint’s heart who
is led in this by the Spirit of God.
We have succeeded Israel on earth: are we in the same
condition? Israel will succeed us again. But that says
nothing at all as to the consequences of the dierence of
our position as so succeeding. And when it is said, “ If the
root on which we are now growing gives holiness to us,
they will be graed in on the same root,” etc. It is never said
we are graed in on the same root. It is all a confusion. Nor
is it ever said that what they are graed in gives holiness. If
it had been Christ the root giving holiness, could they have
been broken o, and then graed in again? Or how could
it have been called “ their own olive tree “? e author has
confounded the source and root of promises (which indeed
gives holiness, makes us partakers of His holiness), and the
depositary of them here below, elect and called.
at they will partake of life from Christ, all at rst, and
all called of God afterward, is not questioned: but that is not
the question here. If resemblance is traced, so is contrast.
“ Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed: blessed are
those who have not seen, and yet have believed.” And I
wot that those whom Jesus calls blessed are blessed. “ at
we might be to the praise of His glory who rst trusted in
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
315
Christ.” “ if we suer with him we shall reign with him.”
And therefore when it is said, “ in whose government they
are engaged together,” it is quite contrary to Scripture (and
see all John 17).
One thing is quite clear from all these statements of the
author, and that is, the anxious desire to reduce the heavenly
saints to the level of the earthly. A few casual expressions
which may suppose something else may be found, but the
constant laborious eort is to say that all are alike.
As to the details, I have no reason for opposing the idea
that they are called children, but I do not believe it. ey do
enter into a place very analogous to that of Christ on earth,
except His rejection. ey are much associated with Him
there. So far from analogy I might suppose it. But it would
be questionable if this went beyond those that suered,
and were removed from earth: for, “ if children then heirs,
heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ.” And this during
the millennium they certainly are not; because it is to this
that is attached the condition “ if so be that we suer with
Him, that we may be gloried together.” All this I leave to
the consideration of the reader. e only passage quoted,
or which can be quoted, is one from Hosea, which I do not
believe applies to them-for this reason, that wise Paul refers
to these passages of Hosea, he quotes this and another as
to the Jews: when Peter refers to them, he quotes only that
other, which has distinct reference to Israel’s blessings.
is makes me think that the Spirit of God had a covert
reference to the Gentiles, and therefore He says “ there “
when it was said to them. Peter does not quote this when
he refers to the prophecy, though he uses chapter 2: 23, as
does also Paul as to the called of the Jews, as we have said,
and as is evident to me, chapter 1:10, of the Gentiles.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
316
is passage being disposed of, there is absolutely no
other.
116
e nation is guratively called God’s son-His
rstborn; and Ephraim, a dear son, a pleasant child. But
this has nothing to do with the matter at all. It has nothing
to do with individual son-ship and the Spirit of adoption.
e passage quoted is used of the house of Israel, not of
the individuals who compose it. But this is as distinct as
possible to the spiritual mind.
As to the quotation of 1Corinthians 15, I have already
spoken of the word “ in.” at in Christ all will be made
alive, and that in the sense’ of partaking of life they are
in Christ, I do not doubt. Still, the use of this passage is
untenable, because it speaks of resurrection, and very
distinctively indeed of those that are Christ’s, at His coming,
which the author insists is specically and exclusively the
moment of His arriving at which they are raised. If so, no
other resurrection is spoken of in that chapter. Nor is any
resurrection to life spoken of but one-the resurrection of
life, and then another, the resurrection of judgment. e
truth is, the reasoning is a mere blunder. In Christ all will
be made alive is a very dierent thing from saying all made
alive are in Christ; nor does one prove the other. Do not let
the reader be startled as if I supposed some were alive who
were not in Christ. But here is the importance of a remark
which as to reasoning is undoubtedly true.
117
If we take the
scriptural use of the term made alive; in 1Corinthians is, it
applies to resurrection only; and then the fullest distinction
possible is drawn between those whom the author seeks
116 Isaiah also says in a gurative way, “ bring my sons from far,
and my daughters from the ends of the earth.”
117 e author’s use of it is merely the logical error of converting a
universal armative into a universal negative: one of which he
is not uncommonly guilty.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
317
to identify. at is, the Holy Ghost applies it to making
alive from an actual state of death, wherein there is nothing
common to us and them. If it be applied to spiritual life in
general, if “ in Christ “ be used of union, then they are alive
already and have not to be made alive if they are in Christ.
Applied to the resurrection, it is very simple. But if it be
used of spiritual life, there is no doubt they have it from
Christ; but if in Him, they have not to be made alive.
e argument as an argument is unsound, most
certainly illogical and unsound. About that there can be no
dierence in those who are accustomed to reason.
If then I take the scriptural use of the passage, I nd the
exactly opposite account from the author’s; that is, I nd
a special and peculiar distinction of classes. It is not true
that all will die and be made alive. It is never said that the
saints in the millennium will: I do not believe myself that
they will. e use of the word alive in 1Cor. 15 goes to
show that the apostle is only speaking of resurrection. If it
be anything else, it merely amounts to saying that the life
of Christ is in all the nally blessed, which nobody denies.
e truth is, the words “ in Christ “ do not imply union,
though union may exist. is is evident from the passage
itself, because “ in Adam “ is not union. All who come into
resurrection to life, do so through the power of Christ, and
by the life of Christ; but all do not come into resurrection
to life, because we shall not all die. And it is never said that
those here treated of, that is, the millennial saints, will die,
nor is their resurrection ever spoken of directly. So that the
argument from the passage wholly fails. When the apostle
wrote, it was needful to treat this question, because death
was not considered as the natural portion of the saints as
now: Christ was looked for to come and receive the saints.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
318
It is never said “ they are baptized by the same Spirit.”
at He will be poured out as the latter rain, I do not
doubt. But what is stated here is an unscriptural statement.
e unity of the body into which we are baptized will not
exist during the millennium. e Jews and Gentiles will
be distinct as heretofore. I have already spoken of the olive
tree, which is Abraham as heir of promises, and then his
seed. ey could not call Christ their olive tree, and be cut
o, and graed in again, in a real living spiritual sense. “
We are married to the Lord- so will they.” Does the author
mean to say that they will be the bride, the Lamb’s wife? If
not, why thus, by the vague term Lord, seek to destroy and
eace the special blessing of the church? We are never said
to be married to the Lord, that is, to Jehovah. It is Christ,
the Lamb, who is the bridegroom of the church. We are
members of His body, of His esh, and of His bones. Is
not this a dierent thing from saying, “ y maker is thy
husband; the Lord of hosts is his name “? Because the
Spirit of God has taken the images of the Old Testament to
represent the far superior blessings of the heavenly family
and bride, to show that they had come into the place of
blessing, perfectly bringing out the dierence, the author
would reduce all the plainly taught blessings and glories
of the church to an equality with the gures from which
illustrations are drawn. ough indeed as to the marriage,
it is from Adam more than from Jewish images.
e dierences are merely “ circumstantial and ocial
“that is all by which the Holy Ghost acts in our hearts. All
the joy, the privilege, that which Christ has pronounced
blessed, suering with Him, reigning with Him, His
willing that we should be where He is, the blessedness and
holiness of those who have part in the rst resurrection-all,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
319
all by which Christ has spiritually touched the springs of
hope in the soul, is withered in this system to circumstantial
and ocial dierences -unessential-the author does not
say none. e best answer is:-e whole New Testament
from the gift of the Holy Ghost (even much of it before)
is occupied about them, to act on our hearts by them, save
about three passages where the eternal state is mentioned,
namely, a passage in 1Cor. 15” God shall be all in all “;
2Peter 3; Rev. 21at the millennial saints will have
to look for a new heaven, and a new earth, is true; and
evidently it is to the exclusion of our proper hopes by this
that the author’s statements tend. It yet remains to be
proved, that there will be no dierence then. ere are very
strong passages to show there will: but into this I do not
enter. But even when the author says “ So will they,” on
what does he found this in Scripture? It seems to me an
evil thing, when God has not been pleased to unfold to us
the state of soul of the saints then (and He has not) to use
our apprehensions of them, even supposing they are just, as
a peremptory argument to establish a system whose object
is to reduce our feelings and blessings to the level of theirs,
and so destroy the inuence of the special hopes God has
given us.
As to the man-child, supposing there is an allusion to
the manner of bringing a people into heavenly glory, and
another people into earthly glory, how does this prove that
the dierence is merely circumstantial? I should rather say
the resemblance was circumstantial. Nobody denies that
gures of the Old are used in the New, though greatly
changed. It is the use of this to destroy the dierence in the
counsels of God which is so objectionable. Corresponding
in gurative circumstances is not denied to a certain extent,
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
320
though only a shadow, and not the very image. But is
that only a circumstantial dierence? Aaron’s family had
an everlasting priesthood; they went into the holy place,
not without blood; they had a priesthood of Urim and
uminim; but suppose I were to conclude from all this,
that the dierence between Christ’s priesthood and this
was merely circumstantial and ocial? is is what the
author is doing. Because the circumstances are guratively
the same, “ the language, types, and symbols,” he concludes
that there is a circumstantial dierence and an essential
identity. Would not any reasonable person conclude that
there was a circumstantial assimilation, and a real dierence,
essential as to the state of things, though life might be in
all? And the truth is, that in the strict use of the word
essential, the dierences are essential. An essential quality
is that without which a thing would not be what it is; and
heaven cannot be heaven if it is earth, nor earth earth if it
be heaven. As to Israel’s heavenly and gloried priesthood,
we have already seen on what it rests. And why Israel’s?
Are the Gentiles to have none in that day?
As to the note on the Greek, hosios, the word is used for
favor, benignity, gracious goodwill. It is this word is used in
the expressions, “ His mercy endureth forever “; “ forsake
their own mercy “; “ I will sing of the mercies of the Lord
forever,” Psa. 89 It is interesting here, because it is the same
word used in the singular in verse 19: “ ou spakest in
vision to [query if it should not be ‘ of ‘ or ‘ about,’ as in the
title of Psa. 72] thy holy one,” where the word is dierent
from verse 18, the Holy One. e same word is used in
the sure mercies of David; Isa. 55:3. e reading is more
doubtful. I am disposed to think the received reading right,
that is hosios. e God of mercy or favor, as in Jonah 2:9,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
321
and Psa. 144:2: compare Psa. 62:12, for the spirit of the
passage we are speaking of. e whole tenor of their song
savors very much of the Old Testament, for the Lamb’s
wrath is of the same character. e reader may with a
concordance search out the passages where mercy and
truth are used together in the Psalms. Mercy is always the
same word. But as to the reading, these references conrm
the conviction that it is hosios. Still there is not quite the
certainty which the author presents in the note. e very
great majority of MSS read hagios, and one of the three
ancient. I suppose the other two read hosios, though they
are not actually cited in the books I can refer to. C contains
this passage; Griesbach gives it as a questionable reading,
but the evidence not such as to induce him to change the
text. I would add that in Psa. 43 an “ ungodly nation “ is
a nation “ not chased “; not having this character of grace.
“ Clothed in ne linen.” All that is said about this,
Greek and Hebrew, is mere confusion. Properly speaking,
the Hebrew word ‘ bad ‘ (which means originally separated
in parts, or to be alone) signies thread, and then linen.
is, being white, may often be used for purity. e
Hebrew shesh means properly white, and thus is used for
linen sometimes, if it be not rather cotton.
118
It is used for
white marble, Sol. 5:15; Esther 1:6. And in Ex. 39:28 we
have linen breeches of ne twined linen, that is, breeches of
bad or shesh, thus wholly subverting the alleged distinction
as in the intention of Scripture. is was for Aaron and for
his sons. For which dispensation here bad was of shesh. If
we refer to Ezek. 27:7-16, we shall nd that “buz “ (from
118 It appears that by recent microscopic examinations it has been
ascertained (at least what has been found in Egypt) to be linen.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
322
which probably Bussinos
119
came from Syria, and shesh from
Egypt. e shesh was used for sails, and buz for what was
costly. Shesh being from Egypt makes plain its use in the
tabernacle, where, observe, it was used for the outward court
as much as for Aaron’s robes, as his and his sons’ robes were
made of bad as of shesh, yea, of bad of shesh. I apprehend
that it is more likely Bussinos comes from buz, and not from
shesh. In Lev. 6:10 (Heb. 3) we have the breeches of bad,
chapter 16: 4, and so Ex. 28:42, the same word is used, we
know that they were made of shesh. Further, in Ezek. 9,
Daniel to, we have it used for an angelic manifestation as
man. So here the angels are clothed with linen. And how is
it applied in Ezekiel and Daniel to this dispensation?
As to Bussosif it is vain to say “ it belongs to the next
dispensation when seen,” etc. For it is used in two passages
as far as I can discover in the New Testament: Rev. 19:8,
14, and chap. 18: 12, 16. Bussos is used in Luke 16:19. In
Rev. 19:8 and 14 it is used for the armies that followed
Christ. But then its use is to be proved for this; and there
is no other passage to prove it by, unless passages where it
cannot have this signication, as Rev. 18, where it is used
of Babylon, where, it is hardly, I suppose, used for beauty
and excellency of character (in Hebrew, shesh); and in Luke
16:19, an analogous word is used for the clothing of the
rich man who went to hell.
Further, Bussinos is used for the Hebrew buz in 1Chron.
15:27; byssus for bad (said to mean linon) in the same verse
ne linen; and for shesh in Gen. 41:42. ough in the
Pentateuch it is used for shesh. e result of the examination,
therefore, sustains in no way the statements of the author.
119 Bussinos (and Bussos, Greek), are used for “ ne linen “ in
Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16; 19:8, 14.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
323
e conclusion from chapter 16: 7 is curious. e
scripture says, taking the reading proposed as the right one,
the altar said; and then it is assumed that it was the souls
spoken of before, and that shows that they were still in their
disembodied state! Well, I should think it was the altar if
Scripture says so, and not the souls. If it implies anything,
it implies that they were gone. But it implies nothing about
them, that I see. e altar, which had witnessed all the blood
of these sacrices for Christ, bore witness of the justice of
the judgment that fell on their persecutors. Conclusions
thus drawn are indeed easy to arrive at.
e note on the throne of the beast is almost equally
without force. e king of Babylon says that he will set
his throne above the stars of God, and that he will sit at
Jerusalem: but why that makes Jerusalem the throne of the
beast, it would be hard to tell.
As to the note on the kings of the East, it will come
under Babylon; only I remark that what is given as “ I
think,” in the note is stated with certainty in the text (page
227). I will only say in passing that Isa. 13 being the day
of the Lord, the saints must be gathered before. But the
author is mistaken, I have no doubt, in his division of Isa.
13, and in his use of “ day of the Lord “: but this I reserve
for the discussion of Babylon.
As to the note on Armageddon (see Judg. 5:19), I have
touched on it already. ey are gathered to the battle, and
they are gathered to Armageddon, which is a symbolic
name. ere is no such place mentioned in Scripture. I
apprehend it is so of Jehoshaphat. I also dissent from the
interpretation of Dan. 11 However I once thought myself
that the passage did relate to Antichrist, but I believe it to
be the king of the North who is spoken of.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
324
e use of the Greek translated “ the habitable earth” for
the Roman world, we have seen is entirely unproved. I see
no reason at all to think it is. It is very much oftener used in
another sense; but all these uncertain points are necessary
to the author’s system, because this is his counter gathering
against the Eastern kings. If they fall, his system falls: but
they are wholly unproved.
CHAPTERS 17, 18
We now arrive at a most important subject-one which
has as much carried away the readers’ minds with it as
anything else, and has more characterized the system in
those who are attached to it. I believe it entirely wrong, and
I proceed to examine it with the reader, and give him the
result of my own inquiry into the validity of the statements
made. And here I must begin with a remark to set things in
their true light. No one doubts the inuence and progress
of the commercial principle. “ ese and other connected
principles have marked a character so distinctive upon the
present period, as to be recognized even by those who have
never thought of reading these things in the light of the
testimony of God.” is then is not the question.
I need not here say that for years I have been convinced
and have taught that this commercial principle tends to
the building up of Babylon, and enters into the scheme of
Satan as an element in its structure; because its prevalence
is declared here to be known of all as characterizing our
epoch, although unspiritual men, of course, do not judge
its nature. Still, I believe that the author’s view of it just
ministers to Satan’s object in this. And for this reason. ere
is a certain working suited to the passions and lusts of men
such as they naturally are; another of positive deceit and
inuence over their souls- the more immediate and positive
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
325
power of Satan. He occupies men with the former, to which
they are, naturally prone, and which has no apparent evil,
which connects itself with social improvement, prosperity,
employment of the poor even, and the progress of peaceful
civilization, in order that behind this, and by leading men
to sacrice everything to this, he may exercise over man
and advance the other inuence by which he may not only
completely withdraw these from being accessible to the
testimony of God, but thereon establish his own direct
and complete authority. His object then is to occupy men
entirely with the commercial part, that they may not mind
the other which he is introducing behind it.
To this end the statements of the author directly minister.
He declares the religious evil, which really is leading to
apostasy and giving up of God, to be comparatively
immaterial-evil perhaps, but nothing comparatively-the
grand aair is commerce. Satan has raised a blind, to carry
on his plans behind it. And the author says, Look at the
blind, look at the blind, that is what Satan is raising, that is
his grand object, and thus lead’s men’s thoughts away from
what is. He is raising the blind, but as a blind. And the way
the author has turned attention to it, and from the other,
has only served his purpose. What is the fact? What has the
commercial prosperity of these countries been identied
with, and helped on? Religious apostasy. Because of that
men have acquiesced in the renunciation of all principle.
e nation has given up its public outward testimony
and protest against Satan’s power and lie against Christ’s
mediatorial glory, and, in helping that on elsewhere, has
done much more than that-has relinquished, as a nation,
the public profession of the truth itself.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
326
Upon this point I believe the author’s system to be as
bad, as false, and as mischievous as it possibly can be-a
positive help to evil. Let us now examine its exactness.
We nd the usual mass of contradiction. In page 241,
I nd that these principles “ have marked a character
so distinctive upon the present period “ that irreligious
men recognize it. In page 251, “ e leavening process is
proceeding so secretly, that even they who are expecting
something to arise, are expecting anything except the
right.” What they are expecting the author mentions “ to
show how utterly unconscious men are of the real nature of
the system which is silently being prepared.”
I do not in the least admit the alleged order of chapters
13 and 17; nor that one ends where the other begins. One
is more generally descriptive, and professes so to be, and
the other more historical, giving the beast his own place
during the last three years and a half. But there is no sign
(as the author has given no proof) of chapter 17 historically
giving what precedes chapter 13. His own system is the
only proof, as of so many other things. All through the
book it is the proof, instead of being proved.
Babylon having just been destroyed, one of the seven
angels calls the prophet to give him a description of it,
and thereon necessarily describes the beast on which she
rode. It is only so far historical as history is necessary to
its description. is may take in events preceding the last
three years and a half in the general description, but does
not the least exclude these, but the contrary. e beast
ascends out of the bottomless pit, is the direct instrument
of evil and Satan’s power, and it is then he is wondered at.
In a word, the chapter clearly enters into what he is, and
the conduct of the horns, right on to the close, even to the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
327
war with the Lamb: only it is given as descriptive of what
he is, and not as history.
If the seven heads and ten horns are emblems of
concentrated authority over the whole Roman earth,
the latter receive power one hour with the beast. So that
it is clear, the whole period of the beast till the end is
descriptively given. And it would indeed be strange, that
the angel should declare the mystery of the beast that
carried the woman, and leave out all the most important
part of its history and conduct. But he does not, but goes
on to its war with the Lamb, as well as its destruction of
the woman. So that the division of the author, his whole
view and system of the chapter, is fundamentally wrong.
Further, it is never said that he holds his authority
from and with another. e Holy Ghost could not say so,
because, previous at any rate to the last three years and a
half, power is from God. She had got on the beast, and sat
there; but it is never said he holds his authority of her, nor
anything like it.
Next, it is not said that the woman rides Antichrist.
120
at Antichrist wields the power of the beast, in its last
form, I believe, as verse 11: that he may be secularly growing
up to this power previously, is probable. But the beast is not
Antichrist. e beast is undoubtedly the Roman empire,
according to the uniform use of the word, in the prophetic
scriptures. When Antichrist is distinctively mentioned, he
is a little horn, whose doings characterize and absorb all the
power of the beast. ere is not one word of what is stated
in page 236 in the Scriptures. What is stated of Antichrist
distinctively is quite dierent. He grew up as a little horn
120 e only question here is if Antichrist be the little horn, if it
be not rather the last civil chief of the beast.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
328
behind or after the others. ree of the horns were plucked
up by the roots before him. is at least is the power by
reason of whose blasphemies the beast is destroyed. e
statement of Scripture, that is, is wholly dierent from the
statement of the author. It is practically another revelation
which is put before us.
Further, “ the system whereby the truth of God has been
discredited “ have had nothing at all to do with Babylon in
the author’s system. Commerce is his Babylon; and what
has that to do with the systems against which the saints
have previously struggled? what had commerce to do with
being sanctied by the name of Christ, or with being thrust
into the place of truth? Or how is Romanism leading to
commercial greatness? It is the contrary, because the desire
of peace for commercial greatness leads to acquiesce in
anything, with the principles of Satan himself, so as to let
him go on unhindered to have quiet with all.
Further, it is assumed that the ten horns include the
Eastern and Western Roman empires. is is nowhere
proved, however. e kings of the North and South in
Dan. 11 present a decided obstacle to this interpretation,
because they attack Antichrist, instead of giving him their
power, and they include the greatest part of the Eastern
Roman empire.
When we read that such a system “ must be constructed
on principles wide as the heart of man, and therefore that
all, whatever their creed, etc., are in danger,” etc., this is
reasoning on what it must be, instead of learning what
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
329
it is. It is a fact, that the woman sits by
121
many waters.
Her association, her connection is with them, of course to
seduce them if she can. She has to do with peoples. But,
while the fact is stated, the how is not to be reasoned out,
but learned from the word. Now I learn from this chapter,
that she is the source and mother of idolatry, and the
earth’s idols. For no one can doubt that this is the meaning
of abominations. is was her real, and to the eye of faith,
h-r plain character. It was written on her forehead, though
it was a mystery. at commerce ministers to pride and
religious indierence, I do not doubt, and, enlarging its
desire, runs after that which God has not given at home,
and is thus called fornication, is true. And that this will be
found prevalent I doubt not, as in Tire of old. Still, what
God has written upon the forehead of this mysterious
woman is idolatries. at is her character. Nor indeed is
there any great mystery in men loving riches, and seeking
them by commerce. at may assume unusual inuence
now, but it is no mystery. It has existed at Tire, Carthage,
Venice, Genoa, Holland, and elsewhere, as a supreme
system. Further, it is hard to say how commerce was found
to be drunken with the blood of the saints, and of the
witnesses of Jesus. at commerce may help to bring in
the system that will be so, perhaps more than ever, I do not
doubt. But it is not the commercial system that has itself
got drunk with blood.
121 I suppose that the use of “ by “ for “ upon,” which I borrow
from the remark of another, will be admitted to be just. I attach,
however, no importance to it, as to my present subject. It is not
the same structure as upon the beast. It is locality at, or by, or
near, not an anything, save as we might say London is on the
ames.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
330
I believe the complete development of this system is
future; but I could not say altogether future, because she
is rightful inheritress of those who have shed all the blood
of saints on the earth. Jerusalem, in like manner, was guilty
in a new and unusual way, but it was but the lling up the
measure of their fathers.
If the mountains be taken as symbols of seats of
authority, there is not a word to show that they are systems,
that is, that systems have this power. Moreover, this is the
period, according to the author, when the dragon, not the
beast, has power. It is at the close of this period that the
dragon gives him his throne. e beast therefore ought not
to have the heads at all. e complete possession ought not
to be in him on any ground. It is most inconsistent to put
it in him and the woman together i but at any rate it ought
not to be in him, but the dragon. e crowns were on the
dragon’s head. Nor do I see how the Roman emperors did
not possess supreme authority in all its extent. ey were
generals, tribunes, and pontis, and consuls even. Army,
people, priesthood, and state authority were vested in them.
Besides, the whole statement is lame. We have only six
systems given us, stretching to the utmost, and one of them
is the woman herself. e commercial system is to rule, “
the supremacy of commercial wealth “ (page 242.) But this
commercial system is one of the seven heads or mountains
which the commercial system is to rule. But the truth
is, the statement makes confusion of the whole symbol.
e commercial system governs the beast (Antichrist,
according to the author), and this becomes the executive of
its power. is I can understand: but then he cannot wield
it as one of his own heads; he cannot serve and govern it at
the same time. Commerce controls him, and how then has
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
331
he the control of commerce as an inuence? And where is
it proved that religion will be subservient to commerce?
As to the application of Zech. 5:5, there is not the
semblance of the passage being applied to it, or applicable.
e prophet is prophesying about Jews and Jerusalem,
and the temple, and Zerubbabel, and the candlestick, and
the two olive trees. And he turns and sees the contrast of
all this in the judgment of the wicked. What this has to
do with England’s commerce, it would be hard to tell. At
least some proof should be given when the subject of the
prophecy is entirely dierent. I have no doubt it applies to
the immorality of the Jews, and the hypocritical outward
form. e former is judged; the latter is put in its own real
place, Babylon, or at least the land of Shinar. I apprehend “
this is their resemblance “ should be “ this is their iniquity.”
But at least its application to a matter wholly foreign to the
prophecy ought to be shown.
As to the restoration of the unity of the Roman empire,
in general it is admitted; at any rate what is Roman
exclusively, and was not Grecian. Because the fact of the
destruction of all the parts of the image by the blow on the
feet supposes rather the existence, in their own national
character, of certain countries which yet formed part of
the Roman empire taken in its whole extent. How far they
may support the king, at any rate for awhile, I do not say;
but they seem to exist as distinct powers. But how, if the
unity of the Roman empire has been so shattered that it
is wonderful it should be restored, can it be said that the
progress of human greatness in these empires has been
unhindered
122
from the days of Nimrod?
122 See page 157.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
332
Nor do I the least see the control of the religious by the
civil power, in the Roman earth: out of it I do most decidedly,
but just the contrary within it. Popery is re-assuming its
control of the civil power, though in a gentler, more subtle
way as yet; while Protestantism is more completely subject
to it than ever, viewed as national churches. What is the
fact?
In England, Protestantism completely subjected,
and Popery rising into inuence and power; in Sardinia,
a monastery having received the daughter of a foreign
ambassador, the king avowed his inability to deliver her,
because of the independence of the church, and Holland
accepted the excuse; in Prussia, the Protestants modeled
by the king as his army; in Scotland the same thing as
to national Protestants; Protestant bishopricks struck o
in Ireland; the Pope’s nuncio having precedence of all
ambassadors in the courts of Europe; Spain, which had
thrown o the control of the Pope, subjected to it again,
and no other religion allowed in the country: in a word, the
entire prostration of Protestantism under the civil authority,
and the entire independence and growing inuence of
Popery-these are the evident facts of the day. Where the
Greek Church exists in Russia, the same subjection exists,
but the emperor will have nothing else.
And I repeat, in answer to page 242, that, as the facts
are historically mis-stated, so Scripture does not note these
things as characterizing Babylon in the time of the end. To
faith, the mystery of Babylon (great and blinding as the evil
inuence of commerce may be, which I fully believe)-to
faith, I say, the character of Babylon is, the mother of harlots
and abominations of the earth; and no student of Scripture
is ignorant what abominations mean. e statement of the
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
333
writer is wholly contrary to the positive express statement
of Scripture. No one denies the commercial system exists,
nor its widespread inuence; but it is not that by which
God characterizes Babylon, though it may be that by which
the devil blinds man to her character; a blindness which I
believe the author’s statements help on in this respect.
Next, his historical statements are all wrong. To say
that the inuence of Tire, Carthage, or Venice, was not
felt beyond their own immediate sphere is to deny all
history. Every one knows that Tire and Carthage, though
overthrown by military power, did exercise the widest
inuence over nations; though God subjected it to royal or
military power at that time, and did not allow commercial
power to get the upper hand. ough in the case of Carthage,
a real commercial empire, for a good while it balanced
Rome, and was within a very little of subduing it; but God
willed it otherwise. But on the other hand, any one the
least acquainted with history knows that the commercial
municipal liberty of the Italian republics, connected with
the breaking up of feudal power by the Crusades, Venice
being with Genoa ultimately the representative of this
commercial inuence, changed (however silently) the
whole state and condition of Europe, and was the root
of the modern system. e discovery of the high sea road
to India, and of America, and other circumstances, took
that inuence away from Venice, but merely developed the
whole system of which Venice with other cities had sown
the seeds.
Further, when the author says that the Chaldean empire
was not commercial, he is entirely wrong. Babylon was the
grand emporium of commerce. In the East it competed, or
more than competed, with Tire. is is the more important
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
334
to be remarked, because it is on this complete mistake that
the author has founded many of his arguments to show that
the Babylon of the Old Testament must be the Babylon to
come.
123
Indeed, the statement of the declension of monarchical
power is quite a wrong one. e monarchical power in
Europe grew up out of a system of nobility founded on war,
namely, the feudal system. e king never began to lean
upon his nobles, but to get rid of them and put them down;
and succeeded everywhere, unless partially in England,
and in Poland-perhaps I may add, partially in Hungary.
Elsewhere they became courtiers or nothing. e crown
absorbed all, save the power of Rome, which was itself
curtailed as royal authority made progress. e democratic
principle then grew up, and the French revolution, and
the subversion of the ancient imperial royal system by
Napoleon was the consequence, the ecclesiastical system
123 When the author says (p. 243), “ the maritime discovery of
Velasquez in the East,” I suppose he means Vasco de Gama, the
Portuguese admiral, who rst doubled the Cape of Good Hope,
and sailed to India. I am not aware of any other Velasquez than
a Spanish painter: but I am not well read on these subjects.
ere is another mistake more important in the tract on
Zech. 14, because it is one of a class of facts used to prove that
Western Europe is spreading its constitutional principles over
the whole Roman empire, England and France taking the lead.
ere are cited as witness, “ the recent measures of the English
and French governments as to Palestine,• and “ the operations
of the English and French forces against the Egyptian viceroy.”
e fact is, that there were operations of England and Austria,
with the concurrence of Russia, to destroy French inuence
in the Levant, which was becoming paramount through the
instrumentality of the Egyptian viceroy. I have been told that
the note is the editor’s, not Mr. N.’s: of this I do not pretend to
judge, as it passes under his name.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
335
falling with it. Since then, the constitutional system of
popular monarchies having grown up, the ecclesiastical
system recovered its inuence by being the needed stay
of the crown against the popular will, as may be seen in
Ireland, Spain, and France; the crown holding the balance,
and using the people or human will against the church,
and the church against popular will, and seeking to keep
all quiet by occupying the people’s minds with commercial
interests and prosperity.
Protestantism, save so far as it approaches Popery, is
incompetent to act on and lead the masses, and therefore
is comparatively useless to governments. It values truth too
much, and that is of no use to govern any with save those
who love it. Popery, therefore, is what governments cultivate.
And by encouraging commerce and lling people with
commercial prosperity, principle becomes immaterial, and
latitudinarianism leaves the eld to popish inuences and
popish activity. Christians must be a separate people. e
principle of dissent, which chimes in with the democratic
principle, does not with the government, and will only have
public power from a mixture of religious truth with human
will, which can never go very far in the long run.
Hence Popery is in every way in the ascendant
while the government can hold the ascendant. But its
success will ruin it, and I doubt not that the popular
unity which commercial enterprise will produce, and
by which national feeling is necessarily so far destroyed,
will help on what democracy will ultimately demand, and
indeed is demanding where ripened, and which political
circumstances will render necessary-the establishment of a
center of union, and this will be found in the little horn. e
consequence of this will be a subversion of all the peaceable
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
336
system, and military energies and conicts, which God
will terminate by judgment. All this future every one will
judge of according to the light given to him. As to the
present facts to which I have referred, nothing is wanting
but acquaintance with what is going on to recognize the
truth of what I have said. at commerce plays a great role
in this, I fully believe: men’s hearts being occupied with
it, that the actors on Satan’s part may have leisure to do
their work behind it, even more than by it. But whatever
appears to man’s eye and lls its horizon, to faith the name
on Babylon’s forehead is “ Mother of abominations “; on
the beast’s, “ Blasphemy.” Look at Ireland, and you will see
plainly what is doing.
As a fact, though I believe she is in the front for the
maturing of the principles which are acting in evil on the
world, France is quite behind all other nations in point of
the commercial system.
Germany, Belgium, nay, even Russia, have the start of
her. Instead of communicating it, she is with diculty
learning it. She is behind every power in railroads, with
the exception of Spain. It is Germany, not France, which
competes commercially with England. She cannot even
colonize conquered Algeria. So that if commerce be the
prevailing system, she is not the artery of it. But then
the balance of Popery and indelity or popular will is
the constant unceasing work of the State, and the whole
energy and sagacity of her humanly wise king is employed
to hold the balance, and to try and turn her attention to
commercial prosperity in order to quiet her. Anyone who
has paid the least attention to the University question there,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
337
and the recent aairs of the Jesuits there and elsewhere,
cannot hesitate on this.
124
In ne, the blinding of commercial wealth I fully own;
but it is blinding to something else which Satan is working
out, and which will be judged. Man’s lusts are in the one,
and so far Satan’s power; but Satan’s proper work is in the
other to alienate men from God, and raise them up against
Him. e delusive power of Satan is religious power, open
blasphemous rebellion his last eort. See 2ess. 2 also as
to this, and Rev. 13:12, seq.
e Reformation, while bringing in blessed and
fundamental and saving truth, by the marvelous providence
of God, succeeded with nations, because Popery had
enthralled them and, secure in its empire, had imposed a
burden which all groaned under, and which, moreover, was
accompanied by conduct which was below the standard
of the natural conscience, and the common comforts and
well-being of society. e well known sale of indulgences
gave the last insult to common conscience, and God, whose
time was come, sent forth His truth in power. But where
is this now? It is a national system to defend, not a truth
which acts on conscience. Popery has mended its manners
where it is seen; while Protestantism is manifested by
churchism or rationalism everywhere-dares not or cannot
act on its own truths. at grace may do this in detail, I do
not doubt; but I here speak of the public state of things.
e energy of truth produces dissent in Protestantism
now, not Protestantism in contrast with Romanism; and
124 What is it France has been furthering at Tahiti, in the Levant,
at Jerusalem, at Babylon, in New Zealand? In the East every
Catholic as such has by treaty the rights of a Frenchman. If any
one turns Catholic, he is treated as such. e French consul is
made bishop of Babylon.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
338
Protestantism is in vain seeking unity by seeking not to
push the truth too far, or to bury it altogether.
e system is to be (page 245) a ruling system. But it is
precisely a morally or rather immorally inuential system,
which is what the author says it is not. For what is the
meaning of the kings of the earth committing fornication
with her, and the inhabitants of the earth being made drunk
with the wine of her fornication, if it be not subservience
by immoral inuence? If ever anything described the
inuence of Popery, it is “ a system that has used kings,
and made them subservient to its will.” I do not mean
here that ancient Popery was the full accomplishment of
this prophecy, but merely to inquire into the nature of the
inuence spoken of. It is just the description of Popery.
And I do think a man must have a bold pen to say, in the
face of history, that it signally failed.
125
e inuence then
described is moral inuence, a cup given to drink.
But, further, it is not said that the horns were “ in willing
and complete subjection.” It is only said that the kings of
the earth committed fornication with her, and then at last
the ten horns hate her-the inhabitants of the earth are
made drunk. She rides the beast, not the ten horns; that is,
the body of the empire is her seat; and she is carried by it,
as a whole: but that is all. e inhabitants of the earth are
drunk with the wine of her fornication, and the cup was
lled with abominations, that is, idols. She was drunk with
the blood of the saints. What has the commercial system
to do with the blood of the saints? And if this be so, how
is it that a system which has the fullness of God’s own
truth in it (page 251) will be fostered and protected as well
125 For an example of this signal failure the reader may consult the
note on page 174 of the “ oughts.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
339
as any other? No doubt commerce by itself (though if it
reached it, it might spoil it) would let it alone, and despise
it. But it cannot be “ drunk with the blood of the saints,”
and to protect and foster the fullness of God’s own truth
in its proper sphere, no question of “ what is truth “ being
allowed to disturb the harmony.
I have already remarked on the quiet application of
Zech. 5:4, which we nd again here used as a self-evident
thing. And, further, we have now the literal city Babylon
identied with it as its center, the next chapter describing
the outward circumstances of this great city. Here the
system and the city are confounded. It supposes the whole
of the ancient Roman empire still divided into kingdoms,
under the absolute control, not only of the inuences of
commerce, which would not be very dicult to suppose,
but of a positive localized power situate in Babylon. Not
merely commerce still, for that would only be a morally
inuential system, but a local power connected with
commerce established at Babylon, to which the ten horns
are to be in complete subjection. It is a half popular, half
monarchic, commercial system, as denite and palpable
as Popery or Mohammedanism (pages 249, 251); but to
which monarchs and people are to be subject. But if it be
thus an independent governing power, half monarchic,
who’ is the monarch? Because it is not merely the inuence
of a system. ere is a localized headship of commercial
government at Babylon which controls the Roman world.
Who is the semi-monarch of it? Or is it a predominant
Exchange at Babylon on the Euphrates, which is the
mother of abominations, which is drunk with the blood of
the saints?
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
340
And Zech. 5, which shuts up their wickedness in an
ephah with a talent of lead on its mouth, and transports it
to the land of Shinar, is the rising up of this immense and
glorious system to the height of its supremacy, to govern
all the earth. “ eft land of Shinar, whence civilization
rst proceeded, is the place to which it will again return.”
Civilization then is the commercial system, as indeed
civilization and commerce go together. But then we are told
(page 242) that commerce was not found in the Chaldean
empire, nor the early native monarchy of Nimrod.
126
How
then did it proceed from Shinar? It is a little too strong,
nally, to accommodate the expression of “ the mystery of
iniquity “ to modern commerce. It may serve, however, to
recall our thoughts to the passage from which it is drawn,
where certainly it was not commerce as such, nor the
inuence of a commercial system (save as all worldliness
ministers to evil) that the apostle showed had begun in
the church. What he there speaks of, however, which it
is very important to remember, was the thing which was
to continue, grow up, and result in Antichrist when the
restraint was taken o. ere was a system then, which
had begun to work in the church, which was to result in
the apostasy and the manifestation of the man of sin, but
which certainly was not a system of commercial supremacy.
e scripture speaks everywhere of quite other things as
the leaven of evil.
It is not even true that the lid of the ephah was lifted
up for the servant of God, or that the ephah had any lid.
All this is the play of the author’s imagination. ere is
nothing of it in the chapter. e ephah and woman are
126 See another contradiction on the same point in page 254.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
341
shown; and a talent of lead, which had been lifted up, is
cast upon the mouth, and the whole carried o.
We have seen what an entire contradiction the beginning
of page 253 is to the end of page 241. And I can only add,
that while commerce will be found in Babylon, Babylon is
never the name given by God to a commercial system. e
statement is wholly unfounded. e imagination of the
author has raised up a system, which is found nowhere in
the word; and then he has chosen to say, God has named
it Babylon, which He has never done at all. If God has so
named it, I ask, where?
It is never said that Antichrist espouses it. e beast may
be governed by it, whatever it be, but that is not espousing
it. Nor is Antichrist spoken of. When the eighth beast is
brought in, it is as destroying it. e kings of the earth
commit fornication with it, but are not said to espouse it
as a system. Nor is his being ridden by her said to be a step
to power, nor very like it either. Nor is being ridden by
anything very like espousing it, so as to get on to supreme
power. Antichrist’s
127
power is set up in destroying it.
Here too we may remark that “ Roman “ is very
conveniently omitted after “ prophetic “ earth. e beast
is the Roman earth, the ten kingdoms the self-same ten
horned beast as before; but the prophetic is no longer the
Roman earth. e reader must remark here that the heads
of the beast are entirely dierent, according to the author,
from the seven kings. If they are the same, all his system
falls, because he makes the seven heads the systems actually
existing; whereas ve of the kings are fallen (the woman’s
sitting on seven mountains being no local allusion to a seat
127 Rather, the beast’s power.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
342
of authority, as elsewhere interpreted even by the author,
but these same systems).
e seven kings are merely to direct our attention to
the various forms of executive government of the prophetic
earth. First, Nimrod. en “ eocracy-the monarch was
independent of, and uncontrolled by those he governed,”
etc. But why the monarch? ey had rejected the theocracy
when they asked for a king. “ ey have not rejected thee
(says God to Samuel), they have rejected me, when I was
their king.” e judges and priesthood time was that of
the theocracy. ough surely it is a very strange thing to
introduce theocracy as an executive form of government
in the prophetic earth, when it is a history of Babylon and
the beast. But if you do, you cannot speak of the monarch
as being this, for the reason I have given above. Nor indeed
is the description here given of the Jewish royalty very like
Deut. 17 But if the monarch be admitted as theocratic
government, certainly the judges must; and you have
two forms here. Nebuchadnezzar, etc., follow. Nimrod,
theocracy, Nebuchadnezzar, Persia, Greece, Caesars, six;
constitutional monarchy,
128
seven, and Antichrist eight,
who is of the seven.
is subject, of course, leaves ample room for conjecture.
It has been generally supposed that the seven kings had
reference to the beast whose description is given in the
128 ese are the horns, however; though the whole is rather
vague. For what sort of king was between the Caesars and
constitutional monarchy, which has come, and is “ at this
present hour “? I suppose there was some sort of government.
Supposing I should claim a place for feudal government, which
certainly has held as conspicuous a place, and exercised as much
inuence in the prophetic earth, as others mentioned here?
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
343
chapter. But supposing with the author
129
that they do not,
why are these selected from those “ which have existed,
or shall exist, in the prophetic earth “? What principle
is followed here? During the time of Nimrod and the
theocracy there was no prophetic earth as it is generally
understood. at is, the term is generally applied to the
scope of Daniel’s prophecies-the image, for example:
otherwise we have no limits to prophetic earth. All parts
of the earth are mentioned in prophecy. But is “ existing
in the prophetic earth “ applicable to geographical limits,
when no prophecy had distinguished them at all, and when
the subject of scriptural statement was quite dierent? e
rst two never come into the accounts of the prophetic
earth. It was formed and begun by the setting aside of the
second. And if we take whatever has at any time existed
in these limits, then we shall clearly have much more than
seven, as the Roman republic, the judges, etc. Further, the
ten kings do not gladly own him as their lord numerically,
for three are rooted up.
How is the Babylonish yoke a hard yoke upon them?
In page 249 their subjection was as willing as complete,
and the kings of the earth mourn and bewail over her
destruction. But it is to be remembered that it is not
Babylon as a city they destroy (that remains the seat of
Antichrist in all its local glory and riches, for it is local
Babylon whose riches are described, chapter 18), it is the
system. at is, the ten kingdoms and Antichrist destroy
129 e beast is wholly set aside in every sense here, not only as
Antichrist, but as the Roman empire. I suppose theocracy was
never a king in connection with the Roman empire, to say
nothing of Nimrod, and Nebuchadnezzar, etc. e reader must
judge how far it is reasonable to separate these seven kings
from the beast whose description is given.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
344
commerce and commercial supremacy; and yet Babylon’s
resources, its palaces, its ships, and its merchandise, will be
the sinews of his strength (page 258).
Now mark what is done. ey shall hate her (the whore,
Babylon) and shall make her desolate and naked, and
shall eat her esh, and burn her with re. is means that
Antichrist will preserve the city and all its wealth, ships,
etc., as the sinews of his resources; only the ten kingdoms
will not submit to commercial supremacy any longer. Is
there really any sense in such an interpretation? Yet it is
the very heart and nucleus of the author’s system. is
woman thus dealt with is “ the sinews of his strength, and
the adornment of his glory.” It is by his and their treating
her, as in verse 16, that she becomes so. e woman (that
is, the city) is not the city when she is destroyed at all; she
is the system.
If Popery were put down as a system, her resources
would not continue, though the city where the chief is
seated would subsist still. So here, and much more being
wealth itself, if commerce be put down as a system, its esh
eaten, and it burnt with re, how then do the resources and
glory continue, and all its wealth and greatness?
When it is said that this is the system by which Antichrist
rises into glory, I beg the reader to remember, that however
worldly lusts may make men indierent to the growth of
evil, we know that it is another thing which was to grow up,
and, being at last unrestrained, to produce apostasy and the
wicked one. We know that what rose up as itself the source
and leaven of this was not commercial supremacy-far from
it. e author says, “ it is not an ecclesiastical system-on the
contrary, it is wholly secular.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
345
Now I do not believe its proper description is exactly
ecclesiastical, but rather idolatrous, though that be ever
identied with what is ecclesiastical. But what is the proof
that it is secular? It is the merchandise of chapter 18. But
this, according to the author, is the city, not the system.
(See note to page 258.) ere is not one word which states
merchandise to have anything to do with Babylon in the
chapter which speaks of the system, but, on the contrary,
decidedly other things; nor anywhere in connection with
her, but in the chapter in which it is said she is described
as existing as a city after the system is wholly destroyed.
It is not merely that she keeps these things. ey are
never said of her in any other way or at any other time
than when she is merely a city: they characterize her, when
as a system she is desolate and burnt with re. ey are
never mentioned when she has dominion. And again, is it
with her, Babylon, the city, that the mourning kings have
committed fornication? If so, how is it with the system,
for that had been destroyed long before? And it is evident
that chapter 18: 9 is the same as chapter 17: 2, be it city
or system:
130
as it is also certain that chapter 18 is a very
strange description of a person, or state of things, or city,
which has been treated as chapter 17: 16 describes.
When the author says (page 259), “ fornication,
deliciousness, etc., as much attach to it under the lordship
of Antichrist,” he only exposes the absurdity of the whole
system. It is with her the kings of the earth have committed
fornication. Do they continue to do so with herself after
they have made her desolate, and burnt her with re? e
kings of the earth have done this. It is not the wickedness
130 at is, that the attempt to distinguish the chapters into
system and city is a pure ction of the author’s.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
346
which was committed in the city, but with it. It is in vain
to slip out of this by saying “ attach to it.” But the ten
horns have burnt with re her with whom the kings of
the earth did so. In page 26o the author seeks to divert the
attention from Popery (though it be to be resisted) to this
commercial system as the grand thing. is is the grand
evil of all his theory. It directly diverts the attention from
that by which Satan is morally working. I recognize the
progress of commerce, its inuence, its latitudinarianism,
the leading part it is taking in the world’s history. But in
Satan’s history it is otherwise, save as an instrument. His
weapons are more deadly, more his own (though he may
use men’s lusts to make them careless about them); but this
statement is just ministering to his end. Indeed, from what
I have said on chapter 13 as to Antichrist, it is plain all
this prosperity and gladness do not exist in his time. It is a
mere drama of the author, while the true Satanic character
of evil is again overlooked in the second two-horned beast.
As to the application of Zech. 1 have already spoken
of it. at the stork of strong and rapid ight means the
progress of commercial principles from west to east, those
must believe who think it proved when they have read the
chapter. Nothing here is adduced to prove it. Again, we
have it stated to be secretly preparing, though this is hard
to understand when (as we have seen) it marks distinctively
the present period.
Finally, the description given in chapter 17 of the
woman (when, according to the author, she is supreme
in commercial supremacy) has not one word about
commerce, but she is stamped by God with decidedly
another character. When as a commercial system she has
been made desolate and burnt with re, then, and then
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
347
only, being a city under Antichrist, she is spoken of as full
of merchandise, namely, in chapter 18, when, according to
the author, the commercial system has been subverted. So
that it is the description of the city when the commercial
system has been subverted which alone proves, or can be
adduced to prove, that she is a commercial system.
CHAPTER 18
Before I make any general observations, I go on to this
chapter. e goodly mantle of Shinar is passed over as easily
as possible with “ I do not esteem,” and put aside because it
is a positive and plain proof that commerce did distinguish
that country, so as to give a name to the most renowned
articles from the earliest period. It is essential to the author
to get rid of this, or some of his main arguments fail.
Nothing is more remarkable than the way the author,
having given an opinion, afterward cites it as a proved
general rule. us we are told “ it would be strange if
Babylon were to be excepted from the general rule as to
the renovation of the East.” What general rule? Where is
it proved? e author has said so: that is all. It is his system.
His very facts are all wrong. Egypt is not rising by
the aid of Western Europe. She was disposed to rise, and
France would have helped her; but England put her down.
e Lord has said she shall never rise, but be the basest
of kingdoms. at these Eastern nations will be upon the
scene again, we all believe; but that is all Scripture says. “
e like “ of what “ may be said of Edom, Tire, Damascus,
and the other cities of Syria “?
at commerce will do what it can there, I believe. It
has attempted it already, and God confounded them by a
whirlwind. But I do not dwell on these probabilities.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
348
It is not said that the king of Babylon “ sat,” but that he
said he would, and ascend above the clouds too, which I
suppose he will hardly do. In that passage he pretends to all
Christ really is. But the question is, rst, whether Babylon
is literally his seat; and next, supposing it is, if the system
connected with it be true, and if the Babylon of Revelation
be it.
First, as to the use of Isa. 14 e statements of the
author subvert themselves. In page 165 note, I read, “ But
when Babylon’s system ceases, and Antichrist arises as the
leopard, he at once gilds the scene, and, without destroying
the utilities, restores the fascinations of human life.”
Here we have this same person making the world a
wilderness, and destroying the cities thereof.
at prophecies, based on events of immediate comfort
and consolation to the people of God in their trial at the
time the prophecy rst alludes to, reach out to nal objects
of God’s counsels far beyond the limits of the occasion
which gives rise to them, I fully recognize-what Lord
Bacon called a germinant prophecy. But to suppose that
therefore there was a direct literal application of its terms
to the ultimate object is a complete error. It is into this error
the author has fallen, as we shall see in many examples in
examining this subject.
at the king of Babylon is characterized in terms which
nd their full accomplishment in pride only in Antichrist,
I believe. But can we apply the account here given to
Antichrist.? Clearly not; as the reader will at once see. e
king of Babylon, of whom Isa. 14 disposes, is treated in a
wholly opposite manner to Antichrist. And therefore to
apply it to him as to a literal king of Babylon is wholly
untenable. Antichrist, or the beast whom the author treats
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
349
as such (and this I do not dispute here), is cast alive with the
false prophet into the lake of re which burneth with re
and brimstone, where Satan is cast afterward. Whereas in
Isa. 14 the souls of the monarchs in hades are represented
as meeting the king of Babylon, and taunting him with
the humbling fact that he was become as one of them. As
to his body, it was cast out of its grave like an abominable
branch, not found in burial with the glory of kings. In a
word, though shamefully, the king of Babylon in Isaiah
died like another man. at is, he is not the Antichrist king
of Babylon whom the author makes him. e application
of the passage to a future Babylon and its king literally, is
contradicted by the passage itself.
But more than this, the principle of interpretation as
to literalism, on which the author goes, is quite wrong too.
And this it is very important to remark. I am not denying
that these prophecies reach out beyond the temporary
circumstances which gave rise to them; I do not doubt
they do. But the author’s use of them is entirely wrong,
and by its abuse makes this interpretation a hindrance to
the discovery of the truth, and tends to discredit the use of
them for that discovery.
I do not doubt, for example, that these prophecies will
be fullled as to Israel. But if I can show that the forced
literal interpretation of the rest is clearly wrong, I discredit
the plain literal accomplishment of that which is simple,
and all is thrown into doubt. If I must take the king of
Babylon literally at the end of time, as here described, in
order to take the rst verses of the chapter so, all becomes
impossible. I must spiritualize these verses, or suppose
them fullled; because the statements as to this king are
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
350
contradicted positively by what is revealed of the beast’s
end.
e truth is, in the midst of the immediate subject of a
prophet, the Spirit of God launches out to the further and
better blessings which God has in His mind; and this we
have to distinguish, without saying that all the prophecy,
which does not go beyond the present time perhaps in
many particulars, applies to the end. It will be said, How
can I distinguish? Just as I understand all Scripture, by the
teaching of the Spirit of God (“ the spiritual man discerneth
all things “), and the use of other scriptures.
“ I saw Satan like lightning fall from heaven.” Here
the Lord anticipates the whole result of the power of His
name, because a few demons were cast out. Some single
circumstance gives the key to, and earnest of, God’s dealings
in power. But that does not make all the details of what
awakens the prophetic strain have a literal accomplishment
in the nal hour of that power.
Now, the “ him and his children “ with whose judgment
the sweeping of Babylon with the besom of destruction is
connected, is the king whose end is quite contrary to the
end of Antichrist or the beast.
Further, if Babylon receives “ its nal visitation at the
coming of the day of the Lord,” it is quite clear that the
day of the Lord is used in a sense which does not mean the
coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in judgment, but some
inferior visitation, inferior as to the instrument. Because,
on the author’s own showing (and I agree with him here)
the destruction of Babylon takes place under the vials of
God’s wrath, before the Lamb, King of kings and Lord of
lords, comes forth in judgment, nay, before He has received
His commission to act (see page 215). So that it is some
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
351
inferior instrumental visitation which destroys it, and
which visitation of terror and judgment is called the day
of the Lord.
is order of events is clear, for in Revelation z9 we
have the celebration of Babylon’s judgment, and then the
marriage of the Lamb, and then the Lord comes forth on
the white horse, judging and making war.
As to the sun being darkened, and the moon, the author,
as we have seen in the previous examination of the book,
makes them one single event introducing the Lord. Here
they are accompanying signs of the day. In Joel the sun is
darkened, and the moon turned to blood, before the day
comes; and I suppose, if the sea in the appointed sphere
becomes literally as the blood of a dead man, the moon
is literally turned into blood too. But then that is before
the great and terrible day of the Lord in Joel. I quite agree
that the judgment of the day of the Lord has not yet come
on the world. ough any signal judgment on a locality is
called, anticipatively, the day of the Lord on that place in
Scripture.
But it remains equally true that, if the nal visitation
of Babylon be the day of the Lord, the day of the Lord
must be before the coming of the Lord; and if Isa. 2 be this
same time, what very serious considerations will arise as to
the other events, and the presence of the church on earth
during the day or judgment of the Lord! But my conviction
is, that the author has misconceived the whole matter, both
as to the signs and the day. His system of making the nal
day of the Lord precede the Lord’s coming (for that is the
eect of his statement) is clearly unsound.
But let us examine a little Isa. 13 Now I say it is
impossible for an intelligent person to read that chapter and
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
352
not see that the coming up of the nations against Babylon
is the day of the Lord. “ ey come from a far country, from
the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his
indignation, to destroy the whole land. Howl ye, for the
day of the Lord is at hand;
131
it shall come as a destruction
from the Almighty. erefore,” etc. “ Behold the day of the
Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and erce anger, to lay
the land desolate, and he shall destroy the sinners thereof
out of it.” And after describing the signs in the heavens,
etc., in the day of the Lord’s erce anger, “ And it shall be
as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up.
ey shall every man turn to his own people, and ee every
one into his own land. Every one that is found shall be
thrust through,” etc. “”eir children also shall be dashed
to pieces.” “ Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them.”
“ eir bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and
they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their
eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of
kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be
as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.”
It is quite clear that “ the Lord of hosts mustereth the
host of the battle.” And that the coming up of these nations
was the day of the Lord, though I admit that expressions
may reach out in general terms (as verse II) to further facts,
as of the king of Babylon. But when Babylon is mentioned
here, as quoted by the author, it is spoken of as taken by
the Medes.
131 Compare here Jeremiah 5o: 4o-43, where the eects are
ascribed to the nation from the North which are ascribed to
the day of the Lord. And note, further, the king of Babylon is
there when the city is visited, which is not pretended to be true
of Antichrist.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
353
And note here, it is Babylon, not Antichrist, nor the
beast. e day of the Lord is on Babylon, in whatever sense,
not on the beast nor Antichrist. While further, in chapter
14 they are identied, verse 4, which they are not in the
author’s system, Antichrist falling at Jehoshaphat, far away
from Babylon.
We will now turn to Jeremiah. If we examine Jeremiah
5o and 51 we shall see the very same thing as in Isaiah. e
desolation so that none dwell there is directly attributed to
the northern nation, verse 3, the full consequences of her fall
by them being in view. is is the Lord’s vengeance, verse
I5- they ee to their own land, verse 16-Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon had broken Israel’s bones, verse 17.
And here, in the view of restoration, the Lord reaches
out beyond the present mercy. It is just worthy of God,
because He consulted His own thoughts in this, verse
20. Battle is in the land (it is the vengeance of the Lord’s
temple), the weapons of His indignation, as in Isa. 13:5.
And her day is now come, the time that Jehovah visits
her. A sword is upon the Chaldeans. erefore it shall no
more be inhabited forever, neither shall it be dwelt in from
generation to generation, as God overthrew Sodom and
Gomorrah, etc.
Behold, a people shall come from the north, and the
king of Babylon waxes feeble, anguish took hold of
him, and pangs as of a woman in travail. See Jer. 51:31,
messengers tell the king of Babylon that his city is taken
at one end. Now, how does the author represent the king
of Babylon, Antichrist, at this time? “ I should regard the
gathering at Armageddon as the result of the threatened
confederacy (alluding to Jer. 51:27, 28, etc., see page 234)
against Babylon.”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
354
“ It,” the gathering, “ will doubtless be the fairest scene of
collected glory that the earth had ever witnessed.” “ What
monarch so glorious as that monarch of monarchs? “ etc.
(page 208). “ We can see the hosts of the West and of all
the prophetic earth, summoned around their mighty and
indignant leader, and resting for a short moment, in all the
proud consciousness of hitherto undisputed greatness, at
Armageddon.” Is this the poor king of Babylon, trembling
in his city (see Dan. 5), whose mighty men have forborne
to ght? Read only from chapter 51: 27, the verse quoted
by the author as the gathering of the latter day against
Babylon, and then on to verse 31, and then chapter 50: 41-
43, and then again chapter 51: 33-37, where we meet with
the unfortunate word Nebuchadnezzar again, and compare
it with the passages referred to in the “ oughts “; and the
reader will soon see that the statements of the author, and
his application of the passages to the latter day, are a pure
ction of his imagination.
Babylon did fall suddenly in the night of Belshazzar’s
feast. Compare Jer. 51:39-41.
e author’s Babylon had long ago been actually taken
by the beast, and her system and esh burned and consumed
with re. Nor had she been guilty of anything against the
temple. e same king that had overthrown her system had
deled the temple; but she had done nothing against it.
It is not true that Babylon prospered under the change.
She attempted revolt, and was dismantled, and gradually
decayed till she became a park for wild beasts. At the time
of the fall of Babylon the whole imperial order of the world
was subverted, and transferred to other hands, and Babylon
ceased to be the capital of the earth. e truth is, the “
suddenly “ does not refer to the destruction, but to the fall.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
355
e author says “ anything rather than suddenly destroyed.”
But it is suddenly fallen and destroyed. And if the passage be
examined, it will be found that the suddenness is attributed
solely to the fall. Literally: “ Suddenly has fallen Babylon,
and she shall be destroyed,” or, prophetically, she has been
destroyed.
132
And so the exactest translations translate
it: and so does the Septuagint. Alexander attempted to
restore it, and make it the seat of empire, and perished in
the attempt.
As to Hillah, I do not doubt that it is on the site of
Babylon: and how do they know this? From the ruins and
desolation of the place, where lions and serpents dwell.
Babylon was forty-eight miles round: a small Arab place is
at one corner of its site. Does that make Babylon rebuilt or
inhabited? Is it not a proof of the contrary, and of its ruin?
Were I to make a bungalow in the yet remaining palaces of
Delhi, what would that prove of the great Mogul? Would
a Coptic village at ebes say that the city of the hundred
gates was destroyed or not?
e insisting on the word “ at “ Hillah is futile, being
evidently meant to designate generally the locality. Anyone
who has examined the plans of Babylon which modern
researches aord may easily judge of the matter. What was
no doubt the ancient palace is two or three miles north of
Hillah, up the river. Birs Nimrod is six miles west from the
river, on the east of which Hillah is situated. Hillah is not
situated between them at all, though within the limits of
ancient Babylon. e surface is generally on the west side
arid or marshy, and wild beasts render the visits to the ruins
dangerous.
132 It is from the Hebrew of Jer. 51:8. See also Isa. 21:9.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
356
On the whole, I conclude that the system attempted to
be drawn from Isa. 13 and Jeremiah 5o and 51 is entirely
refuted by the examination of the chapters themselves.
at there will be a visitation of the world, which is alluded
to in Isaiah ][3, and which is not yet accomplished, I do not
doubt. e writer’s use of the expression “ day of the Lord
“ is most surely quite wrong, and that even on his own
showing, because Babylon is destroyed in the vials, which
are the wrath of God, before the Lord rises up from the
Father’s throne to execute judgment.
Next, as to the Revelation; in chapter 11
133
the great
city is held to be Jerusalem: here it is taken for granted to
be Babylon. Does not this lead us to call in question the
precision of the application of these terms?
Next, in the statements of Isaiah and Jeremiah there
is nothing at all about the city being divided into three
parts, nor anything that would leave room for it according
to the sudden destruction alleged. Moreover, after saying
the great city was divided into three parts, it is added, “
and great Babylon came in remembrance, to give her the
cup of the wine of the erceness of his wrath.” So that
there is something peculiar evidently about the great city,
which made it necessary to mention it and great Babylon
separately; and when one is divided into three parts, the
other comes into remembrance. Yet this passage is quoted
to show that the great Babylon is a city. Is it not rather
a proof that there is some mystical idea attached to the
great city which made it necessary to distinguish it from
great Babylon? It would have been more to the point to
have quoted “ And the woman which thou sawest is that
133 I have some doubt about the translation; but I take it as it is
given in the translation, and adopted by the author.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
357
great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” But
this would not have answered, because then (chap. 17) the
woman was the commercial system, which Antichrist had
espoused, and which ruled the ten kingdoms; and her being
the city spoils the literality of the matter as a city, though
as a seat of a system we may conceive the system to go by
the name of a city; but that is not the case here, because the
system has entirely changed.
Further, what is the great suddenness of destruction on
this system? First, Euphrates is dried up; so all her supplies
and commerce are stopped before this. Indeed she had
already been taken possession of by Antichrist, and her
system and rule totally destroyed-just what Cyrus did to
Babylon. Next, she is taken by the kings of the east
134
(by
the way, the nations in Jeremiah all come from the north).
en she is divided into three parts, I suppose by the
earthquake; and then she comes in remembrance before
God, to give her the cup of His wrath. What is the peculiar
suddenness here, such as the author presents it? and does
not the passage lead one away rather from a real city? e
great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the
nations fell, and great Babylon came into remembrance.
She had been Babylon the great, made desolate, naked,
her esh eaten, and she burnt with re, by the ten horns,
already at this time. She (that is, with whom the kings of
the earth had committed fornication, chapter 17: 2), and
she that is destroyed at the end, chapter 18: 9, is she with
whom the kings of the earth had done so.
Further, as to Babylon of old-of course Babylon of old
is not the Babylon of the Revelation. at is clear enough.
134 ese kings are not allowed time to establish themselves in the
enjoyment of their conquest.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
358
Nobody thinks Rev. 18 suits the city of Nebuchadnezzar.
I hardly know what was passing in the mind of the author
when he reasons thus, save that he has got it so occupied
with a literal city. As far as it goes it would prove that Isaiah
and Jeremiah do not speak of the Babylon of Revelation,
for Jeremiah speaks by name of Nebuchadnezzar, and both
of his city.
But he has trodden on unhappy ground here too, in
contrasting Nebuchadnezzar’s city with “ a city of merchants
“; because the only time this expression is used, it is used
of Nebuchadnezzar’s city in Nebuchadnezzar’s time. e
Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar is specically designated as a
city of merchants, and his country as a land of trac. On
this there can be no mistake: the reader has only to read
through Ezek. 17, where the expression is found in verse 4,
he will soon see what Babylon is meant. is example just
shows us what all the theorizing of the author is worth,
and how far the system built upon such data can be trusted.
Scarcely one statement is made in this long account of
Babylon which is not subverted by scripture and by facts.
As regards the use of Babylon in the Revelation. It is
certain, like all the rest of that book, that it is taken from
the Old Testament prophecies, changing what was to
be changed, as the description of New Jerusalem from
Isaiah 6o. e Jerusalem of the Revelation could be much
more reasonably supposed to be the earthly Jerusalem of
Isaiah, than this the earthly Babylon of that prophet and
Jeremiah. ere is a literal Babylon, and a mystical one; a
literal Jerusalem, and a mystical one.
But to pursue the character of Babylon. It had this
double character, commerce and idolatry anciently. First, it
was “ a land of trac, a city of merchants “; “ the emporium,”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
359
as an able writer on these subjects calls it, “ of the world.”
But Scripture suces us; and the garment of Shinar at a
very early period, and the city of merchants in the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar, show us clearly for what the city was
famous, as it naturally from its situation would be,
135
as
Baghdad in a measure since. Next, it was full of idolatry.
Isa. 21:9; so Jer. 50:38. “ It is the land of graven images,
and they are mad upon their idols.” Hence in Isaiah the
controversy between Jehovah and these idols is settled in
judging Babylon, and begins, “ Bel boweth down, Nebo
stoopeth.” us Babylon had been a golden cup in the Lord’s
hand, that had made all the earth drunken: the nations had
drunken of her wine; therefore the nations were mad. Jer.
51:7; compare v. 15-18.) ese two points are taken up in
the way of analogy. Let any reecting Christian say which
is the real full departure from God, commerce or idolatry.
And as then the denial of the glory and unity of the divine
Being was the aim of Satan and idolatry, so now the denial
of the sole glorious and ecacious work of the Mediator
is his object — of that by which God brings men back to
Himself in grace.
Hence we have the means of judging of the nature of
the corruption of the mystic Babylon.
As to the merchandise, as he of leopard grace is to
introduce all that characterizes him in the eyes of the
author, I know not why in the city taste should not be
found as well as luxury. Now the description of chapter
18 is of the city. e note seeks to avoid this, by saying
they are not the characteristics of her condition: but under
the leopard government, when the commercial system had
135 So it is said, “ e Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships,” Isa. 43
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
360
been destroyed, they ought to be. But the real truth is, it is
all confusion.
In saying that this trade in souls is only carried on in
England, because livings are sold, and thus again screening
Popery, surely the writer must be wonderfully ignorant
of what is going on where Romanism exists. e sale of
livings is bad enough, no doubt, but it is not exactly trading
in souls. But what is money for masses?
136
As to the character of the assailants of Babylon, and
another unearthly host who give the nal blow after
Babylon is taken by the Eastern kings, the answer is simple.
e unearthly assailants come rst in the prophecy, not
last. at angelic power may secure success to human arms
is possible, as when David hears a sound of going over the
mulberry trees; and there seems something analogous in
Joel also. at there is accompanying divine power is true.
But it accompanies, and does not succeed. Here in Isa. 13
it is identied with a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of
nations gathered together. Anyone reading Isa. 13:2-5 will
see that it is impossible to make of it a temporal judgment
of nations attacking rst, and a direct judgment of God
afterward.
I have already remarked that making this latter the day
of the Lord is untenable; because, on the author’s system,
136 Quite lately a vast theological printing concern was set up in
France, which engaged to supply the priesthood with books
in this way. e country priests were to say masses for people.
ese would come or send to the printing establishment and
pay for the masses, the value of which would be sent in the
desired books to the priest, who paid nothing but the saying
of masses for them. e establishment sold thus the priests’
masses, and paid them in books, on which they made their
prot.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
361
the judgment of Babylon is God’s wrath
137
before Christ’s
coming forth in judgment, and the day of the Lord has
not this general sense with him; since, though it may set
in in heaven, it is one denite limited time, and moreover
marked by the Son being “ invested with His appointed
power “ (page io3). Now the judgment of Babylon is on
earth: so that the day of the Son’s judgment must have
arrived there. Yet it was God’s wrath before the exercise
of the Son’s judgment. So that the whole system subverts
itself.
Lastly, as to her being drunk with the blood of the
saints, rst, we must remember that the fullness of God’s
own truth “ will “ be not merely protected, but fostered “ in
its proper sphere by the system of Babylon. Now if, while
the commercial system rules at Babylon before Antichrist’s
actings for himself; a testimony is raised up at Jerusalem,
and she gets drunk with their blood, she must go out of her
way in bitter persecution, instead of even fostering truth in
its sphere. But where in Scripture is it said that there will
be this testimony, called in page 6 “ its closing testimony
against the last forms of human evil “? “ Forms “ is clearly
wrong, because we have seen it is a new testimony which is
thus raised up, namely, the witnesses; but where in Scripture
is there this bright testimony against the last form but one,
namely, un-subjugated Babylon? Holding fast the truth,
I nd clinging to the written word in perilous times, not
denying Christ’s name. But I do not nd in Scripture this
bright closing Christian testimony. ere is a call to come
out of Babylon, that we may not partake of her sins. e
author says, “ I doubt not,” but that is all the proof he gives
of it.
137 It is found in the vials.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
362
But then there is another diculty. Not only is this
general character attached to Babylon, not only was it one
main thing that characterized her: she was drunk with
their blood, so that the apostle was astonished at her (not
at commerce being carried from the west to the east, as
is curiously alleged, page 24o). It is added at the close of
chapter 18, at her nal destruction, “ in her was found the
blood of all saints.” So that this attached itself specially to
her on to the end. She was guilty of all the blood of saints.
Whoever might be her instrument, she really was the
guilty one. She inherited it; as Jerusalem had from Abel to
her day, so Babylon all that, and much more. Surely it was
not commerce. In Jerusalem’s case it was the ecclesiastical
power which was guilty, let kings or rulers have lent their
hand or not. And who has been guilty in all ages of the
blood of the saints, if it be not ecclesiastical power? Heaven
is to rejoice over her, and the holy apostles and prophets.
What had they to say to commerce? And even in the
closing scene, in the nal historical form of evil, and its
last energies, who is it causes all to be slain that will not
worship the beast? It is the second prophetic beast with
horns like a lamb.
Hence it will not do to say “ before her subjugation to
Antichrist,” for in her was all this blood found. It is not
merely something at which we cannot wonder that such
a thing should be, considering her nature, when provoked,
peaceable as it naturally was; it was characteristic of her at
all times, and yet the apostle was astounded to see it should
be so. Nay, so was it identied with her that all the slain
blood was found in her.
As to the use of Jeremiah 5: 63, 64: there is nothing that
I see very peculiar in the denunciation. Babylon was to sink,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
363
and not rise again. Nor did she ever, though many trials
were made. Military power rst, and God’s providential
interference afterward, ever hindered her rising; for the
judgment of God’s word was upon her. But this passage
rather supposes that, but for this stone attached to her,
she would or might have risen, and thus subsisted though
fallen. Suddenness is attributed to the ruin of Babylon in
Revelation, which the author’s system quite sets aside; for,
as we have seen, she is taken twice, and her whole system
destroyed the rst time, before she is nally judged of
God. Whereas in Jeremiah there is a regular account of her
attack and taking like any other city: and when fallen she
was never to rise again.
Taking a stone for a corner is all a mistake of the
passage. Save a few foundations, Babylon was not built of
stone; it is a mere gure. is is the passage: “ Behold, I
am against thee, 0 destroying mountain, saith the Lord,
which destroyest all the earth; and I will stretch out mine
hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and
will make thee a burnt mountain. And they shall not take
of thee a stone for a corner,” etc. is speaks guratively of
the destruction of her power as a mountain, not literally of
the materials of the city, which were not stone at all.
As to the Arabian not pitching his tent there, it is
evidently, if the passage be examined, his making a settled
encampment. It is added, “ neither shall the shepherd make
his fold there.”
And the remark I may make in passing is, that the
Babylon which is thus to be destroyed is the beauty of the
Chaldees’ excellency. e application of this to the Babylon
of that day is evident. But what have the Chaldees to do
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
364
with this commercial system of the ten kingdoms, which is
transported with stork’s wings from the west?
e author urges in the notes that Babylon cannot be an
ecclesiastical system, for it would then be called adulteress,
not harlot, because Israel and the church are spoken of as
married. Now, let it be remembered that abominations
(that is, idols) are what characterize the woman, not
commerce. But as to the point itself-it is in contrast with
the church. It is not the church properly speaking that is
called the harlot. But as to the objection itself, it is quite
impossible to say here that the church is represented as
married, because her marriage is recounted in chapter 19
as subsequent to the destruction of Babylon. Paul’s object
was to present her as a chaste virgin to Christ. And the
Lord will present it to Himself a glorious church, without
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. So that the church is
represented, as to its actual condition, as a bride, not as
married, though the gure of the love of husband and wife
is used as an image of the love of Christ to the church. Nor
am I aware of any passage where the church is married,
though such an anticipative expression as being His wife
I could suppose used by faith. Earthly Jerusalem is called
the married wife. e remark therefore of the author is not
only incorrect, but further, the real fact tends to conrm
the doctrine he seeks to subvert by its denial.
Drunk with the wine of her fornication is not, he says,
a religious yoke. But fornication is the habitual word for
idolatry in Scripture, as is well known; and we have found
it in ancient Babylon, which (the author says) had not
commerce. How did she then, as a cup in the Lord’s hand,
make the nations drunk? Not by war. Her idolatry was the
bane of ancient Babylon in the Lord’s eye, commercial as
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
365
she was. And the author must be astonishingly ignorant
of what superstition is, heavy yoke as it is, to speak of it
as he does, as if it did not lead more strongly than wealth
itself the will and passions of men, as slaves, but as willing
devoted slaves, their hearts drunken with it. Let the author
go into a country where Popery sways the population, and
see what the state of the mass as to it is. It is certain that
fornication is the habitual term in Scripture for idolatry, and
drunkenness is used for the ancient Babylonish inuence;
and equally certain that the author must be totally ignorant
of the operation or the eect of Popery, galling as the yoke
may be, to have penned such a note.
But the next note is important in another point of view.
“ is woman “ “ is to the city of man what the woman
clothed with the sun,” etc. “ is to the city of God.” Now
it may be remarked here, that the heavenly Jerusalem is
wholly excluded from relationship with Christianity; for
this is what the author makes of the woman clothed with
the sun. (See pages 139, 142.) e system of Babylon, or
commercial supremacy, is connected with its city Babylon,
and Christianity is connected with its city Jerusalem on
earth. ere is this dierence, “ when Babylon’s system is
separated from its city, it perishes “ (though I should think
there was commercial supremacy away from Babylon, if
the exchanges of our great cities govern (page 243), so
that even this is quite unfounded, according to the author
himself): “ when Jerusalem’s system is separated from its
city, as it even now is, it does not perish.” It is “ to be united
to its own city, and to be exalted in the earth.” Now here we
have Babylon’s system connected with Babylon on earth,
and Christianity as it now is connected with Jerusalem on
earth as its own city. at God may reckon the children
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
366
to Jerusalem by a gure during her desolation to comfort
her, may be. But where this is done, as I believe it is in
Gal. 4, the apostle carefully distinguishes Jerusalem above
as our mother. Now, what I ask here is, In what plainer
terms could Christianity be made earthly, and identied
with the earthly Jerusalem as its own city, to the exclusion
of the heavenly, than it is here? It may be desolate and
cast out now because it has not, but is separated from its
own city. But it shall be united to it-and as so united to it,
to Jerusalem on earth as its own city, it will be exalted in
the earth. Is not the consolation and glory of Christianity,
the hope of Christianity, identied with its union with
Jerusalem, as much as the glory of Babylon’s system is
identied with its connection with its own city Babylon?
at is, Jerusalem on earth is the own city of Christianity
as it is now, and the exaltation of Christianity is its union
to it as such.
I confess I have little hope that those who have quietly
accepted such a statement should get out of it when all its
nakedness is placed before them; because they never could
have received it, if their sense of the other thing-of the
heavenly Jerusalem, of the very nature, and position, and
calling of the church-had not been already dimmed, if not
destroyed. But I do trust that there are yet some hearts, fully
as they believe in the exaltation of God’s earthly system
at Jerusalem, that are not prepared to make the earthly
Jerusalem the city of the church of God-who know that
the system they belong to has better hopes, and a better
city, the city which hath foundations, whose builder and
maker is God-the heavenly Jerusalem. is has its relation
to earth, and the Revelation treats especially of this (see
page 5o). But it has its own relationship, and never becomes
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
367
the heavenly Jerusalem. Indeed, this note is a total denial of
the account the New Testament gives of the church’s place,
and its identication with another Jerusalem, which is not
earthly but heavenly.
It is no very great wonder that the author has only an
earthly commercial city Babylon for the great harlot, when
he has only an earthly city Jerusalem for the church itself.
e denial of a spiritual Babylon is no great wonder, when
there is an entire setting aside of the heavenly Jerusalem.
If we cannot discern the spiritual heavenly nature of the
church’s system, it is no wonder if we do not see the spiritual
evil which has corrupted the earth with its fornication. If
the church’s hopes and faith are to rest in Jerusalem, and
exaltation in the earth, it is no wonder that something gross
and palpable, like commerce and a commercial city, arrest
the eye as the evil to be feared and judged on the earth.
“ Having seven heads and ten horns.” I have in part
remarked on this. If it was really a question of transferring
the power from the heads to the horns, it would be singular
that the Spirit of God should show the horns uncrowned
when they had their authority from God, and crowned when
they have it from Satan. But if the heads are systems which
govern, how is the beast invested with the concentrated
authority? and how Satan? e heads do not govern if they
are merely systems used to govern by. e crowns are on the
systems, yet the dragon controls by them. But Antichrist
has these heads too. But on him neither heads nor horns
are crowned, and yet he is merely the executive power at
this time; so that they ought to be much more crowned
on him than on the dragon, who controls instead of being
controlled by them. It is evident that such an explanation
and use of the symbol is quite untenable.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
368
at the seven crowned heads of the dragon symbolize
the completeness of Satan’s authority in the Roman earth,
whatever the successive forms of it may have been, is very
simple. at the Roman empire in its proper Antichristian
form should be invested with this full authority, or at least
its identity recognized, while local royalty or authority
was divided among ten kingdoms, and the horns therefore
crowned, is easy too to understand. at the corrupt
system intended by Babylon should exercise a paramount
inuence, and thus, while corrupting the kings of the
earth, govern the beast, having complete authority really
herself, though having neither heads nor horns-this also
is not dicult of apprehension. e last forms of evil may
be historically given in chapter 13; the general outline
and description, together with the connection of the beast
and Babylon, in chapter 17; but the denite historical
relationships attempted to be given in the author’s system
are contradicted by the symbols themselves. e heads
crowned on the dragon, who uses them as mere systems,
and uncrowned at the same time on the beast, whom they
govern, and yet at the same time another system (which is
yet one of the heads) having the whole authority, cannot
hang together.
Besides, the woman (i.e., one of the systems) cannot
govern all, while seven heads are seven systems which
govern. Moreover, the supremacy of civil to ecclesiastical
authority (page 241) having characteristically marked the
present period, how can the government of the kingdoms
(the horns) by the ecclesiastical system, which is one of
the crowned heads, mark it characteristically too at the
same time? at is, the supremacy of the civil power over
the system characterizes the present period in page 241,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
369
and the supremacy of the system over the civil power
characterizes it in page 285, and in other places (as page
177). at the religious system is one of the governing
systems may be seen in page 229. It is a wonder, too, that if
the heads were crowned because the systems were reigning,
the woman, that system of systems which ruled all, should
not be; though indeed it seems a complete confusion to
make the woman one of the heads, and the woman too.
In the following note we again nd this eort to
screen Romanism from being the designated corrupter
of the earth, guilty of the blood of the saints. “ Some
peculiar system of evil, such as Romanism or the like.” All
the Christians in the country have betrayed their entire
ignorance of God’s mind in this matter. e author, that is,
alone possesses it. Universal consent is not worth a great
deal here, it appears.
138
I have already remarked on the gross inconsistency of
saying that this system will foster the fullness of God’s own
truth in its own proper sphere, and its being characterized
by being drunken with the blood of the saints. What has
always been shedding their blood, if it be not a priestly
system? What but Satan’s religious instruments, who to set
up his authority had by demons denied the unity of the
Godhead, or the unity of mediator-ship?
Besides, again we nd the proud ecclesiastical systems,
subdued by the proud secular power, while this, if secular
power means anything, is to be governed by the system.
I say means anything, because the war is not between
commerce and the religious system. It is not commerce
138 I only wish the author were resident a few months in some
thoroughly popish state. He would learn a little better to
estimate what the power and iniquity of the system is.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
370
that has been for ages struggling with popish inuence;
and therefore the “ proud secular system “ is merely a vague
expression to escape a whole mass of inconsistency. And I
repeat, When was commerce found drunk with the blood
of the saints? When was priestly power not, when it dared?
at indelity many oppose and persecute it too, I dare say:
but that is not Babylon. It is the germ of the blasphemous,
not of the Babylonish, name.
As to the next note, I must repeat the beast is not
Antichrist, though Antichrist become (by absorbing all its
power) practically the beast at the end. Besides, if in “ was
and is not and now is “ “ the present time were xed as
being at the period when John saw the vision,” how ever
can the beast mean Antichrist? Is it not a plain proof that
it cannot, that it must mean the Roman empire? I do not
believe that the words apply to John’s time, or indeed to any
other time, but are characteristic of the beast. Read verse
8-” e beast that thou sawest was, and is not, and shall
ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition.”
Now how is this Antichrist? How did he rst exist, and
then not, and then ascend out of the bottomless pit?
at the Roman empire, confessedly the subject of
these prophetic statements as the fourth beast of Daniel,
should be thus characterized if it be to be found again
connected with diabolic power, is very simple indeed. at
the author, having settled it to be Antichrist, leaves it to
time to unfold, I can well understand. But why this sudden
inux of uncertainty, save that the attempt to explain
this in the same way as all the rest, would have upset the
whole system from beginning to end? For here it must be
Antichrist executive or governing; but then the passage is
inexplicable on this system. It is left for time to unfold. But
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
371
at the close of the verse we have, I think, plain evidence of
the descriptive force of this expression. “ ey shall wonder,
seeing the beast, that he was, and is not, and yet shall be
present.” is is what occasions the wonder, and yet it does
not relate to the then time. ey see the beast. But how
that he “ is not,” save as characterizing him? “ Is not “ can
be applied neither to Antichrist in the time of John after
the word “ was,” nor to the Roman empire in any way. But
if these words characterize the beast to those who see it,
their sense is plain enough. As prophetically used, the
Greek for “ shall be present “ does not, I conceive, create
any diculty. e use of “ one is,” in verse xo, cannot be
brought as analogous, because it is explanation, and not
symbolic description.
It should be remembered that the ten kings receive
power one hour with the beast. at is, that while
recognized in their place as such, the beast is recognized
in his place as such. e beast therefore cannot be spoken
of as wielding all authority under the woman while the
horns are governed by his heads, which are the systems
whose power he wields executively, though ridden by one
of them. e kings I have already examined. It is in vain
that the writer speaks of “ assuming their full and proper
character.” He speaks of all the forms of government and
kingship that have existed in the prophetic earth. Besides,
the theocracy departed from its full and proper character
when the monarchy arose (not to say anything again of the
introduction of God’s own government of His own people
in such a chapter as a part of the thing described). As to the
ten horns, I suppose no one confounds them with the seven
kings. ese latter have been generally identied with the
heads, but never with the horns. But I take notice of this
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
372
note for the purpose of remarking that it is never said, that
it is when Antichrist is exalted into supreme authority, that
he and the horns destroy the woman. at is a statement
of the author’s not of the Revelation. It is stated that they
will do so, but it is not stated that they will do it then.
Maintaining this point is the hinge of the author’s system,
because it is the substitution of Antichrist’s for the woman’s
supreme authority. But it is a point assumed without any
statement of the kind being found in Scripture. rown out
as a thought to be discussed, I should have no objection;
but as a basis of a system, it ought to be proved.
at the event will take place is recognized on all hands.
at it is the time of the substitution of one system for
another at the moment of the dragon’s giving his throne to
the beast is as yet unproved.
139
As to “ Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen,” I have
already commented on what is assumed here, the identity
of the Babylon judged in Jeremiah with the Babylon of
Revelation- a statement, it seems to me, wholly unfounded,
and the foundations of which we have seen to be subverted
by the least examination of the statements made. I conne
myself here to Babylon of the Revelation.
I have supposed myself that there were two destructions
of Babylon in the Revelation. But the examination of the
139 I have not thought it needful to comment on the note on “ the
eighth.” I just add here that I think that those who examine
the passages will nd no such thing. at eight is connected
with seven, in the way of supposing the existence of seven
before it, it scarcely needs reading Leviticus to discover. But
any “ springing out of “ the previous seven is a rare case, if
it exist. How did circumcising the eighth day spring out of
uncircumcision seven days, unless by way of contrast? And so
of others.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
373
question (to which I was led by circumstances entirely
foreign to this discussion) has convinced me that it cannot
be sustained. When the great city as a mere exterior thing
is separated from the idea of great Babylon, as in chapter
16: 19, then indeed I can make such a distinction. But the
destruction of Babylon is her destruction. She is utterly
burned, chapter 17: 16, and chapter18:8. Her plagues come
in one day. e words here used are used in chapter 14: 8,
140
and the same reason given. ere, where an orderly series
of events is given, it is evident that the fall alluded to is very
near the close of the history of evil and of judgment.
Further, the ground on which the Babylon of chapter
18 as well as in chapter 14: 8 is judged is that by which the
Babylon of chapter 17: 2 is characterized, her judgment
being that which was to be shown to the prophet. It is the
Babylon of chapter 17 which commits fornication. But the
Babylon of chapter 18 is judged for this same fornication.
e judgment is identical. And when the judgment of
chapter 18 is spoken of in connection with this burning
with re, it is added “ for strong is the Lord God who
judgeth her.” is judgment with re is attributed to the
ten horns and the beast in chapter 17.
I may add here, that in Jeremiah, the destruction of the
Babylon of that day by the Medes is called the work of the
Lord of hosts, His vengeance, His day come, the day that
He visits her, etc. I think anyone carefully reading these
140 In commenting on that chapter, the author has avoided the
question of what Babylon it alludes to, by making it a testimony
of saints prophetically, such indeed as may be given at all
times, contrary to his own account however of the chapter as
an orderly series of facts. Here the same words, supported by
the same reason, are made an actual anticipation of her nal
destruction as a city.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
374
two chapters must see that there is one judgment described
there, as regards the earthly Babylon, with the abiding
consequences of that judgment, as when He overthrew
Sodom and Gomorrah; but that, whoever the instruments,
the judgment was God’s.
But to return: as regards “ the destruction, not of the
woman, but of the city,” the answer is, the woman is the
great city that reigns over the kings of the earth. What
morally represents the city is the harlot who corrupts the
earth with her fornications, and who was drunken with
the blood of the saints: and this is the Babylon destroyed,
burned with re, in whom all the blood of saints in the
earth is found. Moreover, if Antichrist destroy her, it is the
ten horns or kingdoms as well, so that it is the nations (not
of Jeremiah, no doubt, but the nations).
Next, the attempted change of chapter 18 from a
woman to a city cannot hold: because Babylon was fallen
and become the cage of unclean birds, that is (according
to the author), judged as a city, because the nations had
been drunk with the wine of the wrath (poison) of her
fornication. at is, she is the harlot of chapter 16: 2 who is
judged. It is another voice which, because of the announced
judgment, calls upon the people of God to come out of
her, and not partake of her sins, that they may not of her
plagues too which are to come upon her in one day.
e rest of the note I hardly know whether to treat as
an inadvertency or as confusion. “ In verses 3 and 7 we go
back to present time-she saith in her heart, etc. We may say
therefore, that the preface continues to the end of verse 3,
after which the description recurs to a previous period.” I
should have thought “ third “ a mere mistake (as verses 1-3
may be considered a sort of preface), and paid no attention
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
375
to it, if verse 3 had not in point of fact spoken of a previous
period, though there be not the present form. But then,
if verse 3 does refer to this previous period, the Babylon
of chapter 18 is identied with the previous chapter, verse
3 giving the cause, as verse 2 the fact, of her judgment.
Hence the embarrassment as to verse 3. Nor is there any
other than verse 3 to which the remark could apply.
at Babylon embraces more than her mere harlot
character is clear, just as ancient Babylon did more than
her idolatry; but that on which the judgment fell was not
the cause of the judgment, though the latter might be
involved in the ruin. e people that were judged, because
of their idolatry and the wrong done to the Lord’s house,
were judged in all their souls clung to. So here: the harlotry
of Babylon, her abominations, may be the cause of her
judgment, but much more than that falls in the judgment,
and causes the dismay of all connected with her. Hence the
great city, though the seat of Babylon’s wickedness, may
be distinguished from it, as in chapter 16: 19 is the case.
In this respect the great whore and the woman or city are
considered apart, but not the woman and the city.
e symbol is not changed in chapter 18 from a woman
to a city. e two are mixed up, because in chapter 18 the
woman had been explained to be the great city. Verses 8
and 10 need only be read to be convinced of this. No doubt
there she is spoken of as a city, but that city is the woman
of chapter 17.
As to “ Come out of her, my people,” and the time
they belong to, it is evident there is nothing about it in
the Revelation. It is evident that the statement is founded
on the assumption that Jeremiah and Isaiah speak of this
Babylon, and this destruction, for there is not a word to
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
376
found it on in Revelation. Moreover, the passage alluded
to as designating the time has no similar call to come out
at all. Where there is, as in Jeremiah 5o, the passage goes
on to speak of “ this Nebuchadnezzar.” In chapter 51 is it
declared to be the vengeance of His temple. In Isa. 48, save
a probable allusion to Cyrus, there is nothing positively to
decide the time.
But is it not strange, while on the very same
announcement of Babylon’s fall in chapter 14: 8, it is stated
that it is a testimony previous to the nal Antichrist state-a
testimony which ought to be given now-here, the solemn
call connected with it is said to be addressed to Israel? And
how comes it that this very solemn appeal to have done
with her who corrupts the earth, who sheds the blood of
the martyrs of Jesus, is applied only to Jews? Here is taking
away Scripture from the church in good earnest. Why is
it a sin to suppose there may be believing Jews addressed
in Matt. 24, when Jerusalem is spoken of, and a virtue
to think they are Jews when Babylon is spoken of (that
Babylon who was drunk with the blood of the martyrs
of Jesus)? Here is a woman who corrupts and sits on (or
by) peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues, but
those called to come out of her are the remnant of Israel:
and that during the church period to which the Revelation
applies, and who of course are to receive this testimony
though in an unconverted state, and who are the persons
who have suered of her, and who are to be avenged of
her. In Matthew, where all is connected with Jerusalem
and the hour of tribulation prophesied to come on the
Jewish people, this is impossible. And why so? It suits the
author’s system. Christianity is not to be in the Roman
earth recognized at this time.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
377
But if there be any meaning in the previous note, these
verses refer to the previous period. So that even on this
ground it is all wrong. As to the rest of the note, there is
nothing of being on the point of seizing Jerusalem for the
last time in Joel 2. In Zech. 14 Jerusalem is taken.
e marginal reading of Zech. 12:2 has nothing of
the kind stated, but just the contrary. Zech. 14:14 may
be translated as in the English margin. But I prefer the
common translation, because of what is taught in chapter
12, which certainly does not suppose Judah to be ghting
against Jerusalem, but the contrary. Neither is the writer
warranted in saying a part of Judah leagued with the
invading Gentiles, because it is said “ Judah “ also shall
ght.
Another reason against the marginal translation (which
is no doubt a very good rendering of the Hebrew) is, that
the preceding verse speaks of the judgment consequent on
the Gentiles ghting against Jerusalem, “ a great tumult
from the Lord of hosts.” Now this would seem a strange
time to bring in “ Judah also shall ght, as being leagued
with the Gentiles.”
Nor do I think chapter 12: 5, 6, will bear the
interpretation of the author, as if Judah was then ghting
against Jerusalem.
at Israel is God’s battle-ax against His enemies, I
believe: but how against Babylon, if they are called to ee
and deliver their souls because of the day of her visitation
from the Lord? And where is the progressiveness of her
desolation, when in one hour she is made desolate-an
instantaneousness which was used before to prove that it
could not be the judgment on ancient Babylon? Moreover,
the passage where the desolation is declared so sudden,
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
378
when she is utterly burned with re, because the Lord is
strong that judges her, speaks of that very judgment from
which the merchants, removed afar because of the smoke
of her burning, wail it as come in one hour.
So that all this subverts the plain statements of the
word. And if we take the letter of the prophecy alluded
to in Isaiah, it refers to the destruction of Babylon by the
nations. e Medes are stirred up against them.
But there is another most material objection to the
whole of this statement. e events alluded to as Jerusalem
are identied with the appearing of the Lord. us it is the
nations are cut o, and thus it is that the remnant wails.
But the judgment of Babylon is the wrath of God before
the Lord comes at all. Nor can Israel be the battle-ax of the
Lord’s judgment while rejected and under wrath.
As to the next note on kings of the earth, there is surely
a confusion between the kings of the earth and the ten
horns. e ten horns had, long before according to the
author, burned her with re; and I do not see why they
should mourn over her burning so much. But they are
spoken of here in their character as kings, as the merchants
and shipmasters in theirs. Whereas the ten horns are much
more the power of the ten kingdoms in their general state.
ey may burn her, the kings may mourn over her: but
the note evidently identies the kings of the earth and the
ten horns: but then the chapter contradicts itself. I do not
feel it necessary to dwell on the last note. Miserable as the
manufacturing system is morally, certainly England has
done more to ll the world by emigration than all other
nations.
On the whole, I conclude that the author’s system as to
Babylon is untenable, rstly, because the examination of
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
379
the chapters of the Old Testament proves his use of them
to be a violation of their plainest statements, and their
application to the results of the latter day, as related in the
Revelation, impossible.
Secondly, because the character actually attached to
Babylon is another character than that given to her in the
chapter itself: his only passage for the character of Babylon
as a system in chapter 17 being drawn from chapter 18
which is her condition when the system alleged to be called
Babylon is, according to the author, destroyed.
irdly, because the Scriptures actually give another
principle or mystery of iniquity which is to result in the
apostasy or the man of sin, which is entirely dierent from
the one asserted by the author.
Fourthly, because his statements as to the day of the
Lord connected with it subvert his own system as to what
that day is: the ruin of Babylon taking place under God’s
judgments before Christ takes the power, whereas the day
of the Lord commences when the Son is invested with His
appointed power.
Fifthly, because the statements of the author as to
Antichrist contradict altogether the passages which he
alleges as to the king of Babylon.
His distinction of the woman and the city is equally un-
sustained. First, because the scriptures say the woman is the
city; and next, to allege no other reason, because the kings
are spoken of as committing with the woman of chapter 17
the sin for which the city of chapter 18 is judged.
I do not recapitulate all the reasons here-merely
what bring into relief some of the great principles. One
can hardly over estimate the importance of the error
as misleading as to the real evil of the latter day, and
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
380
unsettling, by the loosest use of Scripture, every principle
of sound interpretation. I trust God will keep His saints
out of the prevailing snare of commerce. For they that will
be rich will fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which
drown men in destruction and perdition. at a warning
against it may be useful in England is very possible; but
the simple-hearted saint passes through it as a service, and
has done with it-he cannot with idolatry and ecclesiastical
authority: it is the net of Satan himself.
CHAPTERS 19, 20, AND PART OF 21
We are told here that “ the conclusion of each of the
visions “ “ has led us to the period called in Scripture the
end of the age (Matt. 13:39; chap. 28: 20), when the Lord
Jesus will come from heaven with His angels, and take His
saints to meet Him in the air.”
We have here “ the results of the Lord’s coming, and
of the resurrection of the saints, unfolded. I say the results
of his coming, and of the resurrection, because neither of
these events are themselves described.”
We have here collected together a whole series of proofs
of the evil of setting up a system. ere is scarce a statement
which is not an exposure of the author’s own system, when
it is examined.
e rst I do not cite as very material, but as showing
the way in which the author is exclusively engrossed
with what is earthly and of Antichrist. e last three
verses apply to Antichrist,
141
perhaps we may say the
last ve. And therefore “ the sphere of this chapter is the
prophetic or Roman earth.” In the chapter the marriage
of the Lamb, and the preparation of the church for it, is
celebrated. Heaven is opened, and Christ comes forth as
141 Here again Antichrist should be the beast.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
381
the Word of God and King of kings and Lord of lords for
universal rule; for I suppose the author will not conne
the above titles and the rule announced in Psa. 2 to the
Roman or prophetic earth. Yet, though the marriage of
the Lamb be sung in heaven, and the Lord come forth
from heaven for universal dominion, the author sees
nothing but the opposition of Antichrist and the kings of
the Roman earth. e Roman earth is the sphere of the
chapter. Again, “ neither of these events (Christ’s coming
and the resurrection) are themselves described.” is was
necessary to the author’s system, because of Christendom,
whose judgment was to be all settled before Antichrist’s
visitation, and the author must make Christ come to
receive the saints of Christendom. Besides, the marriage of
the Lamb had taken place. Now let the reader turn to the
chapter, and se•: what is found there; whether it is merely a
result of His coming, or His coming to earth.
“ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse,
and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True,
and in righteousness doth he judge and make war … And
the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white
horses, clothed in ne linen, white and clean.” Now I
suppose, when heaven is opened, and the armies which are
in heaven follow the Lord, it is something like an account
of “ the event “ of His coining. At least it is generally
supposed from Scripture that He comes with His saints. “
ey that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.”
And it is by the brightness of His coming that Antichrist is
to be destroyed. I know not where we have the coming of
Christ to earth more or so much described. Surely seeing
heaven opened is not a result of His coming.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
382
But there are other points here, besides this most
extraordinary statement. We read, “ e end of the age,”
“ when the Lord will come from heaven with His angels,
and take His saints to meet Him in the air.” And again, “
we should have found His coming with His angels and the
gathering together of His saints described: and accordingly
these events are not passed over in those parts of scripture
which do give the history and end of Christendom. (See
Matt. 13) But this is not the object of the Revelation.”
Now, rst, there is not a word of His coming with His
angels in Matt. 13 It is only said the Son of man shall send
them forth. But, further, the age ends, and the new age
begins when Christ rises up from the Father’s throne. His
receiving the saints, therefore, cannot be on His coming,
because the new age has then begun; and, therefore, it is
not and cannot be “ at the end of this age.” For the new
has decidedly, according to the author, begun. (See page r.)
Christ cannot come with His angels to gather His saints
without its being actually the new age. And this is not a
mere question of time. e two ages are characterized by
this dierence, God acting for Christ, and Christ invested
with His appointed power. is then is clearly totally
wrong according to the author’s system. e Lord Jesus
cannot come in the period called in Scripture the end of
that age, because what characterizes
142
it is His sitting on
God’s throne and God’s acting for Him. It is never said in
Scripture, “ the end of the age, when the Lord Jesus will
come from heaven with His angels.” Matt. 13:39 says He
will send forth His angels.
142 “ ere is no characteristic so essentially distinctive as this.”
(p.11)
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
383
As to the command in Matt. 28:20, it is quite
inconsistent with the prohibition to preach peace by Jesus
Christ enforced on the witnesses. ey were to go to all
the Gentiles (the identical words used for those to be
gathered to Jehoshaphat), and in this mission Christ would
be with them to the end of the age. But in a vast portion
of the world, the center of all its energies, the Lord will
not be with them at all to the end of the age: the Gentile
profession of Christianity will be withdrawn.
Is it not, too, a curious thing that the harvest only
applies to the place where the tares have not ripened to full
maturity, and that when they have ripened, then there is no
harvest at all?
Or, if “ the tares are never guilty of any act of blasphemous
rejection of God,” and if “ they remain to the end quietly
growing by the side of the wheat,” how do those that were
tares in the Roman earth commit an act of blasphemy all
at once, and so cease to be tares, or to seek admission into
the garners of heaven-strange description as this is of the
devil’s seed in the earth? ese last are to be killed in the
earth, while the former are taken out of the earth (before
even the Lord comes to judge Antichrist) to an unseen
place of torment. And note here `the Lord has come
143
to
receive the saints, and has judged the wicked on the earth,
143 In page 204 it may be supposed He is seen, but it is left
uncertain. In page 333, it is strange and distant glory suddenly
breaking upon the abyss of darkness beneath. And in page 298
Antichrist has witnessed it. 2ess. 1 would set all this order
aside. But Matt. 24, which clearly refers to His coming where
Antichrist is, supposes it to come as a sudden judgment there,
and not as if the Lord had already executed in his sight on
earth the most important judgment, and appeared some time
before in alarming glory.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
384
before ever He appears to judge Antichrist. It used to be
alleged that we, even the saints, must wait His appearing
to be caught up to meet Him. But let that pass. He shall
judge the quick and the dead at His appearing. Now by
the appearing or brightness of His coming He will destroy
the man of sin. e coming of the Son of man will be like
lightning. Now what is this coming and judgment of the
quick on earth before ever He appears at all,
144
carried on
by angels? When the last trumpet sounds, the nal blow
is “ administered by the Son of man Himself, returning in
the glory of His power “ (page 129). In this very chapter
heaven is opened after the marriage of the Lamb, for the
earthly judgment of Antichrist.
145
I do not here enlarge on
the Scripture statement that the tares are gathered together
144 at is, according to 2essalonians 2, and Matthew 24 , and
the like, to destroy Antichrist.
145 Antichrist has seen it all, and been undismayed by it. It did
not come as a thief at any rate on him and his armies. Christ
had actually judged all Christendom-had executed His wrath
on Babylon, and Antichrist is untouched and undismayed. e
stars too have ceased to give their light, the sun and moon have
been darkened, because in Isa. 14 this accompanies Babylon’s
fall. In Rev. 6 this same event had confounded them all (it
was one of those several visions which had reached thus far.)
Here, surrounded by kings and armies, the great transgressor
remains undismayed. Was there ever the like confusionI would
recall to the reader a remark already made, that, instead of
these two elds, the Scripture speaks of one-the world, where
the tares, quiet or not, grow; that in 2ess. 2 what began in
Christendom grows up to the apostasy and the judgment of
the wicked; that in Jude the tares of that day are positively
identied with the ungodly who speak hard speeches, and
perish in the gainsaying of Core. e whole system of the
author on this is contradictory of the plainest statements of
Scripture, as it is of himself, and of the plain sense of things.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
385
rst to be burned, which the author always assiduously
passes over. But either the Son of man does not appear
at all for the judgment of the tares and the rapture of the
saints, or He does not come like lightning, appearing for
the destruction of Antichrist. For, according to the author,
after both tares and wheat are reaped, the apostates are
found gathered together against Him
But the truth is, the eld is the world in the fullest sense.
And nothing can be more absurd or unscriptural than to say
that the ripening of the devil’s seed makes them cease to be
tares. Gathering together the tares in bundles is not taking
them out of the earth. It is well for the reader to remember
that Scripture never speaks of Christendom at all. It speaks
of a certain eld called the world, in which Christ sowed
good seed and the devil bad seed; but the assertion that
when these were ripe, it ceased thereby to be the eld at all
(though it is admitted there were saints hidden in caves in
it) is the most gratuitous assertion possible.
I do not venture beyond the contradictions which are
on the face of these statements, because I believe them to
be so wholly foreign to Scripture, that the diculty is to
nd thoughts common to both, so as to compare them.
But I would ask the reader this, Is, or is not, the coming
of the Lord to earth connected with the judgment of the
Antichristian power of evil in 2essalonians, Jude, Matt.
24, etc.? If it be, the whole system must fall. Christ has
come. It is an event not spoken of here, where Antichrist
as judged, because it has happened already. He has not
only received His saints, but judged all the quick on the
professing earth, or Christendom, and Babylon even in the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
386
prophetic earth. e brightness of His coming
146
is a thing
past. e lightning has ashed long ago, and the great
transgressor remains untouched and undismayed. He is
come with clouds, every eye has seen Him-yea, seen Him
execute judgment too; and there they are undismayed,
ready to confront Him in battle. As to the wailing of the
tribes, or the standing afar o Babylon’s burning, and all
the earth being moved at her fall, this may be reconciled
as it can. If these things had happened without the Lord
coming in clouds, we might well suppose all this. But it is
to be remembered He has come. His coming and receiving
the saints without judging the earth I can conceive: but the
quick have been judged on earth in all Christendom.
But here again the system of the author subverts itself in
another point. “ ey [the saints] are evidently recognized
in the commencement of this chapter as being above with
the Lord in glory.” Hence, of course, the Lord had come
to receive them, and indeed (as we have seen) to judge
the tares also. But Babylon, we are told, was at this very
moment judged, the nal blow given by the Lord at the
moment when He takes His saints to meet Him in the
146 e diculty of summing up these statements is, that there is
the greatest confusion and uncertainty in the author’s accounts
of this coming. “ He comes in glory and in divine majesty,
seated in the clouds “ (p. 204). One would suppose this was
when every eye should see Him, as in Revelation T. So that
the brightness of His coming would have taken place. But He
comes in the clouds of heaven (Matt. 24) when it is for the
destruction of Antichrist. In page 204 of the “ oughts,” it is
the harvest of Christendom. ere must be then two comings in
the clouds of heaven-one for Christendom, and one afterward
for Antichrist, who has seen the other undismayed. e rst
would be the star-like appearing of page 333. e reader may
believe these dierent appearings if he can.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
387
air. Now Babylon was destroyed under the vials. But (page
215) “ commission to act is given to Christ as soon as the
ministration of the vials ends. He will then quit the throne
of the Father.” So the Lord has come to take His saints, and
has given the nal blow to Babylon at the same moment,
when He has not left the throne of His Father, and has not
yet received commission to act at all. Yet that had passed
too, for which “ He comes in glory and in divine majesty,
seated in the clouds “ (page 204).
But, further, “ ey [the saints] are evidently recognized
in the commencement of this chapter as being above with
the Lord in glory.” I do not doubt this. e author quotes
verse 1 as proof. But why not when the same thing almost
word for word occurs elsewhere, as chapters I 1, 7 and
14, etc.? ere it is anticipative. Here they are evidently
recognized as being above. I do not see why it proves it
in one place, and only anticipates it in the other. We have
seen that according to the alleged order of events the saints
cannot be yet there.
e truth is, the author cannot get over the fact that
the saints are taken away, and that most important events
happen before the Lord comes to destroy Antichrist. By
making besides, and before that, a judging of the quick on
the earth by the Lord, and a judgment of Babylon, which
he has elsewhere placed previous to Christ’s rising from
the Father’s throne, he has set aside the plain statements of
Scripture as to the Lord’s appearing in the destruction of
Antichrist, and his own statements as to what essentially
characterizes the two ages, and made confusion as to the
fact itself and the order of prophecy. He has chosen to
introduce an unscriptural division of Roman earth and
Christendom, and thus rejected Scripture, and his own
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
388
statements too; and borne an involuntary testimony to a
rapture of the saints before the judgment of the day of the
Lord, and at the same time shown his own system to be the
mere fabric of his own mind.
We have here again the city Babylon corrupting the
earth with her fornication. It was a poor time for the saints
to rejoice over her as destroyed now; for, as corrupting the
earth with her fornication as the great whore, she has been
burned with re years before. It was the mere local city
now that was destroyed. And how had they experienced
what the earth was under Babylon and Babylon’s mighty
king? Under Babylon, the fullness of God’s own truth had
been fostered in its sphere, and under Babylon’s mighty
king they had never been at all. ey had ed before the
dragon into the regions of uncivilized darkness. ese
regions being Christendom, however, at least they could
have ed there if they had pleased. Indeed it surely was
so-the earth, which for this turn was not the Roman or
prophetic earth, having interfered to preserve Christianity
(page 149).
“ But the hour of the accomplished glory of Jesus had
come. He is described in the verses I have quoted, not as
in the actual exercise of this power, for the vision is seen
in heaven, but as invested with it in order that it may be
exercised; and presently afterward it is exercised rst upon
Antichrist, then upon Satan, and then upon these nations
which,” etc.
Now in page 128 the Son quits (at the beginning or end
of the three days and a half that the witnesses lie dead) “
the throne of the Father, and is invested with the power,
the long delegated power, which now is nally taken from
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
389
the hands of man.” “ When the seventh trumpet sounds,
this scene has passed in heaven.”
Page 207, “ As soon as He descends into the air … His rst
act will be to judge that which is bearing His name … But
after the harvest is over, the vintage yet remains.” at is,
the judgment of what Antichrist cherishes. Here in page
229 He is seen invested with this power in heaven-the “
power with which He is invested for the government of the
earth “clearly therefore the same with that of page 128, just
quoted. But then (page 207), “ His rst act will be to judge
that which is bearing His name.” But here all this about
the harvest is not viewed as the exercise of this power at
all. e saints have joined Him. All about Christendom
is dropped, and the exercise of this glorious power with
which “ the Bridegroom will be invested in order that He
may prepare this earth, lled though it be with enemies,
for the habitation of His bride,” is “ rst upon Antichrist.”
Would it be believed in this account that all the judgment
of Matt. 13 had already been executed on earth since He
was invested with this glorious power?
One would think it was some other sort of glory, quite
distinct; for He had been invested with the long delegated
power; but then when He came into the air, having
commission from God, He judges Christendom. Now He
is seen invested with glorious power in vision in heaven,
and this power is not rst exercised on Christendom at all,
but on Antichrist, who has been looking on undismayed
while Christendom, and even his own second capital,
Babylon, has been undergoing judgment by Christ in the
other sort of power.
Further, this power (page 299) is in order that He
(Christ) may prepare this earth for the habitation of His
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
390
bride. But then she is never to be introduced into this earth
at all, but into the new earth. So that the millennial power
which Christ exercises does not prepare the earth for her
at all. He has given it up to God the Father. A new earth,
the elements having melted with fervent heat, is the scene
into which she is introduced. e earth lled with enemies,
cleared by His power, though it be to prepare it for her,
never sees her in it. Where is it stated that Christ rules
the nations with a rod of iron after He has judged Satan?
Does the author really believe that Psa. 2 or the promise to
yatira is the constant character of Christ’s government
as the Prince of peace? “ He does not cease to hold the rod
of iron.” Let the reader consult what is stated of this in Psa.
2:9, Rev. 2:27, or even chapter 19: 15, and see if the author’s
ideas here of the government of Christ are just, and see
if the rod of iron is the character of Christ’s scepter after
Satan is bound, and when the earth rejoices in His coming,
and reposes under the shadow of that great Rock after all
its toils.
Here, too (page 301), we nd “ Him who comes as King
of kings and Lord of lords.” Before, this was not the event
of His coming, He had come before to judge Christendom.
e way the author explains this (page 333) is, that Christ
rst comes as the star. “ He will come in glory strictly
unearthly and divine.” Afterward, it appears, He will be
the sun rising. e rst applies to Matt. 13, and the harvest,
wherever found, as Rev. 14:14. But in this glory, said to be
strictly unearthly and divine, He is the Son of man, once
the sower of the good seed, who judges because He is the
Son of man, which the Father does not because His glory
is strictly divine; and the judgment of the quick is executed
on the tares in this distant and unearthly glory. Indeed in
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
391
this connection He is always particularly called the Son
of man, as in Dan. 7, Rev. 14:14, Matt. 13 (I know not
whether this is to show it is strictly divine); whereas in
the passage before us (Rev. 19), which is not the star-like
visitations, He has a name which none knows but Himself.
He is the Word of God, King of kings and Lord of lords-
words which do convey glory strictly divine, as John 1 and
1Tim. 6 plainly show. It is going a little too far to say
He shall come as the Son of God in His own glory, when
the passage runs thus-” of him shall the Son of man be
ashamed when he shall come in his own glory.”
But to continue: I have not much to remark on the
pages immediately following. e application of Psa. 96 is
evidently wrong, because it is said, “ He cometh,” and it is
clear that at the time spoken of in page 303 the Lord was
come in every sense of the word.
On page 304 I must remark that the dispensation of
the fullness of times is surely not eternity. e heading up
all things in Christ for the administration, of that fullness
of times, is hardly the period after His having delivered
up the kingdom: nor does the administration of the
fullness of times or seasons signify eternity. It refers to the
inheritance in which we are joint-heirs with Christ, when,
having suered, we reign, having meanwhile the earnest
of the inheritance till the redemption of the purchased
possession. After that, God is to be all in all, and the Son
Himself subject, and not reigning as man.
What follows has been already discussed: only I repeat
there is never a hint in Scripture of the heavenly saints
sharing the glory of the throne of David with Christ. e
statement as to those who are raised to share millennial
power is clearly unwarranted if taken as exclusive. “ is
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
392
is the rst resurrection,” is certainly not merely of those
who died under persecution, nor indeed did all the twelve
apostles die under persecution, for John himself did not.
e use of Isa. 65, at the close of page 306, is clearly
a misuse of it, as may easily be seen by reading verses 17
and 18; though all recognize that the earthly millennial is
not the nal state. But of this earthly millennial state-so
celebrated in the prophets that the whole earth is to break
forth into singing and joy, that they are called to rejoice
forever in that which God creates-we are told, little is said
in the Revelation. It is such a time of imperfectness and
evil. “ e bride of the Lamb “ “ is kept apart
147
from the
millennial earth, and is not brought from her heavenly
elevation into the sphere below, until the millennial earth
and heavens have fully passed away.” And yet Jerusalem is
the “ own city “ of our system. And “ the summit of Zion,”
“ miraculously exalted above the hills,”
148
“ arising from the
earth as if to meet the heavenly city resting ever it in the
heavens above, will be the place where heavenly glory will
be rst brought into real connection with this earth.”
It is this earthly and yet heavenly condition of Zion
that “ “ harmonizes truth belonging to the earth with other
truths referring to heavenly and unearthly glories “ … so
147 See page 320. What keeping apart means, where we nd it
called “ close … systematic relationship to the earth “-” the
glory of the saints brought into its closest adaptation to the
need of a fallen earth “it is not easy to see. I am not denying
that the heavenly Jerusalem does not descend on the earth
during the millennium. But close systematic relationship and
being brought into its closest adaptation is a strange way to
keep apart. God will gather together in one all things, both
which are in heaven and in earth.
148 e whole church will be there, and I suppose the church is
the bride of the Lamb.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
393
“ that he who can in this sense say that he has come to
Zion must mean that he belongs to those whose glory is
not of earth merely.” Being “ of those who, going from one
grade of glory (!) to another, appear in Zion before God.” I
do not exactly see how heavenly glory is brought into real
connection with this earth, if it is kept apart from the earth-
if heavenly and unearthly glories come down to Zion, and
Zion is miraculously exalted to meet the heavenly city.
As to page 310, the city is not exactly called the bride
of the Lamb. She was “ prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband.” She is not said to bear the name of bride. Still,
that she retained as a gure all her bridal glory I doubt not,
and all the freshest aections of her heavenly Bridegroom.
But that is not the point here. In this sense bride is not
a temporary name for her. But how, if she do still bear
it at the end of the millennium, and on her introduction
after the passing away of heaven and earth, and all things
being made new, into the new heavens and new earth, is
it a temporary name? Is it not the proof that that church,
seen in glory as the bride at the commencement of the
millennium, continues to be so forever? We are then told
that we do not know “ what new worlds may be created.”
at may be safely admitted, and I suppose that we are
ignorant if there will be any at all. But, new worlds created
or not, “ the new earth will be the center of the economy
and order of creation.” Where is this revealed? “ And it is
as directing this economy, and as mistress of this order, that
the church is symbolized by this city, and named, wife of
the Lamb.” Where is this found? or is government the only
reason why the church is called wife of the Lamb? I read
that the kingdom will be given up, and the Son subject,
God being all in all; so that I see rather the contrary of
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
394
all this in Scripture; though our eternal blessedness, and
the immutable Deity of the Son remain unchanged. But
as to the economy and order, it seems quite dierent, God
being all in all. e tabernacle of God is with men. e
Lamb is no longer mentioned as to government as such. I
see no reason to say that the church ceases to be His bride,
His wife. Eph. 3:21 seems to indicate eternal glory of the
church as such. But if a veil is thrown over her relation to
the earth, etc., it would have been better, I suppose, not to
have said, the new earth will be thus, and the church that,
in it.
“ It will not lose “ … “ the glory which Jesus had with
the Father before the world was.” Where is it ever said the
church is to have this at any time?
I will not here enter into a discussion whether the bride
be the highest character of the manifold glories. Children
of the Father, the saint knows to be itself a relation full of
blessing: it gives the name of nearness to the Father, as
that of bride of more especial union with the Son, who
has made us to be of His body, His esh, and His bones.
“ But one presentation “ though this be, surely it is one of
singular blessedness. Every possible glory, indeed, is ours:
the blessedness that is in God Himself, as far as it can be
communicated, for we dwell in God, and God in us; relation
blessedness, for we are children; associated blessedness in
union with the blessed one, for we are the bride; ocial
nearness and glory, for we are kings and priests; human
blessedness, for we shall be perfect men after the image
of the second Adam; corporate blessedness, for we shall
have joy together; individual, for we shall have a name
given which no one knows but he that receives it, and we
shall have the fullness of the Holy Ghost dwelling in us,
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
395
unhindered by these poor bodies, yea, clothed upon by a
vessel suited to the power of the divine inhabitant, so as to
be able in full largeness of heart to enjoy all this. ere is
a dierence in the sphere of their exercise, no doubt. But
when the author says that the name of bride is but one
presentation, and that not in the highest sphere, I do not
think that the spiritual mind will relish the use of language
which certainly means to depreciate this presentation of
glory.
Is the bride not the bride of Christ everywhere? And,
if she be so in the sphere of His heavenly aections, is
she not so in the display of His glory? Is she disowned
elsewhere? Is she so kept apart from earth that when she
may be, as alleged, on Mount Zion or anywhere else, the
Lamb disowns her as such-does not recognize her before
these strangers to the heavenly courts?
Further, if the name of bride be “ but one presentation
in one especial sphere (and that not the highest),” how is it
that this city will be the home of the aections of Christ?
“ It will be His spouse-He will trust in her, joy in her, and
nd her one who responds to His aections, enters into
His thoughts, and adorns Him by her excellencies, even in
the courts of His highest glory “ (page 321).
I really sometimes feel I am wrong in answering
statements made to suit the moment, without an attempt
at consistency, at the distance of a few pages. I have only
to add here- Where is it said that the saints will be in the
heaven of heavens?
As to the notes, we have a repetition of what, though
just in general as to division, shows the confusion of the
arrangement proposed by the author. Chapters 6 to 18 are
chastisements from the throne of God, which immediately
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
396
precede the mission of the Lord Jesus in glory. “ But now
the time has come for Christ to occupy His own throne,
149
and to be manifested in the exercise of His own glorious
power.” In pages 11-13, we nd that it is one of two
things, either God acting for Christ, or Christ assuming
the exercise of the authority of His own kingdom. “ As
soon as it “ (the footstool) “ is prepared, Christ will quit
the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, and will return in
glory.” So that there are but the two things, God acting for
Christ, and Christ having assumed the power of His own
kingdom.
Now, in chapter 19 the time has come, according to
the author, for the latter. e previous chapters were God
acting for Christ-what preceded His mission. But in one
of these previous chapters, namely, chapter 14, we have had
the harvest, or judgment of Christendom (to say nothing
here of the vintage) when Christ had come in clouds. Does
that precede His mission? We have had in chapters 14, 16,
and at large in chapter 18,
150
the destruction of Babylon,
a destruction by the act of Christ,
151
which takes place at
the moment of the rapture of the saints (page 298), and
therefore when Christ had left the throne of God and
come in the clouds into the air. at is, we have the most
important events of chapters 6 to 18 before the time had
149 e reader will do well to bear in mind that this change is
alleged to take place the instant Christ rises up from the
Father’s throne.
150 I am aware that elsewhere the author states this quite
dierently- that the vials are God’s actings before He gives
commission to Christ to act. But I am quoting from page 299.
I have met another view of the case in what follows.
151 I omit chapter 17, because the author would make that the
destruction of the system.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
397
come, for this is in chapter 19. Or is it alleged that the
harvest and judgment of Babylon precede the mission of
the Lord Jesus in glory? If so, then it is quite clear that,
according to the author, His mission and return in glory
does not take place when He quits the Father’s throne,
but is a subsequent event, relating to His appearing to
the inhabitants of earth, and that before His mission and
His appearing in glory; and yet, after His having left the
throne of His Father, a series of the most important events
occur, even all that immediately regard the church, which
is exactly what the author so laboriously seeks to deny. I
am not recurring here to the judgment of the tares, or the
contradictions of the author as to Babylon, and Christ’s
appearance as the star, and then as the sun. ese I have
spoken of. Up to chapter 19 the time had not come for
Christ to be manifested in the exercise of His own glorious
power. Now it has, and Antichrist is judged by the glorious
appearing of Christ.
But then, before this, Christ had left the throne, and
time enough had elapsed since His leaving it to accomplish
all the most important events in the Revelation, or indeed
I may say in Scripture, as to power and judgment-the
harvest, the glorifying of the church, the judgment of the
great whore that corrupted the earth. at is, there is an
interval full of the most important events between Christ’s
leaving the throne, and His appearing for the judgment
of the man of sin. ere is an acknowledged dierence
between Christ’s rising up from the throne of the Father
and its consequences, and the manifestation of His coming
to destroy Antichrist-between His coming (parousia),
2ess. 2:1, and “ the appearing of his coming “ (2ess.
2:8)-on the denial of which the statements in the beginning
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
398
of the “ oughts “ are founded, and to subvert which the
quotation of Psa. 110 is applied.
at the Revelation relates to God’s dealings with the
earth is in general true, and that hence the marriage of
the Lamb, though celebrated, is not described, is also true.
But it is celebrated as now come, and there are those that
are called to the marriage supper, as well as to the terrible
judgment of the supper of the great God. But to say that
chapter 14 consists of references elucidated by the chapters
which respectively succeed is in many respects incorrect.
e harvest is not subsequently described, nor the one
hundred and forty-four thousand on Mount Zion, nor the
preaching of the everlasting gospel. Even as to Babylon,
in the comment on that chapter we were told in general
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
399
that the events were in order,
152
though at the same time
the announcement of the fall of Babylon was declared to
be a prophetic testimony which could even now be used;
and as an event it is here stated to be synchronous with
the harvest, the catching up of the saints. e statement
here is quite an incorrect one, aiming at neutralizing as far
as possible the importance of the statement contained in
chapter 19: o, and their place in the book. “ Babylon is just
alluded to in chapter 14 … the description is given after.”
But she is stated to be fallen in chapter 14, it is not that she
is alluded to, but her fall declared.
Here we are told “ the wife of the Lamb is similarly
alluded to in verse 7,” etc. But it is her marriage that is
152 Following each other just in the order in which they are
mentioned,” (p. zo1). It is indeed said, “ in all the instances
which imply active interference on the part of God.” is may
seem to modify the statement. But then, what does it amount
to? Just a proof of the looseness of the statements made. “ In
chapter 13 no interference on the part of God is mentioned.
Evil appears to reign as if God had forsaken the earth,” etc.
“ But it is far otherwise. God will plead with men both in
testimony and judgment: and this chapter 14 reveals “ (p. 417,
418). “ e character of the events is clear, and their order.”
(See p. zoo.) “ A preaching, etc., a testimony against Babylon,
and a declaration of its doom-a testimony against the beast,
etc.-an intimation that the time is come for the saints to enter
into their rest, etc.-the reaping- the vintage.” Now, there is
no testimony against Babylon at all, but a declaration of her
doom as accomplished. But, if instances which imply active
interference mean acts of God’s unless this fall of Babylon be
one, there are, in the whole series, just two, the harvest and
the vintage. e rest are intimations, preaching, testimonies.
So that the statement really comes to nothing at all, unless
turning into a testimony against Babylon what is certainly no
such thing, to avoid the subversion of his own system by the
plain statement of Scripture.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
400
alluded to, and declared to be come, and it is that that is the
subject of gladness and rejoicing. And here I would ask the
reason of the division proposed. e object is to separate the
marriage of the church from the coming forth of the same
church in power as following Jesus-one was carried on in
heaven, and not described, but only its celebration heard.
As to the other, heaven is opened, and Christ is seen on
the white horse with the armies in heaven following Him.
Now, if anyone be minded to close chapter 19 with verse
10, leaving the connection of it with what follows to the
moral perception of the reader, I have not much to object.
One gives Christ as Bridegroom; the other, as Judge and
King in war (the church having its suited place in each).
But then the next proposed new chapter must close with
chapter 20: 3, because that verse closes in historical order
what is resumed in verse 7 in another point of view, and
verse 4 takes up again the statements of verses 1-3 under
another point of view, as a new vision. e subject is not “
strictly consecutive “; for part of the chapter takes up the
same period a second time in another point of view. Chapter
19 closes the war judgment of the Son of man, come forth
as Word of God, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Chapter
20: 1-3, gives the angelic binding of Satan.
153
Chapter 20:
4, begins session in judgment and reigning, not coming
in judgment, as in “ he doth judge and make war.” And
though this be interrupted by the loosing of Satan, it is
then re of God out from heaven settles it, not the coming
or warring of Christ; and judgment in session is resumed,
only above on the great white throne, and of the dead.
153 So that, on the proposed new plan, chapter 19 would be verses
1-10 of chapter 19; chapter 20 would be 19: 11 to the end, and
1-3 of chapter 20. Chapter 21 would commence verse 4 of
chapter 20.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
401
is is the real division in sense. e truth is, that,
though convenient for reference, any division into chapters
is an evil as to the connection of the meaning, because
the Bible was not written in chapters. us the rst three
verses of chapter 20 are to themselves as a subject, and
yet follow on chapter 19. ey belong rather to chapter
19 than to chapter 20; and yet I judge chapter 19 gives a
very complete view of one subject, the double relationship
of the church with Christ, so that it makes a very good
chapter. Chapter 20: 1-3 is connected historically, and not
in subject. It is a separate act: verse 4 resumes the subject of
chapter 19, i.e., the relationship of Christ and the church-
they live and reign-but does not follow historically on
verse 3, but, after treating of the same period as verses 1-3
in another point of view down to the end of verse 6,
154
the chapter pursues then the history farther on. What I
have said would easily show the natural distribution into
paragraphs: chapter 19: 1-9; verse to; verses 11-21; chapter
20: 1-3 (4-6), 15; chapter 21: 1-8; verses 9-27; chapter 22:
1-7. Verse 8 begins evidently the apostle’s remarks on the
visions and communications which were now closed. As to
Scripture teaching by recurrence, it is no more than every
history that ever was written does.
e note on “ the marriage of the Lamb is come “
requires some remark. Christ’s wife had made herself ready.
But, like the earthly city Jerusalem, this also is a city as well
as a woman. “ In either case it is a corporate or collective
symbol or title, and admits of being indenitely extended
in comprehensiveness.”
154 Verses 4-6 are really a parenthesis. e history continues
regularly in reading verse 7 after verse 3.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
402
Now, what the eternal state of blessedness may be, I do
not here decide, or whether the bride of Christ, viewed as
the Lamb’s wife during the millennial period, retains any
special position afterward. Some passages seem to say so,
but there is so little said in Scripture upon it, that I arm
nothing with the light I have.
But the object of this note is to show that the church,
the bride, the Lamb’s wife, when married to Christ, was
not a bit more complete than Jerusalem when taken up as
His by Jehovah. And as this latter earthly city could have
many inhabitants year after year added to it, so can the
bride, the Lamb’s wife, who is called a city, and can have
as a corporate or collective symbol a constant accession
of inhabitants. But, though the gure of a city is used, is
the bride of Christ a place thus adopted of God, whose
inhabitants may increase and be added to? Is that the idea
we are to form of the Lamb’s wife, a city thus owned, so
distinct from its inhabitants that others are introduced
after the marriage of the Lamb, the city being corporately
complete, though many may be added? For I suppose the
marriage of the Lamb does not take place until His wife is
in some sense complete, “ ready.” Is this the idea presented
in Eph. 5, of the body of Christ which He cherishes and
nourishes as His own esh? A mere city, having a collective
title capable of indenite extension?
And further, what mean the words “ In either case it
is a corporate or collective symbol or title “? It is easy to
huddle words thus together, so that their distinct meaning
is lost. e point here is, that the heavenly Jerusalem, whose
symbolical completeness and perfectness is so wonderfully
set forth, is just like Jerusalem on earth, as to receiving
an accession of inhabitants. To prove this it is shown that
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
403
Jerusalem on earth is a city and a woman. In either case a
collective symbol or title. How in either case? What is there
of a symbol in building up the walls of earthly Jerusalem?
How is it in that case a corporate or collective symbol or
title? A city has its walls built up: I see nothing corporate
or symbolical in that. And when the gure of an enslaved
woman is applied to Zion, I see nothing corporate or
collective, nor symbolical indeed either: a common gure is
used, and that is all. Further, what means “ the risen saints
as inhabiters of the heavenly city “ “ are represented “ “
rstly by a woman,” and “ secondly by a city “?
But the main point is the reducing the bride, the
Lamb’s wife, when made ready and the marriage come, to a
mere city receiving a succession of inhabitants, and not the
complete and perfect bride of Christ-His body, presented to
Himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, or any
such thing- as Eve to Adam by God. And how is a woman
a corporate symbol? It is a symbol of the church, which is a
body of people, but represents its unity and completeness,
not its capacity of being indenitely extended. e symbol
of a body of people is not a corporate symbol in this sense,
but just exactly the contrary.
e Greek criticism which follows is again quite wrong.
“ ose invited “ (Greek of keklemenoi, Matt. 22:8) has
purely a present sense.
e aorist would refer to what had been done in calling
them in an historical way, as a fact, as a past thing; the
perfect, the present continuous state, though supposing of
course that they had been called. ey were “ those invited
“ at the table: the aorist would have been used if it applied
to what had been done historically during the dispensation.
In the best dictionaries you may nd the Greek means a
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
404
guest.
155
And not only is it an error in general as to the
use of the perfect, which is not an historical tense, but the
present continuation of the result of a past action, but it is
more particularly the case with words of the class in which
kaleo stands.
156
It is not then “ who have been called “ (that would be
the aorist), but “ which are called,” or, the guests. It is not
the dispensational title which now attaches to the saints of
God; for that would give it the sense of the act of calling, or
historical sense, and not the present condition at the time
spoken of in the chapter.
And then just see the consequence of this false
grammar. “ ey, as well as those who merely profess the
name of Jesus, are guests at the marriage supper.’ “ Now,
if they are, in the sense of the chapter we are examining,
then the professors who are to be cast into outward
darkness are “ blessed.” And this is just the eect of taking
the perfect tense, which speaks of their continuously and
actually enjoying the privilege of the invitation, for the
aorist,, which refers to the historical fact of invitation and
acceptance making a guest. e author therefore is obliged
to say, “ e blessedness of those guests ‘ -those of them
at least who are duly arrayed.” And hence he confounds it
with the parable which describes the act of calling.
155 See Liddell and Scott, under kaleo. e same thing is found
in the grammars. Matthix gives examples in Greek such as, I
am married; I married; the city is taken; the city was taken, etc.
Rost gives analogous statements.
156 In such perfects the idea of the casual action appears to be
almost merged, and they are virtually presents; not however to
be confounded with the presents from which they are derived.
Of this kind are kektemai (I possess), etc., keklemai (I am
called), etc..
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
405
And the author goes so far as to say, “ e saints are
here represented, rst as those who have been guests at
the marriage supper.” Now this is most positively and
unequivocally bad grammar, as no one can deny who knows
what the force of the Greek perfect is. But there is no such
exception made. e guests, the called, are blest. I should
not have rested so long here on a point of grammar, but that
it involves the sense of the passage, and that the English
translation is quite right, and the critical remark, and all
built on it, quite wrong. e Greek for “ those invited “ in
Matt. 22:8 is not “ who have been called,” or “ have been
guests,” but who “ are.” It is not an account of what may
have been historically done in past time.
As to “ heaven opened.” It is clear that the horse was
not a symbol of what was to be done in heaven. But “
millennial reign “ is a little vague, because He hardly
reigned millennially before Antichrist was destroyed, and
yet He came on the white horse to destroy him. Nor do I
think it will be ever found that horses symbolize reigning,
but the providential actings of God in the way of imperial
power on the earth. e reigning millennially is in chapter
20: 14. is is “ making war,” which is not reigning; for a
man does not reign where he makes war. A horse then is
power for the earth, but it is not reigning. He was coming
moreover, though there be no description of it; for the
armies in heaven followed him. We have a statement as
to those that are with Him, which shows that they are not
angels who are spoken of in the war against the ten horns.
ey are (chap. 17) called, and chosen, and faithful; which
words are all characteristic of the same persons. Besides,
they were clothed in “ ne linen,” which I suppose is hardly
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
406
angelic clothing: that elsewhere is linon (Greek). In this
chapter “ ne linen “ is used of the righteousness of saints.
e distinction between the sword and the rod of iron is
a curious one. e sword slays all. It does slay the armies of
Antichrist.
157
But why all? is does not seem necessary, for
example, in the church of Pergamos. e use of it in Heb.
4:12 seems to lead one to suppose that it is not necessary.
Here the word is ‘ smite.’ Still, I should think that breaking
to shivers like a potter’s vessel is something like destruction.
at is what is connected with the rod of iron. And where
is it found as the shepherd rod of governance?
e next note is a mere changing of the passage to meet
the author’s views. e apostle saw three things: thrones
and persons sitting on them; the souls of them that were
beheaded; and those who had not worshipped the beast.
All are merged by the writer into one. Persons sitting on
them “ and “ the souls, means that the persons sitting were
these souls. And the souls, etc., and those who had not
worshipped, means the souls, specially those who had not
worshipped. And thus there can be no doubt that martyrs
alone are spoken of in this passage!
As in other places where particular classes are spoken
of, he regards those spoken of as representative bodies. But
why do those who have come out of the great tribulation
represent those who do not? Or those who have testied
against Antichrist
158
represent those who have not? e
author so regards it: that is really all that can be said. And this
is the more unreasonable, because the persons mentioned
in this verse have been already mentioned as distinct classes
(that is, in distinct circumstances previously). In chapter 6
157 e beast of Rev. 13: I.
158 e beast of Rev. 13:1.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
407
we have those who had been slain for the word of God, and
for the testimony which they had held, who are given each
one a white robe, and told to wait till certain other brethren
who should be killed as they were should be fullled. Here
they are again in chapter 20. We nd certain others killed
under the beast, celebrated as having gotten the victory
over the beast, and over his image (chap. 15: 2) according
to the warning of chapter 14: 9; and we nd them again in
the verse under consideration.
Whereas the rst words of the verse are quite general
for the state all the saints of the rst resurrection would be
in. I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was
given to them. Royal judgment was now set in its place,
and we know the saints are to be there. If these slain ones
might have seemed to have fallen under the power of Satan
(as to the body, they might, for there are those that can kill
the body till judgment is executed), but they live and reign
with Christ when the judgment is set.
e seven churches do not represent all churches. Each
church represents a particular moral state. e professing
church, or a particular part of it at any given time, may
be in that state. Did Philadelphia represent Sardis, or any
church in a similar state?
But the special circumstances and position of saints,
which the Revelation so carefully brings out, the author of
the “ oughts “ is determined at all cost to set aside.
As to Gog and Magog, there is no doubt of course that
this is not what is mentioned in Ezekiel. As to the time, it
will be evident to one examining it, that Ezekiel (beginning
for example from chapter 34) gives the whole history of
Israel’s return and blessing, but chiey in reference to
external, rather than internal circumstances; because the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
408
four monarchies of the image of Dan. 2 are not the subject
of Ezekiel’s prophecies. And I do not doubt that an interval
elapses between the rst appearing of Christ in judgment
of Antichrist, and His Solomon reign-what I may call, to
explain myself, a David reign. But then all that is stated
about it here is wrong. e period of the visitation of the
Lord in Jerusalem is not His manifestation as Morning
Star,
159
as contrasted with the Sun arising with healing on
His wings.
is last is from Malachi, and applies to His visiting the
remnant in Jerusalem. While the proud were called happy,
they that feared the Lord spake often one to another, etc.,
and I will spare them, saith the Lord. “ en shall ye return,
and discern between the righteous and the wicked,” etc.
“ For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven;
and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be
stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith
the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of
righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall
go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall
tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the
soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the
Lord of hosts.” Is it not evident here that the arising of
the Sun of righteousness on those that fear the Lord is
159 If pages 150, 151, and 333, in the “ oughts,” be compared
with page 317, it will be evident on the author’s system the
visitation on Jerusalem cannot be the manifestation as Morning
Star, because the judgment of Christendom and Babylon had
already taken place by the Lord in this character. It cannot
therefore be at Jerusalem what it is described to be in page 533.
I do not repeat the comment I have made in the remarks on
each of these places.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
409
identied with the judgment on the wicked, in the day that
the Lord of hosts shall do this? e wicked being as ashes
under the soles of the righteous’ feet? Is not this the day of
visitation from the Lord-this day that burns as an oven?
And now, where is there anything said of Christ’s
manifestation as morning star in judgment on Jerusalem?
No such thought is found in Scripture, nor anything like
it. e morning star is found in two
160
places in Scripture;
in chapter 22Christ is the bright and morning star, where
it has no connection with judgment at all, but makes the
Spirit and the bride say Come. And in the promise to the
overcomers of the church of yatira, when, after speaking
of ruling the nations with a rod of iron, it is added as a
distinct thing, “ And I will give him the morning star.”
Certainly the idea conveyed by the day star is something
before the day, the portion and joy of those that watch for
the morning. e day is a thief and a snare to the whole
world, though we are peacefully of it. e day, bright and
blessed though it be in result, is never spoken of but as
terrible in its coming on the world, as we have seen in
Malachi of the Sun of righteousness. e star is never
spoken of as rising on the world at all.
All the system founded on this is the mere imagination
of the author.
As to the nations confederate with God, the author
believes them “ to be the nations which are now occupying
the districts in the center of Asia north-east of Persia-
Bokhara for instance.” It is curious the eect of living what
Lord Bacon calls, in the apexes of divine learning (“ inter
apices divinæ scientiæ”), especially when mountains of
systems are built upon it. e author had no need to go so
160 ere is besides “ till the day star arise in your hearts.”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
410
far north-east of Persia to seek the confederates. If he had
taken the trouble to read the chapter in Ezekiel, he would
have found it was just Persia itself, and the nations south-
west of it: to give them in their Hebrew names (which I
do, because then Scripture will direct us), Cush and Phut.
All the district about Euphrates and the Tigris is Cush
according to the Scripture, and perhaps large districts in
Arabia. See Gen. 2:13; Gen. 10:7-12.
161
Further, in Jer. 46:9,
we nd Cush and Phut connected with the Egyptian army,
that is, with Mizraim, another son of Ham-Lydians also.
Persia, Lud, and Phut, were among the mercenaries of Tire,
Ezek. 27:10. Cush, Phut, and Lud, are again identied with
Mizraim or Egypt; Ezekiel 3o: 5. Cush, Phut, Mizraim,
and Lubim (not Ludim), are again together in Nah. 3:9.
Lubim I suppose may be the Lehebim, who with the
Ludim (whose territory I do not pretend to decide) were
sprung from Mizraim or the Egyptians. Nahum shows
that Cush and Phut were naturally connected with Egypt.
e fact of the existence of an Euphratean Ethiopia
162
settled by Nimrod, and an Ethiopia connected with Egypt,
is nothing wonderful when we recollect that all these
countries were peopled by the descendants of Ham. e
Abrahamic descendants of Shem having been seated by
the Lord’s judgment in the center of them all by the almost
complete extirpation of the Canaanitish race-complete,
had Israel been faithful.
161 In more modern times it seems plain that Cush means the
African Ethiopia, see Esther 1 I; Ezek. 29:10.
162 I do not doubt that this is the meaning of “ beyond the rivers
of Ethiopia or Cush,” Isa. 18 e power there spoken of as
acting in the latter day was beyond the boundaries of the
nations then in relationship with Israel, of which the Nile and
the Euphrates are taken as the expression.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
411
Hence, however, it is clear that, instead of the
confederates of God being the nations to the north-east of
Persia, that is, Tartaq proper, they are Persia itself, and the
nations southwest of it, and perhaps (if we adopt Armenia
as the seat of Eden) the north-west. I leave others to
determine whether Ethiopia and Libya are to be extended
to the countries so called in Africa. e only word which
could refer to Tartary is “ north quarters,” or, more properly,
the recesses of the north. But this can hardly be, because
he is speaking of countries lying west of the Caspian (for
so Togarmah is supposed to be), that is, Armenia and the
Caucasian range, and would, if going beyond Togarmah
itself, rather mean Russia. Perhaps we should more rightly
take it as meaning that Togarmah itself was the recesses of
the north. Ezek. 27 leads one to consider that Meshech,
Tubal, and Togarmah, were districts of trade connected
with one another: at least they are mentioned in succession:
“ Many people with him “ may of course include Bokhara,
or any other country around. On the whole, the district
named reaches from the Persian Gulf to Russia, leaving
aside the question of Ethiopia and Libya in Africa.
ere is another question remains-Gog himself; for
we have been considering his confederates. Meshech and
Tubal are certainly his dominions. I suppose there is little
doubt of the region designated by these words, namely, in
general, the country between the Caspian and the Black
Sea, though it may go farther into northern Asia and
southern Russia
163
(Gomer had probably a wider range).
e only word which remains is “ chief prince,” or prince
of Ross, as some have translated it. e author believes the
163 e countries in general described are just the ancient
Scythians and their conquests: for they went as far as Egypt.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
412
English translation right; he does not tell us why. e elder
Lowth a century ago translated it “ prince of Ross “ (or
rather “ Rosh “); the most accurate modern translation does
to too. Gesenius gives it as the unquestionable meaning,
and adds that without doubt it means the Russians. In the
middle ages in the East they had the name of Ross. e
English translators have given, as an equivalent translation
in the margin, “ prince of the chief “ (the chief being Rosh
in Hebrew). So that the English translation gives both. For
my own part, though there may be some diculty in the
accents, and everyone knows how obscure a point that is, I
do not see how it is possible to translate it “ chief prince.”
e Septuagint have it as a proper name, Rhos. If it be
translated as a word, and not a name, it surely should be “
prince of the head, of Meshech, and of Tubal.”
e reader may be surprised at the introduction of all
this geography, or why the author of the “ oughts “ is
anxious for the English translation “ chief prince.” e
reason is this. If Lowth and the other authorities I have
mentioned are right, the whole fabric of the author falls
together, for this reason-that Russia and her professing
Christian dependencies will have been judged already as
Christendom, and therefore cannot come here in Ezekiel
as still to be judged.
In the next note it is stated that “ there are evidently
some who stand before the throne whose names are written
in the book of life: and they will doubtless be very many.”
What the word of God says is, “ Whosoever was not found
written in the book of life was cast into the lake of re,” but
not a word of any who were being there. It was the dead
only that were there: there is no proof that the saints will die
in the millennium. All were judged here according to their
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
413
works. I know not who should be justied if thus judged. I
do not see that Scripture says anything as to the judgment
of the millennial saints, if we except some general principle,
that corruption cannot inherit incorruption. is judgment
of the white throne would not reach those mentioned here.
ey are there alive in the camp of the saints and the
beloved city. We have no account how they are changed to
their eternal state; nor need we have.
I have nothing to say as to the sea, but to ask where it
is said to mean “ barrenness, separation, and the power of
death.” It is used guratively for masses of people. In the
millennial time I read of the abundance of the seas.
e rest of the note is more important. In the new
heavens and the new earth, creation, “ whatever shall then
be known as creation [not of course the present groaning
one, for the elements will have melted with fervent heat]
will be enjoying glorious liberty, founded on redemption,
similar to that which the heavenly city will be enjoying
as soon as the millennium commences.” at there will be
a certain link of circumstances is all very true. But what
means “ similar “? e creature in us is to be fashioned like
Christ’s glorious body. I suppose that whatever is known
then as creation will not be that. e residue of the note
is most singular. e scripture says the creature is waiting
for the manifestation of the sons of God, groaning and
travailing until now, and is subjected to vanity, in hope
that the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of
God. But, according to the author, it is to be freed from the
bondage of corruption, but not brought into glorious liberty.
Is not that rather a strange interpretation of the passage?
e second reason why it waits with earnest expectation
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
414
for the commencement of the millennium is, that it will
behold in the heavenly city … a specimen and earnest of
its own future glory. What part of creation does that? is
merely means (if it means anything) that the saints on earth
then, and of course the elect saints
164
exclusively, will see in
the state of the heavenly saints that they will be in time as
glorious as they. Now, I ask any one, is that to be found, or
anything about it, in Rom. 8, or anywhere in Scripture? It
is only an eort to show that the bride, the Lamb’s wife,
during the millennium will in the end be no better o than
the rest. It may be so, for I will not reason on it here,
165
and
that suering with Him being the path to be gloried with
Him is only a temporary ordinance, as well as the blessing
announced to belong to those who have believed without
seeing. But certainly it is produced here without any proof,
and the passage commented on aords no idea like it at
all; for the creature is distinguished from elect saints, who
164 Unless the author means to say that the physical creation will
itself have the glory and likeness of Christ, which I suppose
need not be reasoned about.
165 In page 335 the author supposes the possibility of ocial
dierences; on the other hand, it is clear that the whole family
of the redeemed will be with and like Christ in common
Second Adam blessedness, the Son being Himself subject as
Second Adam, and head of this blessed family of redemption
man, the tabernacle of God being with men, no longer with a
separate people on earth, or Himself in a certain sense absent,§
or rather we “ present in the body, and absent from the Lord.”
e distinctive honor or ocial dierence of the heavenly
Jerusalem, if such there be then, is a subject too large to enter
into here, more especially as I have no very positive judgment
about it.(§ Not is it even the millennial way of uniting all
things, which still as to the saints maintains the distinction
of the heavenly glory and earthyly glory: for there is glory
celestial, and glory terrestial.)
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
415
are groaning too. And it is accompanied with the singular
assertion that, delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of God’s children means that it
is delivered from the bondage of corruption, but not into
the glorious liberty, but that seeing that in others makes
it know that it will be; though, as we have seen, this only
applies to elect millennial saints, and certainly not in that
sense to whatever is known as creation, if there be anything
else.
e millennial state is not a nal state, as everyone
knows, or it would not be a millennium. But when it
is said, “ to those enjoying its full blessedness,” this can
refer only to their circumstances, for they already bear the
image of the Lord from heaven. But though it be not nal,
the statements made here are totally unwarranted by the
passage alluded to, and more than unwarranted.
CHAPTER 22 [READ CHAP. 21] FROM VERSE 9
It seems an ungracious task to examine what, to many
at any rate, will seem only a very beautiful development of
the glory and character of the heavenly city. But it is but
natural that, when the topic is but description even, and
so less liable to error, still that the elements of the general
system should be introduced, and thus sanctioned; and we
owe it to the word of God, however beautiful language
may be, to see whether the thoughts contained in it are
scriptural. Now, much of what may seem very beautiful
here I nd mere unbridled imagination, and the system
of the author maintained in its worst points. I would cite
here, not as containing any particular evil, but as showing
how mere imagination is at work, the following statement
from what may seem perhaps the most elevated part of
the description: “ Nothing can be more transparent than
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
416
crystal-nothing more bright than the jasper-nothing more
resplendent when fully illumined by the light of God.”
166
What is jasper fully illumined by the light of God? Just
nonsense. I do not attach any evil to this: it is just a proof
that it is not the Spirit of God, but the imagination, which
is in the description.
e statement that all these glories are diversied
presentations of their manifold glory, has been examined
more or less when each subject presented itself distinctly.
It is quite certain that in the passages where they are
found, distinct classes of saints, that is, distinct bodies in
distinct circumstances, are spoken of, and their peculiar
position in glory connected with and owing out of these
circumstances. is cannot be denied. One has only to read
the passages. But then the author is pleased to say that
he regards
167
them as representing the whole church, and
that therefore they are to be taken as manifold glories of
the same one company. But, not to speak of their standing
round the Lamb on Mount Zion, this making some in
peculiar circumstances representatives of all is setting aside
the government of God-the special object of this book.
You might as well say that Lot was a representative of
Abraham, or Abraham of Lot, because both were believers
and righteous, and therefore equally saved, as these distinct
bodies of the whole church. Lot was just a representative
of what it was to be not as Abraham. Nor is to be saved “
so as by re “ (even to come to everyday circumstances) the
same thing as an “ abundant entrance into the everlasting
kingdom.” Having stated that they are all so, it is easy to
166 If taken as a symbol, jasper, according to the author, is the
divine nature and glory. What is the meaning of that being
illumined with the light of God?
167 See page 317.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
417
conclude that “ they are all necessary,” though all be stated
without the least scripture proof. Yet even so, all this (as
is the case all through this book) is true for the occasion
only. e contrary is stated elsewhere. Here the Lamb on
Mount Zion is true indeed as one of the glories, but it
does not show “ heaven brought into such close systematic
relationship to the earth,” as in the heavenly Jerusalem here
considered. “ It is the vision of the heavenly city that shows
us the glory of the saints brought into its closest adaptation
to the need of a fallen earth.” “ If a metropolis, as in this
case it is, it becomes, throughout its appointed sphere,
the center from which and through which all vivifying
inuence is diused.” Elsewhere we read:” Yet it is in this
world that the glory and holiness and happiness of heaven
is to be manifested and established.’” “ ere is one spot in
the earth where the righteousness and joy and blessedness
of heaven will be perfectly found, and that spot is the height
of Zion.” “ at Mount Zion, in connection with the earthly
Jerusalem, which will be builded around it, will become the
center of the earth’s legislation and government,” etc., “ is
again and again declared in scripture.”
“ It will be the place where heavenly glory will be
made visible before the eyes of men. It will be the citadel
of Jerusalem’s strength, because it will be the place of the
presence of the divine glory and omnipotent power.”
“ We read of the heavenly city at the commencement
of the millennium so descending as not to be in heaven
(for it descended from God, out of heaven), neither on
the earth “ … “ In other words, it will be intermediate, as
the holy place should be,” etc. “ But the summit of Zion,
miraculously exalted above the hills (Isa. 2) arising from
earth as if to meet the heavenly city resting over it in the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
418
heavens above, will be the place where heavenly glory will
rst be brought into real connection with this earth. It will
be the citadel of the holy ones, the place where the foot
of Jacob’s ladder may be said visibly to rest.” In pages 195,
196, in a word, the heavenly Jerusalem is intermediate, as it
should be. Heavenly glory is brought into real connection
with the earth in the one hundred and forty-four thousand
with the Lamb on Mount Zion, for the joy and blessedness
of heaven will be perfectly found on earth. In page 32o it
is the vision of the heavenly city that shows us the glory of
the saints brought into the closest adaptation to the need
of a fallen earth.
ere, it is “ the earthly and yet heavenly condition of
Zion that fullls the promises of scripture.”
Here it is only one of those “ previous visions in
which heaven is not brought into such close systematic
relationship to the earth.”
In a word, the imagination was lled with the summit
of Zion miraculously exalted above the hills there, and the
heavenly Jerusalem was only intermediate: here it was lled
with the latter, and therefore Zion, however it was then the
center and the real connection of heavenly glory with this
earth, did not here bring heaven into as close relationship
to the earth, nor adaptation to its need as the heavenly city,
which then was obliged to take an intermediate place, as it
should. In a word, it is all just the sport of the imagination.
Besides, association with the earth is not in the least
the main subject here, blessed as this may be for the earth,
but association with the Lamb, and God’s being there. It
is not under this aspect that it is rst called the bride of
the Lamb. at she ministers blessing to the earth is true;
but it is a secondary thing at the close. e earth is not
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
419
mentioned till verse 24 of this chapter, and it is just the rst
two verses of chapter 22 which give the lovely picture of its
associations with the earth in the way of blessing through
the leaves of the trees that grew there.
Yet it is stated, “ She is however described in this
chapter chiey, I might perhaps say entirely, in relation to
the earth.” Is that the case? Read only the chapter and see.
e city, “ the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” is itself described,
and it is not “ what she will be to the apprehensions of
the millennial saints who dwell upon the earth “ which is
described; but what she is to the faith and hope of the pre-
millennial saints. “ I saw no temple therein, for the Lord
God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple.”
“ And the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb
is the light thereof.” She herself is to be the light of the
nations, but this is her light, what she enjoys within.
To talk about a metropolis and a center, “ where
character is developed, and where habits of thought and
action are displayed,” so “ that this city will be the home
of the aections of Christ,” perverts, fair as it may seem,
the whole chapter. It is what it is for us, its glory and its
privileges for us, which is described. Doubtless Christ will
delight in His bride. But it is not what it is to Him which
is here developed. He is the temple, He the light, with
the Lord God Almighty in it. e whole principle of the
statement is wrong. And if this be not a revelation of the
secrets of her excellent glory (for it is not a question here
of children of the Father), where is this revelation? ere
are particular symbolic blessings for those that overcome in
the promises to the churches, but no revelation of the glory
of the city. If it be not here, where is it to be found? If we
have it here, “ as in the distance,” “ as it were without the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
420
walls,” where is the account from within? As usual, things
are brought down to earth, and we may grope in the dark
after all the rest. If it be asserted that the Father’s house,
and being with Christ there, is a higher feeling, I shall not
dispute it, or enter on the point. But if the revelation of the
interior blessedness of the heavenly city be not here, where
is it?
And here in passing I must remark on a statement of
page 322. is heavenly Jerusalem becomes “ the earth’s
new center of light and inuence in the stead of “ Babylon.
Babylon being, according to the author, an earthly city, it
ought, surely, to have been earthly Jerusalem. is shows
how ill the whole system hangs together. But let that
pass. Here the heavenly city is clearly in contrast with the
Babylon who corrupted the earth, destroyed quite at the
end; and, as he had made that a city on the Euphrates, it
is the place of that city that the heavenly Jerusalem must
take. is, people will believe as they like. But if “ she had
been the great result of the wisdom of ages, stimulated and
assisted by the skill and energy of Satan,” how comes it
that when Satan gives his throne and power to one, as to
whom “we may conceive his adaptation to his appointed
work, and the security which the devil feels in entrusting
him therewith, by the readiness with which the dragon
resigns to him his throne,” who will be “ his deputy,” not “
an unknown stranger, but one already tted for the place
in which he and Satan were together to act, in parity of
glory, for a little season,” how comes it, I say, that his rst
act is to destroy and burn with re “that city which had
been emphatically from beneath, which had been the great
result of the wisdom of ages, stimulated and assisted by
the skill and energy of Satan “? Was he divided against
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
421
himself? Or how did he raise up this person, together with
whom he acts in parity of glory, to destroy this result of the
wisdom of ages, stimulated and assisted by his own energy?
And now, which Babylon did the heavenly city take the
place of, the system or the city? Hardly the system, because
Antichrist had taken the place of that. But then, how was
the city as such the result of the wisdom of ages, when
its system had all been destroyed? And is it quite fair to
say that she, “ together with the beast, had ruled the earth
for a season,” when she had been in this character totally
destroyed some years before the heavenly Jerusalem comes
on the scene? And the truth is, it is evident that it is the
destruction of the city (according to the author’s scheme),
not of the woman, which is exulted over as making way for
the marriage of the Lamb. It is the destruction of chapter
18. But this had never ruled with the beast. It was the mere
city. For my own part, I am persuaded that the more the
author’s system as to Babylon is examined, the more will it
be found a complete delusion.
Next as to the precious stones. “ We have seen them
once on the breastplate of the high priest of Israel, the type
and pledge of the moral grace and outward glory which
should attach, and one day will attach, to all the Israel of
God.” Where have we seen this? What proof has the reader
in his mind? at the city will have the glory of God, and
be the brightest creature display of it through union with
the gloried Bridegroom, and God’s dwelling in the midst
of her, is most sure. So far in general I have nothing to say.
In general this is attributed to the heavenly city. Her light
was like unto a stone most precious. But I do not see that
any series of precious stones are used as symbols of the
church’s glory; and when it is said, “ It is no unintelligible
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
422
emblem to have one’s name written on that whose luster is
as enduring as itself, and which shines most when brought
into nearest connection with the light of God,” on what
does the author mean they were written? I suspect strongly
that, however easy it may be to say it is no unintelligible
emblem, not a single one of his readers understands it.
We read of these stones, that He that sat upon the throne
was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone. It was
external glory.
e author says that the city (or rather the light of it,
for it was not the city itself) being like a jasper, as well
as He that sat on the throne, “ teaches us not merely the
nature of that brightness, but whence it ows, and where
it is preserved for us, and why it will be in us, even because
we are in Him that is true, that is, the true God.” Now, that
as a general truth our being in the Lord is the source of
all our blessing every Christian believes. But this is never
in any case connected with the luster of precious stones
in Scripture. ey are a glory which can be put on. e
high priest bore the names engraved on them, but there
was nothing intrinsic, no principle of union between God
and them, nor the high priest and them as to life at all. We
must make the stones mean God and the divine nature,
not something illumined by it, to mean this. But they were
borne ocially by the high priest. Take them as certain
qualities put upon them, and I can understand this. is
may come from life in us. But then I nd the king of
Tire clothed with them (Ezek. 28). Were they the proof
there, or do they teach us there, that he was in Him that
is true, that is, the true God? Every precious stone was his
covering. Apply this to Satan or what you will, it cannot
mean what the author says it teaches us. e jasper, or any
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
423
other stone, does not imply being in Him that is true. It
is glory, and not partaking of nature, because we nd it
when the divine nature certainly was not partaken of. God
was to look upon like this, and the light of the city was
like this. Glory is always the idea attached to these stones.
e priests’ garments (and priesthood is not union, though
union may co-exist with it) were for glory and beauty. e
wall of the city was jasper. is, whatever it was, was her
everlasting defense and security.
e paved work under the feet of the God of Israel was
like a sapphire stone, as the body of heaven in its clearness.
So the throne was as a sapphire in Ezek. 1is was hardly
the divine nature, whatever the instrument of the displayed
glory. And the reader must remember that the jasper and
the sardine stone were armed of the glory in which the
Lord was seen on the throne, as the rst and last of the
series on the breastplate of the high priest, to show that
all were included.
168
And, if we are to take in general “ the
symbolic meaning of precious stones “ given by the author,
what is the meaning of Babylon’s being decked with
precious stones? It is evident, if Scripture be examined,
even leaving aside Babylon,
169
that the statement of the
author is quite wrong. It is again his imagination, and not
the word of God. at the stones displayed, not pure light,
but what could be displayed of the glory of God in or as
seen by a creature, I believe: whether presented to God
covenantly as such on the breastplate of the high priest,
or identied with the foundations of the city, or in general
that one which is specially used as designating the glory
168 Page 40.
169 I leave aside Babylon, because I think it may be justly argued
that precious stones are there used in a lower and more carnal
sense. But the author’s statement is without limitation.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
424
of God, and therefore is used of the light of the whole city
itself. But here I stop, and I do not think I say too much in
saying I do not believe others go much farther.
But I object much to the use made of the symbol here.
It is armed of the whole of what the author calls, but
Scripture does not, “ the Israel of God.” Of this, as usual, no
proof is given. It is attached, so far as that even is the case,
to the city. Its light was like unto a stone most precious.
But it is never described itself by the glory and brightness
of these stones. Next, it is said, “ the church of the rstborn,
when the time comes for the heavenly city to descend, will
have been brought into full realized union with Him, had
been made recipients of His fullness; and will therefore
shine according to His excellency. He who is Light will be
there; and there will be nothing in her to hinder, nothing
to dim, the pure eulgence of His glory.”
As to this oft-repeated expression, “ Church of the
rstborn,” it is always used to convey the idea that the
scripture uses the term church in a larger and more general
sense. is is not the case. e most extended idea given of
the church is where this is used, rstborn being a title of
the whole body called the church. e expression “ church
of the rstborn “ is found in Heb. 12:23. “ e general
assembly
170
and church of the rstborn who are written
in heaven “-the fullest, largest expression about the church
in Scripture. e word translated general assembly means
the “ assembly of a whole nation,” especially for a public
festival, or the like. And to make of rstborn a distinctive
170 is is not exact if the original text be looked to. e Greek
word for “ and “ divides each particular; an innumerable
company of angels the general assembly, and the church of the
rstborn whose names are written in heaven. But the general
reasoning is all right.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
425
special limitation of a certain class, who come in before
others, is a mere delusion. It is the character and privilege
of the only body called the church in Scripture (that is,
God’s assembly in the Christian sense of it).
Next, why is it said we are brought then into full realized
union with Him? We are now, though we have not the
redemption of the body, nor consequently the display of
glory. And why made recipients then of His fullness? We
are now, “ and grace for grace.” Just in the same way it is
said, pages 329, 33o, “ How angels may learn therein the
manifold wisdom of God.” e scripture emphatically says
that they are learning it now. When it is said, nothing will
dim the pure eulgence of His glory, it is not true that the
reex of His glory in us will be what we see it face to face.
ose on earth will not in that earthly state so see it, and
could not; as far as a united gloried creature can manifest
it, they will. No doubt they will see in us all that can be
conferred in the highest way possible on those who are not
one with the Father, Himself God as well as with God; for
this is true of the incarnate One only, and therefore He is
our light in the city. But, while we bear the image of the
heavenly man, this is not to others the glory of God as we
see it; and there is something more bright than the jasper
(if we must take it so in the creature) when illumined by the
light of God, and that is the light of God which illumines
it, a light spoken of as in the city in this description, while
the nations walk in the light of the city. at which is really
essentially precious to us is denied in page 321, and merged
in our glory here in page 323. Further, it is never said “
She will be the temple of the whole earth “ anywhere, nor
anything about it, though naos be inserted in Greek as if
accurately to explain it.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
426
“ Of the Lamb,” attached to “ the bride,” is no particular
expression of grace in her, but distinguishes her from, and
contrasts her with, the King’s wife. She was identied with
Jesus considered as suering, not as reigning on the earth,
and now therefore she reigns with Him. e millennial
saints on earth never will be identied with them in this
character. e Lamb’s wrath is spoken of as well as His
grace. It is the character in which He gloried God in
suering, and the church has been identied with Him in
that character of humiliation, in which He came when He
came to take away sin. I do not doubt that the heavenly
Jerusalem is characterized by the ministration of grace. Still
I think, with much beauty of language, the teaching of these
pages as to her is not of God’s Spirit. “ e avenues of sorrow
are stopped,” it is not said by whom, “ and the workings
of death checked by the ministration of a more abundant
power of life.” One might have supposed that this owed
from God and the Lamb, though ministered by the bride.
But it is from her they are ministered: “ the ministration
of blessings from her is unceasing.” ey are said indeed to
be ministered through her, and while, of course, the author
cannot deny the plain statement of Scripture that the river
came from the throne of God and the Lamb, yet there is
complete confusion in the explanatory statement, “ ere
is one that yearneth to give, and need crying to receive;
and stores inexhaustible to be given, and grace that has
removed every hindrance.” In whom is the love that yearns
to give, and grace, and inexhaustible stores?
Of course the inhabitants of earth cannot enter into
the heavenly city. But here the priests of Israel (i.e., the
risen church of the rstborn), are again introduced, which
we have so often seen to be a mere picture of the author’s
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
427
mind, founded on a misapprehension of Greek. Besides,
following out this symbol or gure as if it were a real city
is all mere confusion. e city is the bride, the Lamb’s
wife. And, therefore, though it may be said in a general
way no one shall enter into it but those who are written
in the Lamb’s book of life, as showing who can be there,
and though there will be visible glory, yet when the author
speaks of the priests of Israel, etc., entering into the city,
it sets aside the whole force of the symbols. e city was
a symbol of them in the state of glory, as it is considered,
page 323, by the author himself. e jasper glory of the city
is the display of the divine nature in us. “ It will be in us.”
is is just the eect of the imagination out-running the
divine use of a gure or symbol.
Again, we have the names of the twelve tribes to prove
its relation to them, though there is not one word of
relation to Jerusalem in the passage. eir names may show
God’s recognition of His ways with that nation which is
the object of His electing love, as the names of the twelve
apostles His recognition of them in their place; but surely
not its standing in a present relation to the apostles; and
if not, not to the tribes either. And again, we nd their
priesthood when only nations are spoken of, so that it was
not their priesthood that was wanted. is would have
made a sort of double intervention. e Gentiles come to
the Jews at Jerusalem, and then their priesthood present
their homage. But the truth is, it is all the picture of the
imagination. ere is not one word about the church being
Israel’s priesthood; nor is there any possible connection
between Deut. 32:8, and this idea. What has setting the
bounds of the people to do with the church being Israel’s
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
428
priesthood, and the people coming to Jerusalem to obtain
its intervention?
Nor is it ever said that the order, dignities, and
regulations, of the nations will ow through Israel. Christ
is King of nations, as well as King of the Jews, and though
the Jews will be the royal nation, so that they will have
special dignity, it is not said that the dignities of the nations
will ow through them.
Page 329 too, fair as it seems, is all confusion-a confusion
of the type and the fact. It is true that the law gave but a
shadow and not the very image of the things; and indeed
the temple, though never alluded to in detail in the New
Testament as a type (because we are in the wilderness), was
much more a gure of millennial heavenly blessings, and
then the priests did walk on gold. But here, if the priests in
the holy place typied the presence of the saints in heaven
as Israel’s intercessors, does the author mean that they will
be in an imperfect heaven, or that they were a type of men
partly on earth, partly in heaven, that is, not really in the
heavenly courts at all? “ Not themselves standing in the
power thereof, nor in competency of action thereunto.” In
type or in reality? Nor can it be said that he uses it of the
present state of the church, which is in heaven in spirit, but
in reality on earth, because in the most holy place it was the
high priest alone went, who typied Christ in heaven itself
for us now, entered with His own blood. Does he stand
not in the power thereof, nor in competency of action
thereunto? Yet he stood on earth as much as the others.
Nor is it anywhere said that they stood unshod. And if they
stood unshod, it was just because the place was holy-in that
sense answering to gold; not because it was upon the earth.
e whole statement is a mere confusion of ideas.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
429
Were they unshod because they had a foot that fears “
contrast with the transparent purity on which it treads “?
ey washed their hands and their feet for every service, to
signify the purity needed. But it is merely images heaped
together without any connection.
e gurative idea of a city is kept up throughout; but,
to follow out the image attempted here, it is not the streets
which should have been of gold, but the feet should have
been spoken of. But Scripture, while aording by perfect
types the general thoughts which give perfect blessing to
the soul, never puts them together as if it were a pictorial
consistency of type. Nobody would know where to put the
ten horns on the seven heads of the beast. It is united in
its meaning in the mind, but not in the eye for us. Here, in
the city, it was a cube, that is, perfection every way, height,
length, breadth, equal. at is an image which presents
perfection in the city. But each was twelve thousand stadia,
that is one thousand ve hundred miles long, broad, and
high. But the wall of the city was a hundred and forty-
four cubits, or over two hundred feet high. e moment
you pass beyond the spiritual idea asserted by the one type
given, you spoil all: and this is what the author has done
in another way. He has confounded dierent sets of types
together and mixed all up with the natural fact (if indeed it
be a fact, and which, if it be, meant the contrary of what it
is here used for) and thus has made a string of statements
which may move the feelings, but, when examined calmly,
mean really nothing at all.
I have already noticed that it is now angels learn by the
church the manifold wisdom of God. As to worlds and
new beings being dependent on the place, one has only to
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
430
repeat what the author says to check, as he uses it to ll, the
imagination-” We know not.”
I hardly know what means “ commissioned to act in the
power of the same love.” Is it meant with as great love?
ere is another statement in this page 330 which tends
to maintain a false view of service. e prospects of the
world are Babylon, Antichrist, judgment. ey aord an
occasion of watchfulness, service, and testimony.
e blessing, the throne, the heavenly city, reigning
with Christ-are the church’s portion.
But is it only the evil that gives occasion for watchfulness,
service, and testimony? And why is Christ’s coming
excluded from the prospects of the church as given in this
book? Is there no watchfulness connected with that? Is all
our watchfulness connected only with evil?
It must be remembered that the vision of chapter 90,
of the word of God, etc., is declared by the author not to
be Christ’s coming. e prospects and the consequence
of those prospects are most untruly given here, taken as a
whole, or as to the truth of the consequences, and a very
false idea of the true Christian position as regards them.
We are as men that watch for our Lord. It is not merely
Antichrist and Babylon make us watchful, though we have
to watch against evil. Our service and testimony ought to
be much more about Christ and His coining, and the glory
with Him, than about the evil. Testimony against anything
is not the grand subject of the Spirit’s testimony; and a
service and a testimony which are only against evil is a
miserable service. And a watchfulness about Babylon and
Antichrist is not the waiting for the Bridegroom which
characterizes, or ought to characterize, the church of God.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
431
And now as to the words “ He that is unjust, let him
be unjust still,” etc. Is it not very plain that these words
must refer to some time denitely, when the day of grace
properly speaking is over? ey mean that, as the author
does not deny. ere may be some diculty, at least at
the point of attainment where we all are in interpreting
the Apocalypse, in giving the precise application of the
passage. But how does the fact of their having passed the
lips of Jesus mark “ the time when they will be fully ratied
as being very nigh,” when eighteen centuries have elapsed
since they were uttered? Or how is it that it means at the
same time, “ that from that hour forward, even till the day
of His appearing, there should be no change in the general
aspect of mankind “? at is, how is it a proof that the date
of its commencement was nigh, and at the same time that
it was to be counted in another sense from that hour? at
is, moreover, that it proved that an immense change (no
less a change than the cessation of the day of grace, and
having “ the doom of each irrevocably xed “) would soon
take place, “ was nigh,” and at the same time that from that
hour (the then present hour), forward … there should be
no change in the general aspect of mankind? It suited the
system of the author to have it as a proof of vagueness of
“ nigh,” and that everything would remain unchanged till
Christ’s actual appearing; though he has taught in this book
that meanwhile such a total apostasy would come in as that
not only Christianity, but the owning of God as Creator, or
in any way, would cease in these very countries. Does not
that change somewhat the general aspect of mankind? Or,
if it does not, what does? Or how would they remain in all
essential features what at that hour they were?
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
432
If at any rate this has any real force, it is quite clear
that it warrants the looking for Jesus at all times. at is,
that as there were many Antichrists, and the churches had
begun to fail in their testimony, nothing now remains but
the interference of His own hand. So that, whatever might
happen to Jews or others, the church might look for the
close of its history at once. For it is evidently to it that
Antichrists and failing testimony apply here.
e truth is, there are three statements at the close
of the Apocalypse, of Christ’s coming quickly: two in
connection with the topics of the book more or less, and
one after they are quite closed and the church is on the
scene in its ordinary hopes and character. (I) Chapter 22:
7 is a general statement, connected with the blessing of
minding the warnings given in this book. (2) en verse
to, where, contrary to the direction to Daniel to seal his
prophecy, the prophet is forbidden to seal it, for the time is
at hand. And then it is stated that (not the general aspect of
mankind, but) the personal condition of individuals was to
remain unaltered. And this connects the coming of Christ,
not with the blessing of minding His prophetic testimony,
but with the individual judgment of men according to their
work. en (3), after a closing address to the church and the
answer of the Spirit thereon, His quick coming is armed,
and the apostle answers in his own person in desire by
the Spirit that He should. I should say, in reading these
passages, that rst there were those separated in testimony
to blessing-not the churches now, they were done with as
things “ that are,” but such as gave heed to the prophetic
testimony, and that then, subsequent to that, it was solely
judgment; that men would be left in their then condition
to be judged, in two classes on either side, unrighteous
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
433
ones and lthy ones, and righteous ones and holy ones;
and then the statement closes with saying that He is Alpha
and Omega. e subsequent part is composed of closing
remarks about the book.
As to the reading, “ wash their robes,” instead of “
keep his commandments,” I do not oppose the reading.
Griesbach and Scholz, however, do not admit it: nor
Knapp. Tischendorf adopts it, and Tregelles.
171
ere yet remains the meaning of the root and ospring
of David, and the bright and morning star.
As to the root and ospring of David, I have nothing to
say. I do not believe the force given to the expression exact;
but there is nothing which in principle aects materially
any interpretation.
But it is then stated, “ He has other essential glories of
His own. ‘ Before Abraham was I AM.’ He is ‘ the root
and ospring of David, AND the bright and morning
star.’ “ is, if it means anything means that the bright
171 e evidence is this:-ree MSS out of about a hundred have
the new reading, one slightly varying, and the Vulgate (at least
the Editions of the Vulgate), which adds, however, words not
found in the MSS. e MSS Vulgate appear to want the added
words. Of the three MSS which have “ wash their robes,” one is
ancient. (Of the two other ancient ones, one wants the passage,
the other is not cited.) One of the two other MSS which have
the new reading almost always agrees with the ancient one
which has it: the other is of the same family, as it is called. It
is to be supposed that all the other MSS which do not want
the passage favor the other reading. In this state of things I
do not pretend to decide. It is a question of the authority of
the three Alexandrian MSS against a large majority of those
called Constantinopolitan. e African fathers read “ keep his
commandments.” [Codex Sinaticus reads “ washed their robes,”
and I suppose it is the true reading altered by the church when
redemption was forgotten, and works pretended to.]
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
434
and morning star means the essentially divine nature and
glory of Christ- that in virtue of which He calls Himself
“ I am.” e appearing of the star then is the appearing of
this essentially divine nature. Does the reader believe that
this is the meaning of the star?-that “ I will give him the
morning star “ means, I will give him my essential glory,
that by which I can say, Before Abraham was, I AM? In
pages 150, 151 we read, “ when Christ rst appears in the
fullness of divine glory, in the ‘ glory of the Father, His own
glory, and the glory of the holy angels,’ He is symbolized
by the star; I am the bright and morning star.’ To him that
overcometh will I give the morning star,’ i.e., association
with Himself in this high character of glory.” So that here
we nd that the Father’s glory, Christ’s essential glory as I
AM, the glory of the holy angels, are given to us. Associated
with Him in it is a vague expression. e Son of man is to
come in this glory. e glory given to Him He has given
to us. But what is given is not essential. What He receives
as Son of man He communicates to us; but what He has
essentially as I AM, most surely He does not. His glory He
will not give to another. But it is never said the star means
this. It is never said Christ appears as the star. All this is
an entirely unscriptural use of the symbol. In the passage
referred to above I have commented on the use of it, and I
do not repeat it here.
But, if the use of this symbol be examined, the statements
of the author will be found complete confusion. It is easy
to say “ the star,” and so by our natural idea of star give an
idea of what is distant and unearthly. But it is not the “
star,” but the “ morning star “ which is in question, which is
a wholly dierent expression and association of ideas-not
the least what is distant and unearthly, but something that
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
435
brings the idea of the day near, associated with the coming
joy of the day. It is not even really a star, nor associated in
thought with stars.
Further, if we turn to “ stars,” they are quite foreign
to what is divine or supreme.
172
ey fall from heaven to
denote confusion. ey are wormwood, and make the rivers
bitter. In this last case (page 115) it is called “ bringing
superhuman agency now operating in another sphere,
and subserving the arrangements of the divine order in
the created heavens, into destructive application to the
earth.”
173
en they are stated “ to be continually employed
to represent the saints in their resurrection glory, when
they will rule over the world.” But the author has forgotten
here that this will be the benign reign of the sun. But to
return to the use of it here. “ It will be the sudden visitation
of strange and distant glory, suddenly breaking upon the
abyss of darkness beneath.” Now is there one single idea
of this found in the morning star? or in anything ever said
172 In pages 332, 333, we read, “ He has other essential glories
of His own. Before Abraham was, I AM. He is the root and
ospring of David, AND the bright and Morning Star. I
have already spoken of the star as the symbol of distant and
unearthly glories, etc. It is in such glory, strictly unearthly and
divine, that Jesus will come. It will be the true light of God’s
own glory,” etc. Compare this with page its, where we nd it
employed to symbolize evil spirits, and saints in resurrection
glory.
173 ere it is stated that evil spirits also exercise this power. But if
so, how can a star symbolize the glories essentially divine? at
the saints may exercise a power, and Christ at their head may
exercise a power, now abused by Satan, is true: but then that
cannot be as I AM. It is not in that case strictly unearthly and
divine. And therefore the star does not mean this: nor indeed
did any one before ever suppose it did.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
436
about it? Or how does it suddenly break upon the abyss of
darkness? Is that the way the morning star appears?
Perhaps the reader will think that this strange and
distant glory suddenly breaking upon the abyss of darkness
beneath will be visible, when it thus breaks forth, as “ to
esh and blood terrible glory.” Not at all. When the “ tares
and wheat had been both gathered “ “ for … the tares are
not destroyed by any visible judgment on the earth “ (page
316). As the Morning Star He treads the winepress indeed,
according to this system, and exercises the destructive
judgments by which the day of the Lord is ushered in. But
the reader must remember that, according to the author’s
system, the judgment of Christendom had all taken place
before this. e whole eld had been reaped and the tares
burned in the re, before this takes place. Yet this terrible
glory of the Morning Star must be the same as the Son
of man in the clouds of chapter 14, for that is the harvest
when the saints are received into glory.
174
And in the
harvest of the earth and the vintage of the earth, the word
‘ earth ‘ means a totally dierent thing: one earth entirely
excludes the other.
On the whole, there is not the least scriptural authority
for the meaning given to the morning star, nor indeed
is any proof attempted. e morning star is confounded
with stars, a quite dierent emblem, and used with entirely
dierent objects. Christ is never said in Scripture to appear
as the morning star at all. And there is the greatest possible
confusion in the judgments with which it is connected; for
174 And it is into the glory of the Morning Star that the saints are
to be taken (p. 333). And in (pp. 150, 151), it is said that Christ
appears in this glory (referring to the passage here commented
on). “ When Christ rst appears in the fullness of divine glory,
etc., He is symbolized by the star.”
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
437
the judgments by which the day is ushered in by the star
are after it has judged Christendom, tares and all, to whom
there was no such terrible apparition at all, though the
wheat had been taken up into this high glory. I must leave
to the reader to judge of this extraordinary idea of a sort of
quiet judgment of Christendom, tares and all, before even
Christ appears in glory for the judgment of the apostates.
I have already discussed it in connection with the revealed
statements of 2essalonians and Jude.
Next, as to the notes. “ I have already spoken of the
contiguity and connection, like the ladder of Jacob, which
characterizes the relation of the heavenly and earthly
places.” e author adds, “ I should regard the new earth
as the center of the displayed government of God over the
works of His hands.” Why so? Christ was the center (not
on earth) till, giving up the kingdom, God is all in all. e
writer again seeks to ll our imagination with possible new
worlds which God may create. But man on earth is to be
the center of them when God is all and in all, or at least
the earth belonging to man. Now, where is all this found?
Scripture presents quite other ideas. And where is it said
they go into the heaven of heavens? Or where is “ united to
God “ spoken of in scripture? And if men go to the heaven
of heavens to be with God, why does “ the tabernacle of
God is with men “ mean that the heavenly Jerusalem is
actually on the earth?
But here we light on some other important questions.
e author, on the ground of there being “ some dierence
as to honor and privilege between the citizens of Jerusalem,
and the inhabitants of the rest of the cities of Israel,”
supposes “ there may perhaps be somewhat of a similar
distinction between the New Jerusalem and the rest of the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
438
inhabiters of the new earth.” But “ they must be considered
as purely ocial.” But, though the name of Jerusalem be
symbolically used, it is the saints themselves in glory, viewed
in their unity as the bride, the Lamb’s wife, who are new
Jerusalem. And therefore the distinction is between new
Jerusalem, the bride, the Lamb’s wife, and men on the new
earth, if such subsist. e tabernacle of God is with men.
And this was connected with the descent of new Jerusalem
from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband. So that if
this be so, she is seen in this distinctive beauty in the new
earth also. e author may be pleased to call this ocial
dierence. But to be the tabernacle
175
or dwelling-place of
God in the eternal state, and in the nearest possible union
with Christ, will surely be innitely precious to the saint
who really estimates things spiritually as he ought, be it
called ocial or not. And, moreover, if this be so, what was
said about indenite extension all falls to the ground; for
this particular city has its own proper place of distinctive
glory, and the rest come under the title of men.
176
I have again to notice what is again repeated-” they
who are raised at the end of the millennium.” Scripture
never speaks of any who are so raised. ere is no such
second resurrection spoken of. e only persons we hear of
175 I assume here the truth of the doctrine as the author supposes
in the note, and, supposing it true, reason on its value. For,
though I am disposed to think the distinction kept up in
Scripture, I do not feel that I have any certain teaching of God
on the subject.
176 It may be remarked here that ocial and temporary are not
necessarily united, as the author makes the abiding distinction
of the inhabitants of the heavenly Jerusalem an ocial
distinction in this very note.
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
439
as being of God at the end of the millennium are on earth,
surrounded by the hosts of Satan, once again let loose.
I have again to repeat that “ so in Christ shall all be
made alive “ does not state that they are in Christ at all-
no more than “ as in Adam “ in the same sentence proves
them to be in him or implies union. We are all involved
in Adam’s fall, but there most certainly is no union with
Adam such as there is with Christ.
I am not calling in question here that they have life
from Christ, or bear His image. But the ground on which
the author rests it is positively and absolutely mistaken.
ey are not said to be in Christ in the passage; nor does
“ in “ the least imply what the author makes it imply, as I
have already proved by numerous examples, and as this very
passage would prove, were they said to be in Christ. We
dwell in God certainly: there is no such idea in Scripture
as being His body. We are in the Spirit, but we are not His
body: nor does “ in “ here imply union. In ne, members of
Adam’s body we are not: yet in this passage, “ in Adam “ is
used as “ in Christ.”
Besides, it is said, “ ey that are Christ’s at his coming.”
So that if the author insists that this is a resurrection at
the beginning of the millennium, and that there is another
at the end, of members of Christ’s body, then there are
members of His body who are not His; for they that are
His were raised at His coming. And you cannot take “ they
that are Christ’s at His coming “ are raised, because then
there is no period stated at which they are raised; and you
cannot speak of a resurrection at the commencement of
the millennium at all.
As to Isa. 65:17, anyone reading the chapter from verse
15 to 18 must see that there is no such thing as the author
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
440
states. Verse 16 is joined to verse 15 by “ that,” verse 17-16
by “ for,” and verse 18 speaks of “ that which I create “ of
verse 17, adding, “ for I create Jerusalem.” However, I do
not question that there will be a new heavens and earth
after the millennium; nor do I know anyone that does who
adopts millennial views. As to the promise, “ the earth
shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters
cover the seas,” let the reader only turn to Isa. 11:9, and he
will soon see to what time it refers. Hab. 2:14 supplies the
nearly similar passage, which does not, I think, present any
more doubt than Isaiah, as to what earth is spoken of. Did
eternal blessedness depend on the promises to Abraham
simply, I do not know how Abel, and Noah, and Enoch,
are to come in. at he will be blessed in the new heavens
and earth I doubt not; but I think it would be dicult
to prove that the world of which Abraham was heir was
the new earth; that he should be of this, through his seed,
and himself in heavenly glory, is easy to conceive. at,
attributed to him as a matter of dispensational glory, was
quite consistent with all else. But a specic inheritance of
Abraham in the everlasting new heavens and earth when
Christ has given up the kingdom, would be a strange tenet,
and one dicult, I conceive, to maintain from Scripture.
As to the meek inheriting the earth then, I do not contest
it. ey shall inherit all things. I do not know where it is
said in Scripture that the angels dwell in the heaven of
heavens. It is really terrible-the multitude of assertions
in this book about things in which the glory of God is
concerned, without any Scripture to support them.
e author goes on to state, “ at the rst resurrection we
see the ‘ church of the rst-born ‘; but it is not till the new
heavens and the new earth that we see what the church ‘
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
441
in its fullest sense is.” Where do “ we see “ this? We have
already seen from Scripture that nowhere is so large an
expression used about the church as where it is called “ the
church of the rstborn.” And here I arm distinctly, that
whatever Scripture may teach about the state of individuals
in everlasting blessedness (and I call nothing into question
as to that here), Scripture never calls anything the
church
177
but the saints gathered together from Pentecost
to the day the Lord takes them up to Himself, to be with
Him when He comes again. is may be called an ocial
distinction, or anything you please, but the fact cannot be
denied. Nothing else is called the church. If pious persons
have acquired the habit of calling the whole everlasting
company of the redeemed, the church, it is all very well
to bear with them, using it often with a sound mind as
to truth, and for the best purposes. But when a system is
formed on the assertions made in this note on the subject,
and much built on it, and violent condemnation of those
who prefer adhering to the statements of the word of God,
then it is well to arm distinctly that the assertion is wholly
unfounded in the word of God, and that the statement has
not one single passage of scripture to support it. It is an
unscriptural statement. ose who are disposed to receive
the author’s assertions without Scripture, may maintain it.
ose who know the value of the word will not fail to hold
fast by it.
177 I am not speaking of local churches here, of course-the church
at Corinth, or essalonica, etc., nor of human assemblies, for
which the same Greek word is used, nor of the Jewish nation in
the wilderness. It is quite evident none of these have anything
to say to the question. Alleging the last mentioned, as I have
heard it done, is a proof of only one thing-that those who did
so had no answer to make.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
442
Where did the author nd that precious stones were the
truths with which we are now conversant? And it would be
hard to nd how “ twelve “ was active instrumentality in the
foundations or gates either; or how the foundations of the
city will rest in it. What a complete confusion of symbol
with fact there is here! How does the earth appreciate and
not dele the twelve foundations of the city? If he means
the inhabitants, they are at the time supposed all alike
bearing the image of the heavenly Adam.
Again, where is it said that “ the heavenly city is itself a
temple towards the earth “? Never in scripture. It is curious
enough to state an idea of one’s own, and give it as a reason
for nding something in Scripture-” and therefore we read.”
But where is it said that the heavenly city is a temple where
we serve Him day and night? Nor is it said we, but those
who came out of the great tribulation, and that therefore
they served Him day and night in His temple. It is (where
Scripture uses it) a special symbol with its own object, and
has nothing to do with the heavenly city. And the symbols
so little agree in their use that in the heavenly city there is
no night.
I have omitted to state (in page 331) that I do not
agree with the sense attributed to the words, “ the Spirit
and the bride say Come.” e person just spoken of is the
bright and morning star, the joy of the bride’s soul. I believe
the Spirit and the bride say Come to the Bridegroom, to
Christ, Christ having spoken of His coming, the moment
that He announces Himself in the character in which He
is associated with her, the morning star; for He gives to
them that overcome the morning star-she does not wait till
He says He is coming. Her desires, sanctioned and inspired
by the Spirit that dwells in her, demand His coming. e
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
443
Spirit and the bride say Come. And to whom does the
bride say Come but to the Bridegroom? It is not as bride
particularly she calls sinners. As bride she longs for the
Bridegroom. But this desire is not a mere gracious but un-
chastened and unsanctioned aection. at Spirit, whose
mind He knows who searches the heart, moves and thus
sanctions the cry in her. It is a cry “ according to God.”
e passage shows the whole position of the church.
Where there is the understanding of her privilege as bride,
the presenting the thought of the morning star at once
awakens this cry of the Spirit in her. e next thought
of the Holy Ghost is to summon those whose ears were
opened, who heard, to join in the cry, to say, Come-not to
preach. It is not calling every one that hears to preach, but
to join the bride in the cry of Come. en indeed the Spirit
turns round, not to urge others to say Come; but, inasmuch
as the church possesses, even before the Bridegroom
comes, the rivers of living water, the Spirit turns round to
those athirst, and says to them, Come. e church can look
up and say to the Bridegroom, Come: she can look down
or around her, and say to the thirsty soul, Come, yea, to
whosoever will to come and drink of the water of life freely.
It is a most lovely picture of her whole position. Longing
for Christ herself, she stands for Him towards thirsty souls
the happy instrument of the grace which she enjoys, and
of which she is conscious, in all its freeness and refreshing
power; for the stream of eternal life ows in her. Such is
her position. Let her know what she will of the counsels
of God about beasts and judgment, it is Christ Himself,
the morning star, that awakens her desires and unlocks her
tongue; and the coming of the Lord is to her not a warning,
as to the others, but an answer of the heart of Jesus to her
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
444
aection. He which testieth these things, whatever He
may have said about them, answers her desire; “ Surely I
come quickly. Amen.” May our hearts be enabled to join in
what sprung forth by the Spirit from the apostle’s: “ Even
so; come quickly, Lord Jesus.”
I am happy and glad to close with this, as God has in
His mercy closed the testimony we have been inquiring
into (a testimony full of sorrow and judgment) with
the blessedness to the bride of Him who testied; and,
in shutting up the book of the testimony, solemn and
important as it was, leads back to the bright and blessed
thought of Him that testied. ere the church was at
home: she knew her own aections, and they were at once
called forth: nor did they fail to have the sanction and the
answer of Him that had inspired and awakened them.
And here I close. I feel it a sucient answer to the last
note to beg the reader to read the rst three verses of the
book, and the fth, and beginning of the sixth chapter.
How thankful I am to have done my task no one can
tell. Burdensome as I felt it, it is a relief to have completed
it beyond all I could have imagined. Yet I feel that I have
done right, and I am thankful to have done it. I do not
believe I have exposed half the inconsistencies the book
contains, and of this I have no regret: my mind has in
general only rested on them when important principles
were more or less involved. is itself must, I am aware,
give pain to many; and I know the spirit of it has been
complained of. But the whole church of God is concerned
more or less in the examination of a system which acts
with much inuence on souls, and pretends to condemn
so loudly all who do not bow to it. Besides thinking the
system false, I believe Scripture has been sacriced to
An Examination of “oughts on the Apocalypse”
445
system in this book. Everyone will judge of this when he
has examined the statements made, and the comments on
them. It is possible the author may have been so full of his
system as not to see it. But this is no remedy to the evil
itself; and I can only say that, if I had sought in this matter
to please men, I should not have been the servant of Jesus
Christ. I only ask the reader to examine the statements of
the “ oughts “ by the word of God, candidly to weigh
what I have said, with his conscience before God, and he
shall say of me what he pleases afterward. My hope will be
satised if he is brought back, free from mere human ideas,
to study in simple subjection the word of God, seeking the
help of the Spirit of God; and to have its authority more
exalted, its value more appreciated than ever in his mind,
so that what he has he may have as faith in his soul, and
not as ideas which he has received from some other source
than God.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
446
62448
Answer to “Letter to the
Brethren Who Meet
for Communion in
Ebrington Street”
I confess I have been greatly relieved by the publication
of the letter. I did dread it. My heart and head are alike weary
of controversy, and I know suciently well one’s liability,
in the rapidity of reply, to express one’s feelings when we
ought not, and to give a handle for a controversialist to
lay hold of, that I felt a dread of being plunged anew into
a labyrinth of reasoning. e appearance of the letter has
relieved me. I have been surprised, after all I heard of the
spirit of the tract, that so little could be laid hold of: and
as to the argument (save a mistaken reference to Gesenius,
which I will notice in its place) it is absolutely untouched.
My reply, then, will be happily very short. ere is only one
really important subject which induces me to take notice
of the letter, but I shall just use the occasion which this
aords to notice rapidly the objections made, without of
course re-arguing the subject. e attentive reader will see
that the sixty-three pages of the letter leave the substance
of my statements in the “ Examination “ where they were.
As to the expressions complained of, I should regret, of
course, and I blame myself for, anything that was merely
personal, however we may be liable to it in controversy.
Speaking of things as they are, though it may give pain,
cannot be objected to in the same way. us, “ traveling
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
447
by an intellectual road “ may be considered personal. I can
only say as to it, that it was pointed out to me by a brother
during the correction for the press, and I went to have it
taken out, but it was too late, as it had all been struck o.
I can only express my regret now, that it is there, and that
my attention was not drawn to it in time. I will add here,
that in getting help in correcting the press, or preparing the
MS for it, I have taken out any expression supposed to be
objectionable by those who read it over. As to “ sophisms,”
I really think the complaint (though I am sorry it gives
pain) an unreasonable one. I think there are sophisms in
the book. I write to examine the book, and show where I
think it wrong. If I meet what is really a sophism, what can
I call it but a sophism?
178
As to “ teaching doctrines which have ‘ the very worst
moral eect on the saints,’ “ I state (page 6), I believe the
identication of the church and the kingdom to be of
the very worst moral eect to the saint. is is no general
charge of teaching doctrines, as the author has stated it. I
have stated my conviction that a given principle or doctrine
has this eect. I think so still. Every saint must weigh this
before the Lord; that is, whether this given principle is, or
is not, evil, as I believe it. ey will judge also whether the
reasonings of Mr. N. do so identify them. But saying that a
178 ough, after all, the “ Examination “ does not state the author
to be “ guilty of sophisms “ as a general charge at all. After
showing the fallacy of a certain train of reasoning, I have said
(p. 7), “ is is a very common sophism, to involve,” etc. e
author had put a dilemma as containing the only two cases
possible, and proceeded to reason on it to his own and his
reader’s satisfaction; whereas the allegation of his opponent is
that there is a third case: And, having explained this, I have
said, this is a common sophism.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
448
given specic principle has a bad eect cannot be charged
as personal. Nor is it in the smallest way equivalent to a
charge of “ teaching doctrines.”
As to “ altering received translations,” the fact cannot
be denied. It is the constant habitual practice of the
author. at which is objected to is the statement that the
object is not avowed. Again I have stated this in a given
case (page 13). “ ere is another, and yet more important
object in this translation, which is not avowed either.”
It is the statement of a specic fact in the book. Indeed,
though the fact itself is unquestionable, I cannot even
nd
179
the expression “ altering received translations.” _I
have reasoned, and I think very justly, on a given case of
what is undoubtedly a common practice of the author.
As to “ silently confounding things that dier,” it is again
a statement of a fact made into a general charge. I have
stated (page to) that the author silently converts “ make “
into “ formed “ and “ prepared.” And so he does, and very
unwarrantably in my judgment. e only expression else
which may be fairly judged objectionable is “ eke out.” My
argument is perfectly just. But, as the word is more than
a statement of the fact, I do not defend it; though I really
do not see anything very malicious in it. However I do not
justify it.
I am sorry to have detained my reader on these points.
I owed it to the Lord, and to others, and, in two of the
expressions, to the author of the “ oughts,” to clear them
up, or express my regret that they remained. I did what I
could to get rid of one, the other escaped me. But now to the
matter. e author charges me with having misrepresented
179 It may of course have escaped me. Mr. N. gives no references
in all this.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
449
him. Here there is no mistake as to the broad generality
of his accusations. I pass them over entirely, every one will
judge of their justice, save to say that I rise up from the
perusal of his answer with the full conviction that I have
not misrepresented him at all.
His statements here have unequivocally conrmed the
judgment I had formed of his statements in the “ oughts.”
Silence respecting the truth in question is not denied,
180
though it is implied (page 5) that there is evidence that
it was remembered. Positive statements as to the author’s
views will be found in the course of the “ Examination.” I
conne myself here to the statements in the “ Letter.”
We read (page 5), “ ere is perhaps no distinction
more important to be preserved in our thoughts, than that
between the heavenly relation of Christ to the church as a
whole, and His relation to it as a gathered and ordered body
upon earth.” Now, if this latter phrase means anything, it
means the relation of which the author does intend to treat
in his remarks on the Apocalypse; and this is contrasted
with “ the heavenly relation of Christ to the church as a
whole.” Now, it is perfectly certain, that, by “ the church as
a whole,” as “ seated in heavenly places in Him risen,” Mr.
N. means all the saints from the commencement of the
world to the end of time. Be this system true or false, no
one can question that this is his meaning of “ the church
as a whole.” He distinguishes elsewhere the “ parts “ of
this, the church of the rstborn, and the like (the ‘ Israel of
God ‘ being an equivalent for the whole body). is whole
he recognizes as seated in heavenly places in Him risen.
Of course the individual members of this body on earth,
180 See page 4.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
450
during the present dispensation, could not be excluded
from this common portion.
But then all that can be spoken of the one body can be
equally predicated of Abel, Abraham, David, the millennial
saints, as much as of those now on earth.
181
It has nothing
peculiarly to do with any present unity of the body.
But, as regards what the author calls “ His relation to it
[the church] as a gathered and ordered body on the earth,”
this, as the subsequent expressions of page 5 demonstrate,
is found in Christ’s relation to the churches. Christ’s
relation to the church as a gathered body on the earth, in
this dispensation, is His relation to the churches; and that
is all. All unity of the body by the Holy Ghost sent down
from heaven is set aside in this letter more unequivocally
than ever. e author does not deny the unchangeable and
eternal blessedness of all saints, from the beginning to the
end of time, in heavenly places in Christ risen. But he does
make His relation to the church as a body gathered on
earth His relation to the churches.
His excellent relation to such a body (that is, to the
church as a body chosen out of the nations, separated to
God) is His relation to the churches. And hence, where
he insists on having spoken of union with Him in glory, it
is not “ its,” the church’s union, but “ their,” the churches’
union. He does not treat of His relation to the church in
heaven, but He treats of the churches in the earth.
182
(page 7).
And is there then no church on the earth?-a church, one
181 I do not suppose any one will deny what I here state. Indeed it
is impossible to do so if the writings and teaching of the author
have been really examined. But if any one for convenience
desire a short synoptical statement of it, he will nd it in the
sixth part of “ A Christian Manual,” by W. Morris, p. 19.
182 e italics are the author’s.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
451
as a body down here, in virtue of the presence of the Holy
Ghost sent down from heaven? I repeat, therefore, that every
statement I made, and, which is much more important,
the real meaning of the author, is fully and unequivocally
conrmed and established beyond all question, to any
intelligent Christian, by the statement of the letter. e
churches belonging to the sanctuary as their proper sphere:
but the unity of a body in earth, by the presence of the
Holy Ghost acting by joints and bands according to the
measure of every part, from the Head Christ, is entirely set
aside. He assumes the doctrine of the Ephesians as to the
whole church; and he treats the doctrine of the churches
as His relation to the gathered body on the earth. I repeat,
No intelligent saint can mistake the unequivocal setting
aside of the unity of the church upon earth, sitting in its
Head in heavenly places. I repeat-what I have said in the “
Examination “-the author is simply setting up the system
of independent churches, and setting aside the unity of the
body on earth in this dispensation. My expressions may be
laid hold of; but there can be no mistake as to the author’s
meaning.
And he has practically taken his position in this letter
on this principle. “ I value the relation in which I stand
to you as one of your teachers.” at the author has been
teaching in Ebrington Street, no one, of course, questions.
Nor do I now inquire the least as to the value or otherwise
of his teaching. But he stands in relation to them as one
of their teachers, i.e., a teacher is not a joint in the body
according to Eph. 4 or 1Cor. 14, but a relationship to a
particular set of saints. I am not here calling in question
the existence of teachers in the church of God. I recognize
them fully. But I nd them in scripture in relationship
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
452
to the body, one by the presence of the Holy Ghost on
earth, and not to be a relationship with any given body of
located saints, though they may happen to be located with
them. I know that dissenters thus act on the principle of a
given body having its members, and having their teacher
or teachers. But in Scripture I nd the teachers in the body
of Christ, and members of the body of Christ. It is not my
business now to discuss this with dissenting brethren; I am
only getting at the fact.
Now as to Psa. 110
183
First, as to the translation. If the
English reader consult Sir C. Brenton’s translation of the
Septuagint, he will nd that he has translated the Greek, “
until I set.” If he consult his English Bible he will nd it so
translated also in every case. So that I have other authorities
to prove that what was given by the Lord, and Peter, and
Paul was what is given in the English Psalter. e author
is merely raising another question on Greek translation,
as before in Hebrew, to prove his Hebrew change correct.
He changes the translation from the Greek to justify his
change of the translation from the Hebrew, and then
sanctions this with divine authority. It is given in the New
Testament according to the Septuagint translation: and
this is rendered by very competent translators, both in the
183 I would just correct an immaterial mistake in passing. In saying
“ Lyra Davidis,” I meant Fry’s “ Lyra Davidis,” not Bythner,
where the translation would not be found.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
453
Septuagint and in the New Testament, just as it is in the
English Psalter.
184
Mr. Tregelles’s justication is on a curious basis. He
translated it as the English translation till the question
was raised, because he was giving “ verbal construing,
184 And here I must add that Sir C. Brenton and the English
translators are perfectly justied. is is the statement of
Matthix (English edition, Kenrich, London, 1837, § 501, p.
842), “ e aorist in all the moods except the indicative and
the participle, is usually expressed in Latin and English by
the present.” I had examined this before, only not so fully, and
did not feel it necessary to enter into this additional critical
matter. Matthias adds, “ But … the aorist designates an action
transient and considered independently in its completion, but
the present a continued and frequently repeated action,” etc.
is remark will be found of every importance on the question
of the use sought to be made of the text-that is, as to what
the Greek aorist for “ I make “ (Heb. 1:13) or the Hebrew for
this in Psalm IIo: I, means. Because, assuming the remark of
Matthias just, we have revealed authority thus for using the act
of setting as a “ transient action, considered independently in
its completion,” and not as “ present, continued, and frequently
repeated action.” Because the inspired New Testament has
adopted the Septuagint translation, where the tense used
precludes a continuous action, and connes the setting to a
transient action, considered independently in its completion.
Now, this is the question between the author and myself. He
says that this verse describes the Lord Jesus as seated … waiting,
Jehovah’s throne acting for Christ. “ ere is no characteristic
of the present period so essentially distinctive as this.” In a
word, it is a continuous action characterizing a period. But
the tense, sanctioned by the use of the Lord and His apostles,
precludes this idea. It sanctions that on which I insist-transient
action, considered independently in its completion. It is the
author, not I, whose question is with the New Testament. He
is wrong as to the Greek, as well as in the sense attributed in
his reasonings on the Hebrew.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
454
not combined translation.” “ It does not exclude the full
exposition of the words.” No, but what we want rst is verbal
construing. We will reason on the exposition afterward. e
author has changed the translation; of course with some
object. at object is to be ascertained from his reasonings,
for he has not stated it. Now, that object gives a force to it,
as a combined translation, which I have no doubt is wholly
wrong. e question is really one of exposition. For, as I
have said, in English “ till I pay,” “ till I have paid,” “ till I
shall have paid “ may be interchanged in common use. But
if the sense was not changed, why change the translation?
If the sense be meant to be changed, I am justied in taking
the translation, as given by the author, as meaning what he
gives as its meaning in his reasonings upon it: and this is
what I have done.
e question is, Does the verse speak of the acting
of Jehovah’s throne for Christ during, and so as to be
characteristic of, a period? is is what is contended for,
and which I deny. Let the reader here remember the last
note, and he will see that the Septuagint, and the New
Testament alluded to by the author, preclude this idea by
the very form of the Greek verb. I do not think-I never
said, and I never thought- that setting meant “ in process
of being placed.” My statements are perfectly correct, “ He
was to sit till this particular act was done “ (page 12).
185
Is that merely till it was in process of being placed? It is
the exact proper meaning of the verb, and especially in the
form it is in-a meaning which the interpretation of the
author entirely overthrows.
185 is is repeated even more than once.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
455
I may here take up the statement of Mr. Tregelles at the
close.
186
His argument and critical research, which for the
most part may be, I dare say, very just (I shall examine it for
my own prot independently of this question) is applied
to this supposition. “ e supposition is brought forward,
apparently, that the exposition of these words may be, or
must be, “ until I shall be setting,” or “ am setting,” and not
until “ I have set,” or “ shall have set.” Against this meaning
he directs all his reasonings and criticisms. But then this
supposition is all wrong. I had stated the contrary. “ He is
expecting till something be done.” “ He was to sit till this
particular act was done.” Hence all the reasonings of Mr.
Tregelles come to nothing as to the argument.
e only point that would bear is found in certain
quotations in page 61, which would tend to show that
the Hebrew word in question might, in certain cases, be
used for continuous action. Now, I do not agree with his
remarks, specially on “ parata,” which clearly does not in
this case mean continuous action. When the Hebrew word
in Psa. 110:1 is used for “ setting in array,” it is not used for
the continuous action of arraying the army; but for the fact
of its being put in that position before a city, etc. But I have
no need to reason this point now, because the translation
186 I had almost forgotten to acknowledge, that, from stopping
before a quotation, as if it had been the end of a phrase, I
have given as general an observation which applies only to the
passage quoted after it in Gesenius: however, as I referred to
the passage accurately, my mistake was easily detected. Here
too I would add that Gesenius, in two words, settled for me the
question as to Hebrew, which Mr. T. deals with so elaborately.
I do not agree with a few things in Mr. T.’s remarks, as being
a sound judgment, in the meaning of texts, what he calls
combined translation; but I shall always be glad to get his help
in Hebrew.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
456
sanctioned by inspiration gives it the force of a transient
complete action. All the rest of his argument falls with his
supposition.
e truth is, it is the author that uses it as meaning
a process of being placed, though he may consider that
process as completed. e rst verse of the Psalm, he holds,
describes Christ seated and speaks of Jehovah’s acting. Now
that acting is the process of placing, bringing his enemies
together. He exchanges this, page 15, for “ collocation.”
But it is perfectly clear that all his statements speak of a
continuous process during a period. I insisted on its being
an authoritative act of collocation. e author says it means
a completed action; I had said till a particular act was done:
so that this was not the question, but whether setting meant
a process of preparing or forming which characterized a
period or a particular act of authority at a given time. e
author made it the former; I asserted it to be the latter. e
additional Greek he refers to clearly shows he was wrong.
His notion about the action was wrong; and his collected
translation, which furnished the ground for it, was worse
and more ambiguous that that of Sir C. Brenton and the
English translators, which is justied by the remarks of the
best grammarians.
e dierence is just this, “ until I make, or set, thy foes
a footstool for thy feet,” and “ until I shall have made “
would both convey that Christ was to sit there till the act
was done. But the latter gives, or gives room for, the idea of
a continuous process going on of making or setting: for “
until I shall have made “ certainly tends to convey the idea
of a process going on making; “ until I make,” an interval
which elapses till the act of making takes place. Hence the
new translation is the worse one of the two, because, while
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
457
both suppose the thing done, the new conveys an idea
which is not in the Hebrew, and which the Greek divinely
recognized translation will not bear-an idea which the
author has taken up and followed out in his reasonings. To
proceed, the author asks, Why then, may I not say that the
throne of Jehovah is, throughout this dispensation, acting
for Christ, with the view of nally setting His enemies a
footstool for His feet? I do not here inquire whether the
author may or may not say so; but it is not what he has
said. What he has said is, that the rst verse of Psalm He,
which speaks of setting Christ’s enemies for His footstool,
speaks of Jehovah’s throne acting for Christ through this
dispensation: that is, clearly, that His acting is setting the
footstool. For, if the verse speaks of acting, no other acting
is spoken of but that. We have in page 21 and the note,
a long reasoning that Psalm 110 necessarily implies this
continuous acting: “ otherwise we must say that, for the
last eighteen hundred years, the providence of God had
ceased to control Satan,” etc.; and then the last clause is
applied to congregating the enemies as a footstool. It is all
very well now to talk of what it implies, and say “ otherwise
“ so and so. In the “ oughts “ we are told that the rst
verse spoke of this acting of the throne, and that hence this
verse was distinctively characteristic of this dispensation.
Now Psalm 110 does no such things. It speaks of a denite
“ transient action,” and not of a continuous one. ere is,
moreover (I refer to the third division in page 26), nothing
about congregating enemies either, any more than forming
or preparing the footstool. ere is just simply setting or
putting His enemies for His footstool.
I say then that the author did interpret Psa. 110, which
speaks of setting enemies for a footstool, as the actings
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
458
of Jehovah’s throne, during and characteristic of this
dispensation: none was so decidedly so. And if Christ’s
enemies were set for His footstool by the continuous
actings of God’s throne for Him, God was putting down
the foes of Christ during the dispensation. But, further, I
have not “ assumed “ that the author has said so; but that he
has not, and complained of him for not doing it, because
there was no sense in explaining “ setting for a footstool “
as the actings of God’s throne all through the dispensation,
unless it was the acting of the throne as so setting them
(this being the only acting of the verse), and that then the
statement amounted to putting down these foes. For if
setting foes for a footstool signies the continuous actings
of power, it does mean putting them down.
e fact is, the author attributed a meaning to the verse
positively which it certainly has not. Now he says it implies
it, otherwise God ceased to control, but that it states
certain nal actings of this kind during a period described
in the Revelation. He was wrong. e verse does not state
it. It states, or implies, nothing about it. It is not its subject.
And, moreover, it speaks of no continuous actions at the
close, during a period elsewhere described. e Greek
tense used in the divine interpretation of it is not used
for continuous actions, but for “ an action transient, and
considered independently in its completion.” And this is
all-important to the author’s scheme; because it has then
nothing to do with the progress of earthly events as he
states it.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
459
Next, I have not inserted the word “ under “; I have used
“ putting them under His feet
187
for Him to subdue,” as an
equivalent to making them His footstool. And it seems to
me perfectly unobjectionable. As to the analogy of Psa. 8,
the only purpose for which I have cited it is the universal
extent given in the New Testament to the word ‘ all ‘ in that
psalm, as explaining the universality attributed to it also,
in quoting from Psalm ito: as may be seen in the passage
quoted by the author in the note to page 19.
As to the quotation from page 11 of my tract in page 20,
the language is not drawn from Psa. 8, and the sentiment
does not belong to verse 2 of Psalm 110. And it is so far from
being true that I have not distinguished between verses 1
and 2, that I have argued at length (page 3o-the passage
the author has just been commenting on), that there must
be a considerable interval, such that all that regards the
church will have happened between the two: so that the
heavenly part of Christ’s actings is omitted in the psalm.
And this last is in italics, to show the importance of the
events which happen in the interval. And I still judge that
“ the authority of His power giving them up to be trampled
upon by Christ “ is not verse 2, but verse i. For this simple
reason, that verse 2 speaks of sending the rod of Christ’s
power out of Zion; verse r speaks of His (God’s) setting
them for Christ’s footstool (that is, of His power giving
them up to be trampled on). Further, the question is not
whether Jehovah has been acting to bring about Christ’s
glory; no Christian doubts it.
187 Tischendorf and Lachmann, following many of the best MSS,
read (Matt. 22), “ put thine enemies under thy feet,” in place
of “thy footstool.” Griesbach gives it as a doubtful reading. So
that we have very strong authority for saying the Lord Himself
used it as equivalent.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
460
e question is, What does Psalm 110 mean? Because a
particular interpretation of it is used to maintain a system.
As to an appreciable interval between the cessation of
Jehovah’s throne acting for Christ, and Christ acting for
Himself, that is not exactly the question. It should be
added, for Himself on earth. Because He may be said to be
acting for Himself in coming to receive the church; even
supposing that be after His assumption of the kingdom: a
point I do not contest here. e system to which the author
is opposed is, that there may be an interval between Christ’s
rising from His Father’s throne, and His acting on earth in
the destruction of Antichrist; in which interval some have
supposed the church caught up, and other things. ey
have never spoken of an interval between Jehovah’s acting,
and Christ’s acting in heavenly places. Now the author is
obliged to admit many important events between Christ’s
rising up, and Antichrist’s judgment by His appearing; as
will be more fully seen in the succeeding numbers of the “
Examination.” e church goes up, the harvest takes place,
in one place Babylon
188
is said to be destroyed.
And now mark the principle on which the author bases
his assertion. “e scriptures always put these two events
(the assumption of power by Christ and His epiphany) in
close juxtaposition;
189
and when any two events are thus put
in close connection, and the scripture makes no mention of
188 In another it is dierently represented.
189 It would have been well to have cited some passage for this,
for I am not aware of any. In Dan. 7 there is nothing about His
appearing, where the assumption of the kingdom is spoken of.
In Luke 19, the other passage chiey referred to here by the
author, the nobleman goes to receive a kingdom, and return.
But this is a general statement of what has taken eighteen
hundred years.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
461
any event transpiring on the earth between, it is a sign that
no doctrine or dispensational arrangement can be founded
on that interval.” It is easy to make rules, of course, which
“ if true,” prove one’s case. But apply this rule in two events
constantly put into juxta-position, found in the same verse,
in the Old Testament prophets, the rst and second comings
of Christ-so put, that Christ stops in the middle of a verse
to apply the half. And there was silence too as to events
transpiring on earth. Was there nothing came between
the two? All Christianity came in-that mystery which was
kept silent from ages and generations. e rule is composed
for the occasion, without an attempt at proof, and is an
unfounded assertion. Further, the facts used to illustrate
it are wrong. e taking the church, it is said, is after His
(Christ’s) epiphany. Now, the scripture positively states the
contrary. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we
shall appear with Him. And therefore the taking of the
church cannot be after His epiphany- epiphany being used
here for appearing. Besides, Antichrist is destroyed by the
epiphany of His presence. And the author himself owns
that the taking of the church, or harvest, takes place before
this.
And if His rising up is the end of the dispensation, and
beginning of the new age (see page 11 of “ oughts “), how
comes it that the church is taken up “ after this epiphany
and at the end of the age “? e end of the age must in
that case be after the epiphany. But the end of the age is
His rising up from the throne. e rising up therefore is
after the epiphany. e author may perhaps here allege he
has changed all that here. ere is an end of the age in
the throne by Christ’s rising up; and a visible ending it
by the harvest; and an ending it in power by His coming
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
462
to destroy Antichrist (Christ, for the rst time, applying
His new power to the nations). is is the author’s present
statement. It is not found in the “ oughts.” But then
this gives a most appreciable interval, and facts between
the rising up, or assumption of power by Christ, and His
coming to earth in the judgment of Antichrist-nothing
less than the whole harvest, by which the dispensation
ends itself on earth, and therefore is an event on earth,
to say nothing of heaven. So that there is an appreciable
interval, by an event mentioned in Scripture as occurring
on the earth between His rising up, or assuming power on
the cessation of Jehovah’s throne acting for Christ (when
the dispensation had changed above, and that the new day
had commenced there), and Christ acting for Himself, or
Christ for the rst time applying His new power to the
nations,
190
namely the harvest, the dispensation ending
itself on earth, gathering out every tare, and His saints
caught up to meet Him.
Surely this last is an important doctrine or dispensational
arrangement. We have only to compare pages 22 and 25,
and we shall see the statements of page 22 subverted, and
in the very point on which the author has opposed the
views of others, the intermediate rapture of the church. e
“ oughts “ spoke of no interval. e statement of page
allows of none. Now in page 22 it is not appreciable. In
page 25 it ends in heaven, on earth, and by Christ’s acting
in His new power for the rst time on the nations, and
becomes appreciable by that which the views of others said
it was appreciable-the rapture of the church. e length of
190 is, note, was the power He had received, power over the
nations. “e power received before the Ancient of days.” “e
sovereingnty of the world.” “e power of earth.” is was
therefore its rst exercise.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
463
the interval may be discussed afterward. e principle of
interpretation and the statements made are abandoned.
191
It may fairly then be questioned whether other events
may not come in too. In one place the author states the
destruction of Babylon by Christ
192
. Others may see other
events which he does not. e age is ended above when it
is not ended below, according to the author.
I am far from agreeing with this arrangement of these
events. I do not at all admit that Christ visibly concludes
the age when He receives the saints, for the reason already
mentioned, that when He appears, we appear with Him
(chap. 3), that this His epiphany destroys Antichrist
(2ess. 2), and that He comes at the close of the three
years and a half of tribulation as lightning, and then His
sign is seen in heaven, and that ends the age. But the
distinction and interval between the rising up of Christ
from the throne, and His destroying Antichrist on earth,
is distinctly admitted. It is to be supposed that something
happens. It is admitted the church is caught up.
I will not here reason on Appendix A, as being a
subject too long to enter on in such a reply, I only say a
word on its principle. “ e apostles are always regarded
and always addressed as persons standing in acknowledged
acceptance before God through the name of Jesus.”
First, acknowledged acceptance, and acceptance known
to themselves, must be distinguished. Such an idea of
191 If it be alleged that receiving the church is the exercise of the
power Christ has assumed, I answer, Receiving the bride is not
the exercise of Christ’s power over the nations. And, secondly,
He does not appear to receive the church. It is positively
revealed that when He appears, we appear with Him.
192 See page 298 of the “ oughts,” where this is positively stated.
It is quite true that this is stated entirely oppositely elsewhere.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
464
acceptance as we have in the Beloved never crossed their
minds. at God acknowledged them I do not doubt. But
so He does constantly the preserved Jewish remnant in the
prophets. ere is no statement of being accepted through
Jesus
193
during the time of His presence with them, for the
simple reason that the work was not yet done. And they
had asked nothing yet in His name. e Jewish remnant
at the end may not know present acceptance by the joy
and witness of the Holy Ghost. No more did the disciples.
Further, it is not true that they were always addressed as
accepted; for the sermon on the mount does not so address
them.
194
is I have examined elsewhere. I do not say that
they and the Jewish remnant will be on the same footing
exactly. e presence of Jesus must make an evident and
important dierence. But so it did between the disciples
and the church, in another way. Nor do I say that the
precepts of the sermon on the mount are not for us. But I
say, on the grounds briey stated above, that the statements
of the author are entirely unfounded. Further, if Peter,
James, and John, represent “ the saved Christian people of
the millennial earth,” they do not represent the church, for
they are in quite a dierent condition from the church; as
what is earthly is dierent from what is heavenly. And, if
in their place of momentary privilege on the mount they
represented them, the natural conclusion would be that
193 at is, as a distinctive known principle. If taken otherwise,
it is true of all. For the preserved of Israel in the latter day are
certainly so accepted, nor can any one be in a dierent manner.
194 Some have excepted to the expression “ground of entry,” used
in the place referred to. Had I said ground of acceptance, or
means of salvation, there would be reason. But there is really
none. If need be, I am prepared to explain it.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
465
they represented them in their place of faithfulness before
the glory.
e writer, in page 35, seems entirely to forget that there
will be those owning Christ risen, through the ministry of
the two witnesses, who yet will have only glory down here
in the millennium.
e question is, not whether gospel precepts belong to
them, but warnings and prophecies found in the gospel.
As to the extracted passages, a few words will suce.
1. e Lord Jesus has never identied the church and the
kingdom. e writer has made the body gathered
out by God a kingdom, then identied this with
the churches, and so with tares, and eld, and all.
So that the church, in the spiritual sense of it, is
identied, as to Christ’s relation to such a body, with
the kingdom itself. e author has stated much more
than a concurrent course. Nor even so would it be
just. For the kingdom does not close when the course
of the church is closed. Nor is indeed the oft repeated
statement that Christendom is the kingdom a well
founded one. e kingdom takes that aspect under
given circumstances. e eld was the world.
As to coming in the power of the kingdom. Christ is
clearly not exercising the power of the kingdom when He
receives the church. He is Bridegroom. e virgins are
gone out to meet Him, and do not await His coming to
the place He is to arrive at. Judgment and responsibility are
connected with His return, having the kingdom; the joy of
the bride, and the blessing of the wise virgins, with going
out to meet Him on the way. It is this part the author quite
leaves out. And I say, the scripture is express that Christ
has not appeared in the power of the kingdom till the
church appears with Him. She had gone out to meet Him.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
466
e kingdom which Christ had received was over peoples,
nations, etc., as Son of man. e rst act of this power, the
author says very justly, is on Antichrist.
Moreover, the author has not yet proved the identity
of the harvest of Rev. 14 and Matt. 13 I do not believe
it to be the same thing as a whole at all. And when it is
said “ seen crowned,” seen by whom? Not down here on
earth: crowned He may be in heaven before He receives
the church; though I see no scriptural connection of date
between the facts: but that is not the question. Luke 19
says nothing of His receiving His church, but of judging
His servants, and their receiving their reward on His
taking possession of the kingdom, showing that He had
only received the grant before. e bridal reception of
the church is a distinct thing from this, as Rev. 19 plainly
shows. But I exceed my limits.
2. e answer to this is, No one could have such an
impression, for I have cited word for word the
author’s translation and am reasoning on it in the
passage quoted. He has given “ form “ and “ prepare “
as the sense or meaning of the word.
3. If what follows in the “ Examination be read, the
objection will be evident. at is said to be distinctly
characteristic of the dispensation, none of which has
taken place during the rst eighteen hundred years.
4. e rst part I have already answered; as to the latter
part, the verses are not confused, but distinguished.. I
state that ruling in the midst of enemies is the subject
of the Psalm, when Jehovah has placed them under
His feet. Now this is exactly the precise distinction
between verses I, 2, etc. Jehovah sets Christ’s enemies
for His footstool, or places them under His feet. And
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
467
then the Psalm goes on with His ruling in the midst
of His enemies. It is perfectly clear and distinct.
5. My answer to this note is very simple. It is precisely
the sense the author has attributed to setting which
makes the absurdity. I use “ make “ because the
English translation uses it. But the author, while he
uses set, does not use it in the meaning of the Greek.
He has declared that it means, or that verse I of the
Psalm where it is used speaks of, Jehovah’s actings
all through this dispensation. And I am justied in
saying God’s actings in the power of His throne are
eectual actings. e absurdity does result. I do not
agree with the sense the author gives to setting, but
I have reasoned on it; for the sense he gives is, not
putting or placing, but, the acting of Jehovah’s throne
all through the dispensation. I am glad he owns the
absurdity which results from such a use of it. I only
ask page 11 of the “ oughts “ to be read to see if he
does not use it so.
6. I have no diculty at all in the phrases, nor need my
reader. Telling someone to sit on a seat till I act, does
not state my actings at all. It does speak, if he so sit,
of someone expecting till another does a certain act.
7. is has been disposed of, only it is not “ setting for
His feet,” but “ for His footstool “: and I suppose that
means something put under a person’s feet.
8. I accept the author’s justication of himself. He makes
setting the enemies for a footstool preparing the
footstool” the preparation of the footstool.” e
footstool are those enemies, and he has confounded “
preparing “ and “ putting.”
I still think his statement most objectionable; but I
attach, of course, no meaning to it which he disclaims.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
468
9. He has never said there was anything in Hebrew or
Greek about forming or preparing; but he has always
used the words in this meaning, which is not their
meaning at all.
10. I should have made no diculty had the author stated
it as he now proposes; though I suspect a good deal
would have to be cleared up when the force of the
statement was inquired into.
195
11. We get here (after a statement of certain principles
and questions, which it is said would sweep away
Matt. 24, Revelation, and Acts 3) a warning. Now
persons who read Scripture for themselves, and
lean on the Lord, are not frightened by this kind of
warnings. ey may frighten and prejudice simple
minds, fearful-justly fearful-of departing from the
way of truth. We will examine for such the value of
the author’s statements and warnings.
All own that these passages are given to the church. e
question is, Are they about the church? Now, reader, what
do you think is Mr. N.’s opinion about the Revelation?
195 Note, occupying till I come, or keeping a charge till the
appearing of Christ, clearly does not suppose the person on
earth till then. Timothy, to whom the last words are addressed,
is a proof of it. It does suppose that the appearing will be the
judicial manifestation of the results of such conduct. is I
believe will be at His appearing.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
469
Why, that, during the whole period
196
of its prophetic part,
Christianity and Christians, and I suppose therefore the
church, will be withdrawn from the sphere it speaks of. e
sphere of their earthly service will be closed, and another
testimony will be raised up. Is that Christianity in its proper
condition? He may not think the saints are caught up. But
he does not himself think that the prophetic period of the
Revelation applies to Christianity in its proper condition.
Does it belong in any real sense to the church dispensation
when Christianity will be gone out of the sphere it speaks
of?
It is better not to give way to indignation, righteous or
unrighteous: so I leave the warning, and turn to Acts 3. e
apostle Peter, speaking to unconverted Jews, says, “ Ye are
the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which
God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And
in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”
Now, this address happened in the period of the church
dispensation, and, in that sense, belonged to it. But, in the
church dispensation spiritually and morally and really, are
unconverted Jews the seed of Abraham in whom all the
kindreds of the earth are to be blessed? Whom does Paul
196 ere may be cited, as an exception to this, the description
at the beginning of chapter 17. Of course, chapter 19 to the
end is out of question in this entirely. e scene of the dragon
in heaven introducing this period, in chapter 12, is also an
exception. ese two passages serve as introductions to the
period mainly spoken of. It may be well to add, to avoid all cavil,
that, though the author places the sixth seal at the very close
of Antichrist’s reign, immediately preceding the manifestation
of the Lord in glory, so that some of the preceding seals must
be during his reign, he does not actually state when they are.
But the observation in the text applies to the whole body of the
book,
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
470
call the seed of Abraham in whom the nations are to be
blessed? “ He saith not to seeds as of many, but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
Again, the apostle adds, “ Unto you rst, God, having
raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning
away every one of you from his iniquities.” Compare Rom.
11,
where you will nd the elect remnant to be the church
work, and all Israel is to be saved, in turning them from
ungodliness, when the Deliverer comes out of Zion. Well,
then, the expression is not mine; but I see nothing but
what is really intelligence of God’s mind in saying that
Peter was not doing church work. ‘I do not insist on the
expression; but to know how to discern what Peter was
there doing from proper church work, I believe to be
spiritual intelligence, and not to see the dierence, to be
want of discernment.
As to Matt. 24 it would be useless to discuss it here. It
has been discussed, and I suppose will be discussed. I have
noticed it in the “ Examination.” As to Revelation then, the
author of the “ oughts “ sweeps it away too. As to Acts 3,
it is about the nation; and I suppose the nation is not the
church, nor known in the church.
12. As to quoting from another chapter; I have surely used
all the means to gather up Mr. N.’s statements on the
same point, so as not to mistake his meaning. ey
are very likely from another chapter. What then? Mr.
N. was not describing the blessings of the church; but
he was describing the characteristics of the period he
calls the church dispensation” of the period in which
they (the saints) live.” And he confessedly alludes to
nothing belonging to the church, as characteristic of
it. at is what I complain of; and it is not denied.
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
471
Further, he does not say that “ the session of Christ
upon the throne of Jehovah “ is the most important
characteristic of the period in which the saints live-of the
church dispensation. He says, Jehovah’s acting for Him
while He is there, is. at is, secret providential government
is the most important characteristic of the present period.
13., 14., 15., & 16.
e author’s statement (page 11 of the “ oughts “) was
that our dispensation ends, and the new age begins, as soon
as Psalm Ito ceased to apply, when Christ rose up from the
Father’s throne. Now, it is only a dawn which ends night
but is not day. ere is thus an interval or period-a period,
blessed be God, of the day star given to us. But in chapter
15 it is confessed that this age belongs to “ this world.” Now,
if it does, it clearly cannot have nished while Antichrist
reigns, because the new age will be the age of Messiah or
the Son of man. While Antichrist reigns, it will not be that
age. e power He may use to introduce it is not the age
introduced. If this age belongs to this world-means a state
of things and course of the world down here, as it most
surely does-it cannot begin in heaven; though the power
that introduces it may be set up there. An age, as here used,
is a course of events down here on earth, characterized by
a certain principle. Now, till Antichrist is destroyed, the
world goes on the old evil principle, and not on the new. If
God had been pleased to have a thousand years go on in
preparing the power in heaven, which introduced the age,
the age would have continued till the power was exercised.
Now, “ the rst act “ of this new power on the nations is
destroying Antichrist. And, indeed, all about the harvest
and Christendom elsewhere is the mere imagination of
the author. e attempt to make three beginnings of the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
472
age, and three endings, one in heaven, one on earth, and
another in Antichrist, is merely seeking to get rid of a
plain contradiction owing from the plain statement in
the “ oughts.” An age which is an earthly thing, as the
author does not deny, does not end three times over, once
in heaven, and twice on earth. Christianity’s continuing is
another question.
at the church remains to the harvest, I suppose
nobody ever denied. But those who admit that the church
so remains do not believe the author’s geographical scheme
about that harvest, nor that tares cease to be tares because
they are ripe and t for burning. And how carefully
the author leaves out that the tares are gathered rst in
bundles! His whole scheme is unproved. Nor can I conceive
anything more absurd than this harvest of Christendom,
all nished by the appearing of Christ, before He appears
like lightning. It is said, “ then shall they see “: and it is said,
“ when he shall appear, then shall ye also appear.” It is very
easy to talk about the power of the new age. Scripture does
not speak so. How is the order of the old age overthrown
moral, and outward, when Antichrist is ruling in his glory?
I say that the harvest belongs to the old age, because the
word of God says so. It is the end of it- a period in which
several things are done. It is not the end of the new age,
I suppose. e harvest, moreover, is reaped on earth. It is,
therefore, the end of that age on earth. And I suppose the
new is not begun on earth, when the Scripture speaks of
the end of the old. All this reasoning of the author about
the age ending in heaven, and “ power of the new age,”
is a vain eort against the plain word of Scripture-” e
harvest is the end of the age.”
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
473
17. e question is, Do the seventy weeks as a period
form part of the new age or the old? I suppose the
new age does not come in (and here all is on earth)
till transgression is nished, and God’s wrath and
indignation on His people are over. Now this does
not close but with the close of Antichrist. He shall
prosper till the indignation be accomplished. Is God’s
indignation the new age? Jerusalem is desolate till
that determined be poured on the desolator-desolate
by God’s judgment. Is that the new age?
18. Christ’s actings against the nations are out of Zion:
but He has not His throne there while Antichrist
has, I suppose.
Antichrist is destroyed by Christ’s appearing from
heaven, not from His throne in Jerusalem. at appearing
closes the trouble and the age, and commences the new
on earth, because thereon God’s power, Christ’s power, is
set up there, though it have not yet accomplished all. e
author is wrong in all his statements in this part of his
remarks, unless the admitted fact that the church is here
till harvest.
19. I reject entirely the statement, that Christ’s kingdom
means professing Christians. e Jews who reject
Him are dealt with in His kingdom. e eld is the
world. Nor do I the least admit that gathering out of
His kingdom all things that oend, and them that
do iniquity, means judging professors. Christendom
is not the kingdom of heaven. e apostle’s comment
on Psalm Ito is, “ He must reign till he hath put all
enemies under his feet.” Whatever is called enemy
is to be put down, and comes into Psalm to-death
even. And I have again to repeat, that it is not by a
rod going out of Zion that the Antichristian enemies
are destroyed, but by the Lord coming like lightning,
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
474
His sign being seen in heaven-by His appearing-by
the brightness or epiphany of His coming. I have
not overlooked the distinction, but I am thoroughly
convinced that it is all entirely wrong. Zech. 12
does not speak of Antichrist, nor do I believe there
is anywhere any proof of Antichrist’s besieging
Jerusalem.
20. Of course the resurrection of imperial power is a
gure, so that the note is all beside the mark. e
head wounded, or slain to death, and healed, and the
beast, of whom it is said “ is not “ and shall ascend,
give the form of resurrection in Satan’s power to the
beast whom he sets on his throne. But, of course,
resurrection of power, is not resurrection such as God
gives life in. Only it is curious enough the author
(page 287 of the “ oughts “) says, “ some have
thought from this passage that Antichrist will be a
person restored to life from the invisible world, but
about this I would express no opinion.”
As to the author’s proofs that the Assyrian and
Antichrist are one. I have no quarrel with anyone for such
an opinion; I think it a mistake for many reasons; but his
proofs are null.
e comparison of Dan. 9 and Isaiah to shows that
a consummation is decreed of God: Antichrist and the
Assyrian may be found in this decreed time, but that is the
very utmost to be deduced from it. at I believe at any
rate to be the case. But the Assyrian, as such, deals with
Jerusalem owned of God; Antichrist with it disowned in
the times of the Gentiles (though the Assyrian power may
have been, and I believe will have been, on the scene before
it is owned)-I should apprehend as “ king of the north.” On
all this, however, I am ready for all inquiry, and glad to hear
Answer to “Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
475
anyone. e comparison of Isa. 14:4-25, proves absolutely
nothing.
I had nearly forgotten, in consequence of its being in
a note, what is contained in that at the foot of page 9. I
have only to repeat, on reviewing the author’s statements,
my conviction of the substantial justice and importance of
what I have said. My conviction of the import and bearing
of pages 14, 15 of the “ oughts “ is not weakened at all
after reading his letter, and re-reading them. “ Giving,”
or “ having given,” does not in the smallest degree aect
the question to my mind. What the author makes of the
church, as a body chosen out of the nations and separated
to God, is a kingdom. He has misstated the force of the
passage; but for this I refer to the “ Examination.” It is of
“ this kingdom “ he is speaking, when he talks of “ having
given life to qualify it for agency.” I have used giving life in
the abstract. It is quite immaterial when I ask, Is that the
idea I am to have of the church? at is what the author
says he has made it. Scripture indeed says no such thing at
all, of which I beg the reader to take notice. But is this the
idea I am to have of the church? It is the idea the author
gives of it. In the subsequent paragraph of page 15, of the
“ oughts,” the excellent relation to such a body is spoken
of as accomplished in Christ’s relation to the churches.
Maintaining the church in its right relation to God is
spoken of. What Christ has made it is declared a kingdom,
etc., to God and His Father. And this His (Christ’s)
excellent relation to such a body is found in His relation
to the churches. As to the words, the truth is, it is not life-
giving union which is spoken of as accomplished in relation
to the churches, nor which is the subject of discussion in
the pages commented, on but Christ’s excellent relation
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
476
to such a body; and “ as we have seen “ plainly shows this,
because this topic had been fully and clearly set forth two
pages before (page 34), and “ His excellent relation to such
a body “ is the topic actually in hand at the close of page 35,
and again two or three lines lower down in this same page
(36). If there had not been the words “ as we have seen,” the
author might with some show of reason have fallen into
the mistake: but “ as we have seen “ plainly refers to the
preceding discussion, all of which turns on the one leading
idea of Christ’s relation to the body. All I have brought
life-giving union in for, is to show that, even when the
author speaks of this, it does not make him rise higher than
a kingdom, the churches, and a governed body. And such
is the fact here. He has given that which is a kingdom, life
to qualify it for agency. is is what all is reduced to here.
“ Union with Him in glory “ may be introduced; but there
is no thought of the body of Christ-the present union of
the body, as one body, with Him. Even when owning union
with Him the thought of Christ’s body is shut out. e
church is a kingdom.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
477
62449
Answer to “Second Letter
to the Brethren Who
Meet for Communion in
Ebrington Street”
INTRODUCTION
As to the three propositions by which Mr. Newton
assumes the position of guarding the truth, and the faith
of the saints (insinuating at the same time that others have
departed from it, or placed it in jeopardy), as far as they
are exact, they merely contain a truth which nobody ever
doubted, nor called in question, nor even put in jeopardy,
unless it were Mr. N. himself; namely, that all the saints
will be nally in the resurrection likeness of the Lord Jesus
the last Adam. But, beyond this general truth founded on
the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, held much
more clearly and exactly than it is stated here, all, I say,
beyond it, in these propositions, like all human articles, and
specially the statements so constantly rashly hazarded by
the author, is unscriptural and incorrect.
As to the rst proposition, if the author simply means
that, in the counsels of God, all the redeemed will partake
of Christ’s likeness in resurrection in an unearthly state, it
is quite true. But if he means, in the very vague expression
“ resurrection as known in Christ,” that there could be no
resurrection but to an incorruptible state like Christ in
glory, then he is quite wrong. Of this Lazarus is the proof.
At his grave Christ stated that He was the resurrection
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
478
and the life, and yet Lazarus was raised to an earthly life.
Again, if the expression unearthly life means anything,
and therefore if it be taken as an absolute proposition, the
author is quite wrong. Unearthly life is an unscriptural and
an almost unintelligible expression. e rst man was of
the earth earthy, and we are earthy like him; but unearthly
life is not a scriptural thought. e second Man is the Lord
from heaven, and we shall bear His image in resurrection.
If the proposition means that resurrection bodies are not
to be corruptible bodies, I suppose the faith of the saints is
not likely to be in much danger as to this. If it means more,
the case of Lazarus proves it false.
Next, that regeneration is in virtue of union with Him in
death and resurrection-this, I should think, while it sounds
like guarding important truths, is just nonsense. Are we
in union with Christ in death and resurrection before we
are regenerate? If not, regeneration cannot be in virtue
of it. at, Christ having died and risen again for all the
redeemed family, they are viewed in the counsels of God as
dead and risen again in Him, and, when regenerate, being
really in Him, we are personally viewed spiritually as so dead
and risen in Him, is true. But being regenerate in virtue of
union has no sense at all.
197
As to the third proposition, it
calls for no particular remark. It is a confused statement
of a plain truth. If it be meant in general the power of
His life in resurrection, so that they will be ultimately
conformed to His image, it is an undoubted truth: but, as
to knowledge and present fact, it is quite clear that it did
not in knowledge in the Old Testament saints, save in a
very obscure way, though there are glimpses of it then; and,
in fact, it clearly will not be in possession of the saints on
197 See note at the end.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
479
earth during the millennium. On the whole, these three
propositions, or articles, aim at a common elementary
truth, held, I suppose, by every saint, namely, that all the
redeemed will be conformed in resurrection to the image
of the Second Adam: but it states it in such a way as in
some respects to make nonsense or error of it.
We have, further, in reasoning on a plain common truth-
that the life of all the redeemed is life communicated from
Christ and the same life, reasoning as if some saints denied
it and the author were maintaining and contending for the
truth- this extraordinary statement (page 14): “ I cannot
however see why there should be diculty in receiving
this; that He who was the Word of Life, created the new
man in every saint, and endowed it with life,” etc. Now,
while the truth reasoned on is one believed, I apprehend,
without any diculty at all by all saints, I would ask, What
does it become in the hands of the author? or what does
he mean by creating the new man and endowing it with
life? Is there a lifeless new man created like Adam’s body
from the dust and then endowed with life? or what is the
doctrine meant to be conveyed here? for the words are
plain enough.
My reply to this second letter will be comparatively
short, because I shall merely take up what is needful on
important points, and not enter into an endless controversy
on details. And, rst, as to the main subject of controversy
in the rst number, the author in this second letter gives up
the whole point. All he has drawn from Matthias is fully
admitted, but is nothing to the purpose.
e remark, “ the subjunctive aorist could not be rendered
as though it were the present-and this is all I contend for,”
etc., is a curious one enough. e question is whether it
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
480
can be rendered by the present, which is what Matthiæ
(English translation) says it is in English. e subjunctive
aorist is rendered as though it were the subjunctive aorist,
but in English by the present, which is what the author
objected to. He has translated many examples given by that
grammarian to show that the aorist is a completed action.
is is admitted and is not the point in discussion. We
are all agreed on that, as I showed in my former reply in
answer to Mr. Tregelles’s letter. e question is, Does the
Greek aorist, as Matthiæ states, describe a transient action
completed, or a continuous acting so that the Greek for “
until I make “ (Heb. 1:13) should describe and characterize
a period? at is the question. Because Psa. 110:1 was
quoted as characteristic of the present period-nothing so
much so as that which it spoke of- in order to connect
the actings spoken of in the Revelation with that period
(that is, with the present dispensation). My reply was, that
there were no actings characterizing a period spoken of
in the passage, but Christ called up to sit until Jehovah
should have done
198
a certain act. And that the act which
the psalm spoke of was not characteristic of a period at all,
but one isolated or transient act of authority at the Close,
spoken of as completed no doubt, but not characterizing a
period.
Now at the close of his second letter, the author,
admitting the principle of Matthias, states, “ I have no
objection, therefore, if it be deemed advisable, to express
the idea of rapidity in the translation of the passage, and
to say, ‘ until I shall, as in a moment, have set thy foes a
198 My words were (p. 15), “ He is expecting till something be
done “; and again (p. 16), “ till the next thing is done,” etc. is
shows plainly that I treated it as a completed action.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
481
footstool for thy feet.’ “ Now that settles the whole question:
because in that case it cannot characterize a dispensation
or a period. It is in vain to say, “ I have not said that all
this dispensation is employed in setting the footstool.”
No, but the author has said that the verse (which speaks
of no other actings whatever but setting the footstool)
speaks of the actings of Jehovah’s throne for Christ, and
that no characteristic of the present period is so essentially
distinctive as this; so that this acting (that is, setting the
footstool) characterizes the period. Now he is obliged to
admit that it is not so. He translates, “ until I shall, as in
a moment, have set,” etc. Now if Christ sits at Jehovah’s
right hand until Jehovah shall have done something as in
a moment, it is clear that sudden act in a moment does
not characterize all the present period during which He is
waiting till it be done.
e meaning and bearing of the whole verse on the
question is given up; for it is admitted that there is no acting
spoken of in the verse but what is done as in a moment. But
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
482
this is the grand basis of argument
199
on which the author
builds, and by which he explains and characterizes both the
dispensation and the book of Revelation itself with which
he is occupied.
And, be it remarked that, the question is not whether
Jehovah acts for Christ on the throne: nobody doubts he
does; but whether Psa. 110:1 speaks of actings characteristic
of the period. And this is the whole matter, because
thereon the author uses the verse to dene the time of
Christ’s quitting the throne, and to prove that the contents
of the Revelation precede His quitting it-the actings there
corresponding to those of Psalm He. But the subsequent
observations of the author put beyond all doubt that the “
setting “ is the prolonged acting which characterized the
dispensation, if the dispensation be not all employed in it;
because, in guarding against the idea that the aorist always
199 is is the author’s way of stating the verse: “ Jehovah said
unto Him, Sit thou at my right hand until I shall have set thy
foes a footstool for thy feet.” is is his comment on it: “ It
describes the Lord Jesus as seated for a season on the throne
of Jehovah, waiting-and speaks of the power of the throne
as acting on His behalf-Jehovah’s throne acting for Christ.
ere is no characteristic of the present period so essentially
distinctive as this. As soon as this verse ceases to apply … our
dispensation ends and the new age begins.” Now, Christ’s
waiting is stated in these words: “ Sit thou at my right hand
until,” etc. Now, reader, take the verse and see in what words it
“ speaks,” in the remainder of it, of the power of the throne as
acting for Christ. Is there anything at all else but setting foes
for a footstool? What is it then that is characteristic of the
present period?Now compare the new translation: “ Sit thou at
my right hand until I shall, as in a moment, have set thy foes
a footstool for thy feet.” Is the acting here characteristic of the
dispensation; or of a momentary act of authority, which places
the enemies under Christ’s feet at the close?
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
483
supposes rapidity, and stating that it directs our attention
to the termination of an action, the whole being summed
up in its completion, it is quite certain that all this applies
to the Greek in Heb. 1:13. at is, he is discussing whether
the word “ set “ may or may not be applied to a lengthened
period, though referring to the termination of it-in a word,
to setting characterizing the period, as “ keep,” in John 17,
though viewed in its termination.
Indeed, all the author’s statements here are wrong still.
e aorist has nothing to do with rapidity,
200
or want of
rapidity. e thing spoken of may have been prolonged
and have had no movement implied in it (as “ keep “ in
John 17: 11, or the dierent word used in Luke 4:10). But,
as Green observes in the rst paragraph of the very rule
cited by the author, “ in the aorist the idea of duration is
excluded.” Now this is the point, because it cannot be used
to characterize a period in that case. But the truth is, this
part of the argument arose from the attempt to bring in the
New Testament [nay, even the Lord], as demonstrating that
the author had rightly used the text, whereas it proved the
contrary. But the interpretation really rests on the force of
the words, which speak of one act (completed, as all agree)
which closes, and not of an acting which can characterize,
a period. And this latter is what the author had attached
to it.
200 Matthiæ says nothing about rapidity. He uses the words
instantaneous ‘ and transient,’ as he elsewhere says “ a single
point of time complete in itself.” e author speaks of rapidity,
of even the dispensation itself being always treated as a span,
of occupying a space of time inconceivably short. e answer
is, Duration, short or long, is not the subject of the tense; nor
does the acting spoken of in the verse characterize the period
spoken of.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
484
ere is another material point-the unity of the church.
Now on this point I have still to repeat that the statement
of the author does not remove the diculty. e author
says, speaking of the dependence of the churches on one
another as members of one body (page 6o), “ I have taught
it as distinctly as if I had written pages on the subject, where
I say that the catholic unity of the body would have been
marred and lost, the moment one church had forfeited its
place, and had its candlestick removed.” “ e very thought
of the seven candlesticks standing together, and forming
one catholic body,” etc. We have then here the author’s
idea of unity. It is a union of churches. And so really of
churches, that, if one church had forfeited its place, the
catholic unity of the body would have been marred and
lost. It was clearly then a body made up of churches. One
church gone, catholic unity was gone. Is that the unity of
the body of Christ spoken of in Corinthians, Ephesians,
and elsewhere? It is perfectly clear now, if it was not before,
what the author’s views of unity are-independent churches
united together. Now this does not in the least degree, nor
in principle, present the unity of the body by the Holy
Ghost sent down from heaven. I admit that the author has
gone farther in this tract than before in his statement of the
unity of the body; but he has distinctly made catholic unity
dependent on the churches, and the churches members
of the body; and he declares its unity lost the moment
one church had forfeited its place. I have admitted that
the author has said more as to the unity of the body
201
-
dicult to reconcile with what is said in the same page, it
is true, but there it is. I say dicult to reconcile, because
201 See page 6o.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
485
the author states rst “ the unities
202
as given in Eph. 4 are
unchangeable and unaected, save as to development, by
the failure of the gathered body “; and, secondly, that the
catholic unity is lost the moment one church had forfeited
its place. But if this contradiction is to be solved, and the
author has any denite idea of the unity of the church, it is
to be found in page 56. ere the author, commenting on
my objection to his making the Gentile churches constitute
the church in the way he did, and having asked, “ Is it St.
Paul’s statement of the church,” answers, “ I should think
not, because St. Paul speaks of the invisible unity of the
church in heaven. I have been speaking of the visible unity
of the churches on the earth.” So,
203
in page 6o this unity
of the churches is the catholic unity of the body. In page
22 of the “ oughts on the Apocalypse “ the author is
speaking of the saints at Pentecost being builded together
for an habitation of God through the Spirit, and the church
constituted as a visible body on the earth. Jerusalem (page
23) had rejected the testimony of the church. In page 14
we read, “ but the church being a body chosen out of the
202 If this contradiction be sought to be avoided by saying these
are unities in heaven, rstly, I would beg the reader to see if
they do not apply to earth too in Eph. 4; and, secondly, the
Unity on earth is thereby given up. And what comes of the
previous phrase, “ on earth we are all one body indwelt in
by one Spirit “? irdly, he quotes this same Eph. 4 for the
dependence of churches one on another as members of one
body, as he does for the unchangeable unities. e truth is, this
page is inextricable confusion.
203 ere is then no unity of the church, as the body of Christ,
on earth; for invisible unity in heaven, which is Paul’s subject,
is contrasted with the unity of the churches on earth, which is
the author’s. But is unity of the church on earth never spoken
of as the body of Christ in Scripture?
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
486
nations, and separated to God “; and then these churches
(page 24) constituted the one church of the living God.
Here we learn churches were members and constituted the
catholic unity of the body. Now “ St. Paul speaks of the
invisible
204
unity of the church in heaven “ (and note here
that his statements in general are spoken of). Well then,
his statements do not apply to the unity of the church on
earth as one body in Christ. I can only say now, any such
unity of the church is-not silently, but openly, deliberately,
and avowedly-dropped into churches. Paul speaks of the
invisible unity of the church in heaven; his statements,
consequently, are not of the church upon earth. e unity
of that was a union and a uniformity of independent
churches. And now what is the value of the unities of Eph.
4, if Paul speaks of invisible unity in the heavens? No doubt
that is unchangeable. Or what is the real meaning of the
beginning of that paragraph in page 6o, if we take into
account the positive statement of page 56? What is the one
body on earth indwelt in by one Spirit, if Paul speaks of the
invisible unity of the church in heaven?
204 ere is considerable diculty in citing what the author has
said, from the way in which he contradicts himself: so that if
you cite from one place, he can prove it is not so by citing the
contrary from elsewhere. Here, for example, he states positively
that Paul speaks of the invisible unity of the church in heaven.
Were I to say that this was his view, he can quote page 22,
where he has said it was constituted as a visible body on earth,
and referred to Paul’s statement of the saints being builded
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. But
then this, we nd after all, was not the unity of the body, but
metropolitan unity, and the unity on earth is, as stated in the
text, that of churches.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
487
And now let me ask a question, Was I really right or
wrong in saying that Paul’s statements in his epistles were
passed over altogether?
If Paul speaks of the invisible unity of the church in
heaven, and the author of the visible unity of the churches
on earth, was not that passing his statements over, and
passing them over altogether? I repeat the charge, with the
addition that the reason given for his having done so by
the author in his second letter is incorrect and unfounded.
Paul does not speak merely of invisible unity in heaven.
e quotation, in the note of page 22 of the “ oughts,”
had nothing to do with the matter. e author is there
stating the heavenly standing of the church at Jerusalem,
as a particular church like the Gentile churches afterward,
and answering an assumed or supposed statement that
the standing of the pentecostal church was not heavenly.
Now that had nothing whatever to say to the point I
was discussing, which was the union of the church with
Christ, and its unity as-His body. Now he had passed
over all Paul’s statements on the point in his epistles. I
was not discussing the heavenly character of the church at
Jerusalem, nor speaking of Paul’s statements as to that, for
I know not where he had made any.
205
e best proof that
can be that the author has passed them all over is, that he
declares now that his statements were not Paul’s, because
he was treating a dierent subject-Paul, unity in heaven; he,
visible unity on earth. I have said his reason was incorrect
and unfounded. Let us examine this. Does Paul speak of
invisible unity in heaven? Were the members of the body
in whom the several gifts manifested themselves-the body
205 And the author really speaks in the quotation merely of
individual standing: “ ey had been quickened,” etc.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
488
not one member but many-spoken of in the Corinthians,
in heaven, or on earth? e “ so also is Christ “-was that
in heaven? e joints of supply by which the whole body
tly joined together and compacted makes increase of the
body-the gifts till we all come in the unity of the faith
(there is one body, but to every one of us is given grace,
etc.)-was all this in heaven?-
206
e author has not now
passed over-he has totally set aside-the statement of Paul
on the subject.
I should have a great deal to remark on the paragraph
(page 5 of the letter) which follows, but it would require a
treatise on the operation of the Spirit connected with the
work and exaltation of Christ, and the eternal counsels of
God-a subject too important to do justice to here. I would
only beg the reader carefully to compare Eph. 4, based as it
is on the whole of what precedes in the epistles, with what
is said about “ what God did in exalting Christ and the
church in Him, and what His servants did in constituting
the church on earth,” and to see how far the statements
of the chapter accord with the contrast here instituted
between God exalting Christ and the church in Him, and
what His servants did in constituting the church on earth.
I suspect that the examination of this passage will do
more than most else to throw light on the real question;
but, as it is only insinuated, I must leave its ambiguity to
the discernment of others, though I do not doubt myself its
meaning. ose who may not apprehend it I can only urge
to examine whether the allegation of the author (that “ St.
Paul speaks of the invisible unity of the church in heaven
“) is borne out by 1Cor. 12 and Eph. 4
206 See also Rom. 12
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
489
e author states, pages 16-19, that dierences in
dispensation cannot be the occasion of ocial dierence.
Such dierences cannot depend on a dispensational
peculiarity for which the saints themselves are in nowise
answerable.
207
“ You will,” says the author (page 17), “
ever remember that dispensational dierences here do, of
themselves, make no dierence even in ocial dignity in
the world to come.”
In the “ oughts on the Apocalypse “ we read (page 335)
“ ere may perhaps be somewhat of a similar distinction
between the new Jerusalem, and the rest of the inhabiters
of the new earth. But whatever distinctions of this kind
there may be, they must be considered as purely ocial.” It
is hardly necessary to remark that the distinction between
the new Jerusalem and the other inhabiters of the new
earth was dispensational.
e author seems to insist however alike everywhere,
that this cannot take place in heaven. But there was a
passage in Scripture which, in the plain English Bible,
presented a great diculty in the way of this assertion. It
is stated at the close of Heb. 11 that God has reserved “
some better thing for us, that they without us should not
be made perfect.” is the author attempts to get rid of,
not exactly by a new translation, but by inverting the plain
order of the words, and adding a passage one third as long
as the whole verse, which entirely alters the sense; saying
that it is an ellipse (which means in English that it has
been left out in the sense). But the reader must remark
that the insertion entirely changes the sense, and makes
an inversion of the words absolutely necessary. It is in fact
207 Further on I will touch on the total exclusion of God’s
sovereignty here.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
490
entirely unwarranted. e sense is perfect, as anyone may
see, without what is added. ere is no need of inversion,
and there is no parenthesis. e English translation is the
plain translation of the Greek, and concurred in by such
other modern translations as I have access to.
Further, every statement of the author is wrong. ere
is no need of any cognate word. e Greek in Heb. 11:40,
“ some better thing,” is as plain Greek as can well be, and
the added word, problemma, is neither wanted nor suited,
and would indeed change the sense. Further, there is no
such Greek word, that I can nd, as problemma. Blemma
there is, but it means “ a look,” and in the plural “ eyes,” or
“ a countenance,” or “ aspect “: what problemma therefore
might have meant, had it been Greek, I do not pretend to
say.
Next, we are told that the Greek translated “ for us “
in Heb. 11:40, is not “ for us.” Does the author mean that
preposition peri does not mean “ for “ in English, in the
sense in which it is used here? If so, it is as unwarrantable
an assertion as he could well have made. I beg the reader to
take his English Bible and consult the following passages:
Luke 22:32; Eph. 6:18; Luke 4:38; John 16:26; chap. 17: 9,
20; 1Peter 5:7; Philemon to; Gal. 1:4; Matt. 26:28; Mark
14:24; Heb. 5:3; Rom. 8:3; Hebrews 13: 11; 1Peter 3:18;
Hebrews to: 18, 26. In all these cases peri is the Greek word
for “ for.” ose who know Greek have only to consult a
lexicon, where the sense is regularly giveri. It is used in
the sense of “ for “ with persons, and with things. See also
Matthiæ, section 589, where he states that peri and huper are
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
491
often interchanged. (Compare Eph. 6:18, 19.)
208
In Wahl
this very passage of Heb. 11 is given as an instance, and
the full sense of it stated just as it is given in English. e
Greek reader will nd in more than one of the passages, as
John 17:20, 21, the construction as here: peri, touton, hina.
e author is wrong moreover as to aneu and koris. ey
are used in a general way one for the other. As far as they are
distinguished aneu is more than koris. And koris does not
forbid the thought of any line of separation being drawn as to
personal glory or distinct dignity.
us Plato says, Without (koris) re nothing would become
visible, nothing could be touched without (aneu) something
rm, nor rm without (aneu) earth.
So both are used in the sense of “ except,” as may be seen in
any good dictionary. Next,
209
as far as there is any dierence,
aneu is stronger than koris: aneu signifying entire privation
of (Compare 1Peter 3:1), having nothing to say to, to the
exclusion of; koris merely separated from. [Examples from
classical authors are aneu kentrow, there was no spurring at
all; aneu theoni
210
without the gods; aneu emethen, “ without
me “ (hence, “ without reference to “). Hence it means “ far
away.” On the other hand, keitai koris he nekros-the dead
208 is is not the place to discuss any nice shade of dierence
between huper and peri used in this sense. e fact that peri
means “ for “ as the object of prayer, kind intentions, being
interested in, acting in various ways for, sacrice for, is beyond
all controversy. It is unintelligible how the author can hazard
the statements he does.
209 If we take the usual reading we shall nd them used one
for another by comparing Phil. 2:14, “ without (koris)
murmurings,” and 1Peter 4:9, aneu. If we put a comma before
aneu in Peter it would be a proof of its stronger use: “ Let there
be no murmurings.”
210 Compare Matt. 10:29.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
492
lies apart, separate. Koris oikeo, I dwell in another place, or
apart. So koris athanaton, away from the immortals.] Aneu
in its derivation means privation or nonexistence; koris,
incontestably, separation merely.
And now as to the particular case. e reader would
have only to turn the passages where “ without “ (koris) is
used into negatives, and he would soon nd the absurdity
of the rule. But I shall not give him the trouble. I shall
give him two proofs of its incorrectness: rstly, when the
nature of the thing shows what is stated about koris to be
impossible; and, secondly, when the nature of the thing
admits it, but when its use shows the statement to be quite
wrong.
First, “ without thy mind,” Philem. 1:14 Here there was
no question of line of separation not being drawn. It is
just simply he would not act apart from him. Heb. 7:20,
“ not without an oath.” e nature of the thing allows no
question of identity of glory. So Heb. 9:7, 18, 22, “ not
without blood.”
But when the nature of the thing does admit the
question to be raised whether there is a dierence of
personal dignity or ocial dierence, koris used with a
negative most certainly does not exclude it.
us, John 15:5, “ Without me ye can do nothing.” Is
there no dierence of dignity, or ocial glory, or power, in
Christ and His disciples? Rom. 10:14: “ How shall they
hear without a preacher? “ Does this (their not hearing
without a preacher) prove that no line of separation can be
drawn between the preacher and hearer, perhaps even an
unconverted hearer?
Again, 1Cor. 1 I: “ e man is not without the woman
in the Lord.” Nothing can be stronger than this. Because
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
493
the apostle had been proving the ocial superiority of the
man over the woman, and then asserts that, still, one was
not without the other in the Lord. It is an example directly
contradictory of the statement of the author.
Having thus disposed of all the criticisms, we may the
more easily consider the text itself (Heb. 11:40), as to the
supposition that there must be something joined with
the comparative, than which it is better. is is not even
necessary: the Greek for “ better “ is used absolutely, “
better things “ (Heb. 6:9), “ better. thing “ (Heb. 11:40).
But here there is no need for it to be so used, because God
has provided some better thing for us (that is, than for
them). e sentence is plain, as plain can be, “ God having
provided some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be made perfect,” Heb. 11:40. If anyone prefer “
foreseeing “ to “ providing,” it makes no dierence whatever
as to the point in hand. If God foresees a better thing as to
us, it is clear He has provided it for us. e only question
is, Is there such better thing? Now the plain construing of
the Greek (take it indeed rst or last, parenthesis or not)
is, “ God having provided (or foreseen) some better thing
for us.” But the position of the words makes it impossible
to introduce the sentence added to the Scripture, in order
to make out the point. Because if it be a parenthesis, it is
clearly complete, and the words he would introduce with
a “ than “ are introduced in the passage with hina (Greek)
for quite a dierent purpose. In his version they are a
mere unwarranted addition to the Scriptures. Nor could
problemma in any sense be added without changing the
plain sense of the word. e thing foreseen or provided is ‘
something better.’
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
494
It is impossible, if the object of the apostle had been
to say that God had in His counsels some better thing for
us, to have said it more simply: and I scarcely see how he
should have said it otherwise with the same perfectness of
expression (as doubtless the Spirit’s word must be perfect).
He did not allow them to receive the promises because He
had in His mind, He foresaw, something better for us. And
yet the word “ because,” which I have here used, mars the
accuracy; the genitive absolute is much more in place. It
was an actual condition of the case rather than a cause. And
I have no doubt that “for us “ and “ without us “ so connect
the phrase as to make the last phrase dependent on what
is said to be a parenthesis.
211
We have seen (page 354) in
an analogous case, John 17:20, 21, the same connection of
kreitton and hina.
212
But if the English and other translations are right,
213
we have, by the practical confession of the author in his
labor to get rid of it, a positive declaration of Scripture in
the teeth of his system. And he has jeoparded all on this;
because, if the English translation be right, all that he has
denounced as “ going far to destroy all sense of personal
responsibility,” and “ touching the value of the work of
211 at is, a better thing for us, that they without us.
212 Apparently this should read `the same connection of peri and
/dna.’
213 I may add that there is no variation in any English translation
(I quote from Bagster’s Hexapla), that of Rheims also giving,
as is well known, the Vulgate.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
495
Christ,”
214
in a word as subverting Christianity itself, is
214 See page 19. e reader will do well to pay attention to this
passage, because it would certainly “ go far “ to destroy all title
of sovereignty in God. For this reason; that a dispensational
peculiarity does depend exclusively on that sovereignty; and
this is objected to as producing any dierence in result, because
it “ is something altogether independent of ourselves.” I do not
doubt God acts by His Spirit in forming for glory according
to His purpose; but compare the statement of pages 18, 19, of
this second letter, with Matt. 20:21, 23, or the parallel passage,
as to the principle advanced. If the blood of Christ necessarily
gave the same glory to all, that would be as true for the same
dispensation as for dierent ones, and all must be exactly the
same in present glory. But this is not pretended. Hence the value
of Christ’s blood is not in question at all. If any alleged there
would be a dierence in justication, or acceptance (perfect,
full acceptance, or favor with God), then indeed the blood
would be in question. Or, if it were supposed that Abraham,
etc., were not with the saints in glory in the heavenly kingdom,
this would subvert the truth too. But, while partaking of the
glory of God, and likeness to Christ’s glorious body, is true
of all the redeemed, and while the value of the precious blood
of Christ is not touched for any by those whom the author
opposes, but estimated, as far as any one dare say so, in all its
fullness and all its bearings, though doubtless innitely below
its true and immeasurable preciousness-while, I say, this is
untouched by those whom the author and his followers accuse
of it, the sovereignty of God the Father, and the connection of
the Spirit’s work with glory, is seriously aected by the author’s
teaching.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
496
stated in the words of Scripture.
215
Not that I in the least
accept his statement of the doctrine he opposes; or his
suggestion of what others hold, stated by insinuation, in
opposing it as evil-far from it: the greatest part of it is a
totally unfounded charge. But I take it as it is stated in
the tract (pages 19-21). I thank him for recalling this verse
which otherwise might easily have passed from my mind.
Besides, if dispensational dierences produced no result in
the time of glory, why does the Lord say, “ because thou
hast seen, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not
seen, yet have believed “? ose who see and believe are on
another dispensational footing than those who have not
seen and believed. And it was not the condition of omas
merely; for he clearly entered into church privileges. It
is a general principle, based on the circumstances which
occurred through his temporary unbelief-indicative, I have
215 e question which may perhaps be raised on this text is not
at all on its translation, for which there is no sort of pretense,
but, whether the “ better thing “ provided be not down here in
the present advantages of the church dispensationally. I prefer
mentioning what may be a reasonable doubt in Scripture
(for the force of Scripture is a sacred thing) to maintaining
an argument successfully by merely disproving the author’s
reasoning. And therefore, though his reasoning supposes that
the verse in its present shape overthrows all his system, as
it most surely and entirely does, if it extend beyond present
dispensational blessings, which there is very strong ground to
believe it does, still I feel I am more true to the sacredness of
God’s word in saying that there may be some doubt whether
it does extend beyond present dispensational dierence. As
to the author’s translation I do not judge it, when examined,
worthy of another thought.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
497
no doubt, of the dierence in the kingdom consequent on
faith, before Christ’s return and after.
216
e reader may think that saying this is giving up the
dierence between Abraham and the Old Testament
saints and the church. I have nothing to give up. I believe
Abraham had divine life in the fullest and truest sense of
the word, and that none could possibly have been saved
without it. at he was saved by the blood of the Lamb, as
indeed none can be saved without it. at he will partake
of the resurrection just as much, and as truly, as we shall.
at he will be in the glory of the kingdom, and eternally
blessed with Christ, and that we shall sit down there
together. Of all this (to which, I doubt not, much detail
could be added) I have never had a moment’s doubt since
I believed through grace. at through grace he is worthy
216 So “ that we might be to the praise of His glory who rst
trusted in Christ,” literally, “ who are pre-trusters “; though
this passage could only rightly apply to the saints of this
dispensation, on account of its being the perfect tense.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
498
of a far higher place than myself I have no need to say.
Further, all the brethren I am aware of believe so too.
217
ere is another point it may be well to touch upon. at
the mission of Jesus to Israel was God’s last dealing with
the old, with the special exception I have stated. I think so
still, because God has said so; and this dealing was in vain.
After He had sent prophets, and they had stoned some and
killed some, God said, I have yet one Son: it may be they
217 e only point which could even give occasion to the allegations
of error which have been made is the supposition that there may
be in some respect a dierent form, or circumstance, of glory
in the kingdom- what has been called by the author “ ocial.”
is he believes there may be in the new earth. is, which may
be more doubtful because Scripture says so very little about it,
still, I am not disposed to dispute; because there are passages
which seem to say so, though, for reasons analogous to many
of the author’s, I feel it much more doubtful on account of
Christ’s being then (as man) subject as the head of the new
family. But how, if he admits ocial dierences in what is
eternal, which I doubt (though I do not dispute, nor occupy the
saints with, from the rarity of positive scripture testimony as to
it)-how, I say, if he admits it in what is eternal, can he charge
his brethren as he does because they think a similar ocial
dierence possible merely in the kingdom of glory? ough
I do not know, after all, any that have any very xed thought
about it. I charge the author with nothing at all here. I suspect
that he, and all of us, are suciently ignorant, to hinder us, if
we are wise, arming anything very dogmatically about the
matter, though it may be a very interesting subject of inquiry.
As to the pretension of holding the truth, and guarding the
truth, it is a pretension which must be left to those who make
and those who believe in it.Another point occurs to me which
may have given rise to this charge: namely, saying that an Old
Testament saint could not say, as a then present thing, I am
united to a gloried Man in heaven, because there was none
there. is I still believe, and that it is important for the saints
to remember it.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
499
will reverence My Son when they see Him. But when they
saw Him, they said, is is the heir: come let us kill Him;
and the inheritance shall be ours. And they caught Him,
and killed Him, and cast Him out of the vineyard. And so
Jesus, acting prophetically, found a g-tree, and sought fruit
thereon, and found none, and said, Let no fruit grow on
thee henceforward forever. And therefore He said, “ en
have I labored in vain, and spent my strength for naught
and in vain (that is, if Israel were God’s servant in whom He
was to be gloried); yet is my work with the Lord and my
judgment with my God,” Isa. 49 I believe that the author
has not known how to distinguish responsibility and the
purposes of God. I believe that Christ came seeking fruit
on Israel and found none-that He was presented to their
responsibility. He piped to them and they would not dance.
But the reasoning of the author proceeds from his not
seeing that, had He been received, it would have proved
there was good in man-that man was not in an absolutely
lost state, just as his keeping the law would. Whereas his
rejecting Christ proved, not only that man’s esh would
not keep the law, but that even the goodness of God, and
sending Messiah, and sending His Son, and light in the
world, and love in the world, their king in the world, yea,
God, Himself in power and goodness in the world, would
not lead the esh to repentance. And until this trial was put
to it, and (specially as regards the Jews) coming according
to promise and prophecy, man was not, in the dealings of
God with him, pronounced absolutely and nally bad. “ If I
had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin;
but now they have no cloak for their sin. If I had not done
amongst them the works which none other man did, they
had not had sin: but now they have both seen and hated
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
500
both me and my Father.” God never purposed to save by
the old man, any more than He expected the law to be kept
by the old man. But He did present His Son to man in his
former state, and viewed as Israel after the esh, to show
the hopelessly sinful state of it: and, till He had done this,
He did not pronounce upon it as the subject of nothing at
all but judgment.
218
Now the testimony starts from this ground that all are
entirely lost, the world is convicted of sin, because they
have not believed in Christ. ere was this dierence that
Christ was leading on in His own Person to something
else, which the law, save in a negative way, did not (though,
in that way, it did too; as the prophets by the Spirit of God
most surely did, so that all that Christ did was as much
stated then as by the Lord Himself); insomuch that, save
as to the glory and presence of His Person which presented
the thing itself, the dierence of the people’s condition was
not so great in principle. e author, seeing that Christ was
leading on, as He surely was, to another thing, supposes He
could not have been presented also as a test to the old to
prove yet further the absolute need of the new. But in this
he is quite wrong.
218 e author states, page 26, that God is always “ dealing with
the old in the sense of acting on it, with the view of gathering
into other and more blessed condition.” I should say that God
was never doing so. e old can have no lot but death: believers
count it so, and do not look for God to act on it. Up to the
death of Jesus He was putting man and Israel in the old state to
the test to prove its hopeless badness; but He never dealt with
the old as acting on it with the view of gathering. For God
knew that man in the esh was hopelessly bad. It was always
“anew,” John 3:3, from its very outset and origin, a new thing to
which blessing could attach; though this was not fully brought
out till Christ came, nor even till His resurrection.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
501
ere is one point more which I feel called upon to
explain- earthly things connected with regeneration-which
he has afterward cited as if I had said, regeneration was “
not necessarily a heavenly thing,” “ not necessarily more
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
502
than an earthly thing.” What I have said
219
is merely what
has been taught and explained of old-that regeneration
is stated to be necessary for the enjoyment of the earthly
promises by the Jews in the millennium; which are, I think,
219 is part of the author’s argument is based on his unscriptural
use of the word ‘ heavenly.’ I use it in the sense of condition in
which a thing is enjoyed, which is its scriptural use if we except
the divine Person of Christ; the author, in that of the source
from which it ows. I have said, “ that the Divine life came
from above I do not doubt,” and “ unless we use it in the vague
sense, that everything from above is heavenly.” Most certainly
in John 3, the Lord does not use heavenly in the author’s sense.
e author says, that the Lord so speaks to Nicodemus, because
regeneration takes place on earth (p. 9). is I do not believe;
while, in the sense of Divine life from above, I have positively
stated that it was from above, and I have distinguished this
from a heavenly condition. Nor, though I have no objection to
it in this sense, is “ heavenly life “ a scriptural expression; and
I am accustomed to follow Scripture, nor am I disposed to be
driven from it, by the accusations of men. I have not the least
doubt that Divine life comes from above, comes from God,
and from the Son, and by the power of the Spirit; but I do not
think Scripture calls it heavenly, and I still prefer Scripture to
the author’s statements. I believe Scripture uses “ heavenly “
habitually in another way, and I prefer using it so still. I believe
the Scripture use of terms perfect and accurate; and I think
in swerving from them, we are in danger of obscuring and
confounding the truth, as I judge the author has done. e
author has departed from Scripture phraseology here, and I
have not. At least, I have searched both my memory and a
concordance, for the terms he uses, and I cannot nd them.
But I freely say here I do not believe he intends any error by
the expression. I admit further that men may object to human
expressions to avoid the truth meant under them. But I have
stated over and over again, that I believe Divine life comes
from above, from God. And the author must well know that
this belief is that of all the brethren.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
503
contrasted with the heavenly things which are the portion
of the church in glory. I have actually referred, moreover, to
the vague sense of heavenly, as meaning coming down from
heaven, as an exceptional use, and which is not I believe a
scriptural use of it, though I have admitted it in my tract,
as I know of no one that ever doubted it. And instead of
holding that they would not be endowed with heavenly
life in the sense of Divine life coming down from heaven,
it was a positive assertion that they must. “ e Jews,” I
had said, and the author quotes it, “ taking earthly things
of God, must be regenerate.” And where did anyone ever
think regenerate life came from, except from God, and in
that, I still think, vague sense, heavenly from above?
ere are other points, discussed in the letter, treated of
in the “ Examination “; and I do not go over them again
here. A great part of the letter I can only consider as violent
calumnies against brethren, in the shape of inferences
which none of the brethren, sought to be involved in them,
believe; and I must decline answering them.
220
But not only is scriptural language departed from, but,
while professing to instruct all his brethren, and to be the
guardian of “ the truth,” the author has fallen really into the
grossest errors-errors to which I do not attach any great
importance, because I trust they are mere confusion, and
would therefore be scarcely worth noticing if they were
not accompanied with the exorbitant pretension to set
everybody else right.
220 A note has been referred to by Mr. N. as disclaiming charging
me with anything I repudiate. But it only “ keeps the promise
to the eye.” He merely allows me to repudiate “ any statement
made by others.” So that if I repudiate it, “ others “ remain
implicated by these false inferences, and Mr. N. will press all
his inferences on me, let me repudiate it or no.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
504
He has really confounded the possession of the divine
nature, by which Christ could take the incommunicable
name of God, with the life in us which ows from this
fullness. Whatever union we may have with Christ-yea,
though it may be said that we dwell in God and God in
us, yet essential life can be attributed in its very nature to
God only. at this was, by the mystery of the incarnation,
in the man Jesus, every saint owns. But to talk of this
being heavenly life, in the sense in which we possess it,
is the grossest confusion, and would be frightful if it were
not mere confusion. And here I will ask, Does the writer
really believe, or does he wish to make others believe, that
any of his brethren doubt, if we are so to speak, about the
heavenly, much more than mere heavenly, life of the Son of
God? A man is no Christian at all that does not believe in
the nature and Person of Christ. But does the author mean
to confound this divine Person with the life in us derived
from Him? Could it be said of anyone but of him “ the
Son of man who is in heaven “? For this “ who is “ (John
3:13) is really, if taken as a title, the incommunicable name,
I AM. It never was, nor could be, said of any man but of
Him who, if He was man, was the true God and eternal
life. We have life, but we are not eternal life; nor have we it
properly, nor essentially, in ourselves. God has given to us
eternal life, and this life is in the Son. He that hath the Son
hath life, he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
All this is confounded. In the second paragraph of page
6 it is said, speaking of No. 2 of the “ Examination,” the
author says, “ that it was properly heavenly is never said
in Scripture.” But to what does “ it “ refer in this passage
in Mr. N.’s letter? To Christ spoken of as “ who is “? Does
it in No. 2 of the “ Examination “? Not at all. I am there
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
505
speaking of the life of the saints. I have said “ nor is it ever
said that they were quickened with heavenly life.” And, if
it be said, But were not they quickened with the life that
was in Christ? No doubt they were. But to confound the
derived life in them with what Christ was in His Person,
so that it was said of Him “ the Son of man who is (the ‘
Being One ‘) in heaven,” is the greatest confusion possible.
Could it be said of them “ the ‘ Being One ‘ in heaven “?
Nay, could it be said, He hath given unto them to have life
in themselves? And to argue about the Person of Christ,
when I was arguing about the life of the saints, is deplorable
confusion. Further, we have, in the quotations of the author
himself, the plainest proof that he is entirely wrong as to
the saints in his use of heavenly and earthly. He holds now
that there was the same life essentially in all of them. With
this I fully agree. It was true then of John the baptist. Why,
then, if it is necessarily to be called heavenly because it
came down from heaven as in the Person of Christ, does
John contrast himself with Christ, and say, “ He that
cometh from above is above all “; “ He that is
221
of the
earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh
from heaven is above all “? e truth is, the Lord and John
the baptist do not speak of a life come down from heaven,
221 I have supposed it possible, on reading over this, that, to
make good the point, this may be denied to be applicable to
John the Baptist; but this I leave to every saint to judge of. I
may add to the question in the text, Why does the author say,
speaking of the millennium, “ e inhabitants of Jerusalem and
of Immanuel’s land will be strictly in an earthly condition “? I
believe so; it is the right use of earthly. So the saints above are
said to be “ heavenly persons.” Yet those in a strictly earthly
condition are regenerate.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
506
but of a Person come down from heaven.
222
e author
speaks of this essential life becoming (page 7) “ connected
for a while with humanity,” etc. But was it derived life as
in us that did so? Was it not the Word incarnate, the Son
of God who came down from heaven, in whom was life,
that did so-He who had thus life in Himself? Where does
Scripture speak of life coming down from heaven unto us?
at eternal life which was with the Father was manifested
to us in the Person of Jesus. But He was eternal life. I repeat,
we are not, though we have, eternal life.
It could not be said of us, “ who are in heaven “; Jesus
being a divine Person, it could be said of Him, “ the Son
of man who is in heaven.” ‘ It can be said of us (as united
to Him, because we are united to Him for a heavenly
condition in glory), “ He hath made us to sit together
in heavenly places in Christ.” is cannot be said of the
millennial saints. For, though they undoubtedly have life
from Christ, though they have it from the risen Man, so
that I doubt not they will be changed into likeness to
Him, and, though their forgiveness and their blessings are
enjoyed through the blood of the Lamb, yet they do not
sit together in heavenly places. ey are in earthly places
and earthly glory. In the state, of which so little is said, the
contrast of heaven and earth is not thus maintained in the
family of God: but it is in the millennial state. Nor let it
be supposed that it is a mere inference that Christ and the
saints are thus confounded, because life is communicated.
After speaking of Him as having this “ heavenly life “ in
humiliation, the author proceeds-” the circumstances may
222 See John 3:13, 31. It is, perhaps, this confusion which has
made the author attribute omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnipresence, using these very words, to the saints hereafter.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
507
vary innitely, but it is the same life. Before the world was,
He was the word of life, He was the same in humiliation,
He is the same now in glory. When on earth He could say,
‘ the Son of man who is in heaven.”
First, I ask, was this merely by the possession of
a heavenly life? or was it not because He was in His
own Person the Son of God, the Word of Life? But to
continue: “ innitely important results would ow from
the admission that the life possessed and communicated
by the Lord Jesus while yet in the esh, was not heavenly.”
Now, I believe it to be only confusion; but there is the most
complete confusion between the Person of the Son of God,
the divine Being and existence, and the life communicated
to the saints which ows from it. What I had written as
to life in the saints is referred to it as to the same thing;
and, after speaking of the divine Word, the author goes
on to speak of the life possessed and communicated by
the Lord Jesus, and quotes the passages which refer to the
coming down to earth of the Person of the Son of God
(who being a divine Person was therefore still in heaven),
as speaking of a heavenly life come down. us, “ but did
Jesus think that the life which was in Him, and which He
communicated to others, was not heavenly? Did He not
Himself say, “ the Son of man which is in heaven? And do
not these words almost verbally contradict the assertion,
that it
223
[the life] is never said in Scripture to be properly
heavenly … Were they [angels] ignorant of the existence of
a life on earth which they had known in the excellence
of its own uncreated glory above? … Were they ignorant
that this life had, through the Son, been communicated •
223 I was speaking of “ their being quickened with heavenly life,”
that is, of the saints, when I say ‘ it.’
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
508
to persons chosen from among sinful men? And did they
not think of those to whom it was thus communicated,
as endowed with that which never could nd its home in
any dwelling-place beneath the heavens? No, they knew
the nature of essential life. ey knew whence it came, and
whither it tended.” No intelligent Christian but must see
that there is the most complete confusion between the
person of the Word and the life communicated to the saints.
Have we essential life? I believe it mere confusion, but ill-
placed with such pretension to set all the world right, and
involving very serious errors if followed out; and, as I have
said, I suppose the source of the monstrous statements in
the “ oughts on the Apocalypse.” Christianity becomes
really a sort of Buddhism.
e scripture never confounds these things. It can speak
of Christ dependent, living by the Father, but it speaks of
Himself, as sent, and as coming. “ As the living Father hath
sent me, and I live by the Father “ (and here we can refer
in the word by ‘ to a common principle), “ so he that eateth
me shall live by me.” But then He is sent, and in that quite
distinct. So “ as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he
given to the Son to have life in himself.” Here the expression
comes down very far; it speaks of giving to have, but still
to have life in Himself. “ I came forth from the Father, I
leave the world and go to my Father.” It is not heavenly life
come. And when eternal life, as such, is spoken of as here,
“ at eternal life which was with the Father,” then all that
is said is “ was manifested,” not communicated. When, on
the other hand, eternal life is spoken of, as being given to
us, it is carefully added, “ and that life is in the Son. He that
hath the Son hath life.” Christ had life in Himself, yea, “
in him was life.” If it be said, “ He lived by the Father,” yet
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
509
it is not said He hath life because He hath the Father. He
was in union with the Father. He and the Father were one.
But, as I have already remarked, union with the Person of
the Son of God is not scriptural.
“ Our life is hid with Christ in God; and when Christ
who is our life shall appear,” etc. Here Christ is spoken of
as being our life. So we are said to “ dwell in him, and he in
us “ -the strongest expressions, these, that can be. But this
is just what makes the dierence with Christ, and shows
the life is not essential in us. He is our life. He dwells in
us. If the author merely meant that it was essentially holy
in its nature and the like, it would be all well. But it is
not essential life in us; that is the prerogative of a divine
Person. I can say “ Christ is our life,” but I could not say, the
Father was Christ’s life: it would take away at once from
what He was in His nature and being.
It may be well to remark, that when the author speaks
(page 49) of “ the great hypothesis of the system,” to
which certain remarks are said to belong, it would have
been well to have produced some proof of the existence
of the hypothesis, or of any hypothesis. I can only say that
what he has stated about it, is, as far as I am concerned,
totally and entirely without foundation. I never have said
nor taught, nor thought, nor known any one that taught
or thought, that one or other of these points did not
involve death and resurrection. I have always taught the
contrary. For in Matthew the Lord says “ On this rock I
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
510
will build my church.” Now I was arguing that death
224
and resurrection is absolutely necessary to building the
church. at is, I am arguing, in the passage the author
is considering, directly the contrary of what the author is
pleased to state to be my hypothesis. As to John 1 have
never had any hypothesis about it, but the exact contrary of
what the author states; and for one simple reason-there is
no room for any. e Lord states there that, except they ate
His esh and drank His blood, they had no life in them.
So that it was impossible to suppose that it did not involve
His death and resurrection too, unless death too has to
have dominion over Him. e chapter I judge to be very
simple. Christ comes down from heaven the bread of life;
His life is given up, His esh and blood must be eaten and
drunk; and, thirdly, He intimates that He must ascend up
where He was before. We have His descent; His death; and
(which, of course, implies His resurrection) His return into
heaven. I can only say, therefore, that the whole statement
is the pure invention of the author.
Here the author has not even the slender excuse for
these groundless charges of confounding the presenting
things to man’s responsibility, and the establishing of them
by God. Because building God’s church is not presenting
224 My words (amongst others) are these (p. 45) “ It is a serious
thing to make the death of Christ necessary only to the
ordering of the church, and not to its founding and existence.”
It is the author (p. 52, letter 2) who, though he admits, seems
at the same time to be unwilling so to state it. So in page 42
of “ Examination “-” Without His death and the presence of
the Holy Ghost, this could not be,” and all that follows there.
Indeed the reader has only to pay attention to the passage
cited at the head of the note I am here examining, to see that
I am arguing precisely against what the author says is my
hypothesis-at least as regards Matthew.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
511
anything to man’s responsibility; and I was actually arguing
against the possibility of its being without the death and
resurrection of Christ.
e author (page 13) makes me say that Israel can
possess the earthly blessings without the cross. I have never
held nor said so. ey could not, as the apostle reasons in
Acts 13, without His resurrection also. Besides the absolute
moral need of sinful men, in a special manner He died for
the nation. But the reader will judge how far such a charge
can be a just one when he refers to the following passage in
the same paragraph in the preceding page: “ If man had not
been in the state he really was, totally and fundamentally
corrupt, so that atonement was absolutely necessary, there
was power, living power, in Him … to restore all.” So that I
have stated in the paragraph commented on by the author
the exact opposite of what he chooses to infer I hold. I have
denitely asserted in the passage the impossibility of what
he says I am teaching.
e sentence, moreover, that immediately follows what
he quotes and comments on, is this, “ that God forgave from
Adam’s sin downward in respect of the cross is plain, and
stated in Rom. 3:25.” I shall make no further comment on
the author’s assertion, that I hold redemption by the blood
is not necessary for some. is is the passage on which
he grounds his charge: “ e Lord had spoken in John 3
of earthly things, when speaking of regeneration. For the
Jews taking earthly things of God must be regenerate. And
with this He contrasts the heavenly things, and, when He
mentions these, states to Nicodemus that the Son of man
must be lifted up.” And so He does. e statement is an
accurate representation of what is in the chapter. at I do
not speak of life, when I speak of earthly things, is evident
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
512
from the passage itself; for I have stated that “ the Jews
taking earthly things must be regenerate.” Regeneration,
therefore, is positively distinguished from earthly things in
the passage, and declared to be necessary to the Jew when
he takes these earthly things; and the heavenly things are
contrasted with this (i.e., the earthly state of the Jews)-
their “ strictly earthly condition,” to use the author’s
words. I was not then speaking of life, either in speaking
of earthly or heavenly things, for the best of all reasons,
that (though the author chooses to do so, and, in order to
justify it, confounds the Person of the living Word with life
in us) the Scripture does not; and, being used to draw my
thoughts from Scripture, when I use them, I do not, nor am
I bound to assume that others will, depart from Scripture.
And, though the cross will be the foundation of Israel’s
blessings as of every other, they will be regenerated indeed,
but not having been associated in suering faith with
Christ crucied, with the rejected Messiah, they will, in
the kingdom, have only earthly things; whereas those that
have suered with Him will be gloried together, will reign
with Him-at least, if we are to believe the plain testimony
of Scripture. And I apprehend that this makes a good deal
of dierence in glory, and that depending on dispensation,
call it ocial or what you like. e saints who do not suer
with Christ will never reign
225
with Christ. e writer may
treat this with indierence. Of this the spiritual reader will
judge. Have these millennial saints what the author calls “
essential life “? And is there no dierence in glory? I speak
still of the kingdom.
225 I do not speak of reigning here in the sense of eternal
blessedness, but of the kingdom.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
513
One point remains on which charges repeated here have
been most widely circulated: that I and other brethren hold
that there is a dierence in essential life as to saints before
and after Christ’s resurrection.
e author has enlarged upon it as full of deadly
consequences. But I shall only cite two or three passages,
as it is requisite that I should be precise here.
“ Innitely important results would ow from the
admission that the life possessed and communicated by
the Lord Jesus, while yet in the esh, was not heavenly;
226
for if heavenly life could not be communicated by Him
until after He was raised from the dead, it follows that
every saint who fell asleep before His resurrection never
possessed the heavenly life, and never will possess it; for
I suppose no one will say that it can be communicated
after death. Consequently, an essential dierence as to the
nature of the life possessed would exist (and this some
have asserted) between those who died previously to the
resurrection of Jesus and those who knew Him risen “
(page 8). Again, “ Will the author venture to say that it is
not always essentially the same? Will he say that Abraham
possessed a life dierent from that of Peter, when he
believed in Jesus? … I have heard of such things; and if the
author intends deliberately to support such a doctrine, he
is bound, I think, now that the minds of so many have been
exercised on the subject, to state his opinions distinctly
and without reserve.” It is to this that the author appends
the note that he does not wish to charge me with the
statements of others which I repudiate. If the author would
allege that he charges his brethren with holding dierence
226 We have already seen that the whole train of thought here is
unscriptural. e scripture never speaks of heavenly life:
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
514
in glory and not dierence in life, the answer is very short.
In page 17 he says, “ It may appear strange, perhaps, to
some, that it should even be supposed that dispensational
dierences here would of themselves produce dierences
in glory; but it will not excite surprise when we remember
that they who live in this our dispensation are supposed to
have a life essentially dierent from that of the saints who
died before the resurrection of Jesus.” He then expatiates
on the way people have dened this dierence.
On the whole I have resolved not to answer here these
charges, nor to state anything as to them. As regards a
mass of other statements, in defamation of the brethren’s
teaching, I pass them by. As to these I make now a last
appeal to Mr. N.’s conscience. He knows, as well as I do,
what the facts are as to what has been taught respecting the
life of the Old Testament saints. I ask then, What would
a person who does not know the facts, and who reads the
statements I have quoted, think? And what would a person
who does know them? I put it here to his own conscience.
Lastly, if anyone doubts, after twenty years that I
have been preaching, whether I teach the necessity of
redemption through the blood for all and every redeemed
soul, I could hardly expect to disabuse him by telling him
the contrary twenty times over. In the end such assertions
always recoil on the head of him who makes them. But I
add, as it is a question in which Christ’s glory is concerned,
that, so far from any soul’s appearing before God otherwise
than by redemption through the blood, not only is every
saved soul saved by it, and by it alone;
227
but, as in the rst
Adam, all this lower creation fell, either into guilt, or at
227 is expression, of course, leaves the Spirit’s work, in giving
faith in it, in its place and full value.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
515
least into the bondage of corruption, in its head, and the
head of evil in the higher creation, the enemy, triumphed
in that fall: so Christ therefore must have entered into this
place of death by grace, and come under its consequences,
to set up the glory of God in the very place where it was
marred, or seemed for a moment to be so, and that innitely
more gloriously than ever, yea, perfectly gloriously, and in
perfect stability; and thus in death He perfectly gloried
Him, and had title to set up the lost creation in blessing
in virtue of redemption, and be its Head as delivered from
the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of
the children of God. rough death He rendered void,
brought to naught and annulled, the power of him that
had the power of death. is was the central place where
all title and power was to be set up, though it was to be
displayed and exercised in resurrection. But morally, and
for God’s glory, it was in death, and therein in redemption,
it was set up-that wonderful mystery that is the basis of
everything new in righteousness before God. So that, not
only is no soul possibly saved without it, but the whole
redemption blessing of creation depends on the death
and blood of Christ as to His title, God’s glory, and its
cleansing from delement if not from guilt. e creation
could not be blessed without His death. And if we say
His title depended on His being Creator-and Son-and,
in the counsels of God on His being man, still, sin being
come in, death was needed to make good the title, in the
presence and for the glory of God, as His resurrection was
the display of that power of life in which He triumphed
and will forever enjoy the glory.
One remark remains as to the application of the term
‘ church.’ We had all been in the habit of calling all the
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
516
redeemed the church: nor, in a general human way, do I
know any objection; because they will be ultimately the
redeemed assembly of God; and ‘ church ‘ means ‘ assembly.’
Still, it is better to speak with Scripture than to use our
own thoughts in such a matter. And it has been observed
that there is no proof at all that ‘ church ‘ is ever said of any
but the saints from Pentecost to the Lord’s coming again.
In commenting on this the writer says “ that they have
not belonged to the church, as dispensationally gathered
and ordered on earth, I know “; and then, further on, says, “
wherever then these two characteristics are found to attach,
there I should bestow the name church; unless any part of
scripture can be quoted which forbids.” He then adds, that
the burden of proof rests with those who object. Now this,
in argument, is not the case. e burden of proof is always
with him who arms, and not with him who denies. But
(not to insist on this) the statement of the author entirely
surrenders the point. On such a question as whether we
are to give anything a scriptural name and title, surely
Scripture must guide us. Not so with the author. He would
bestow the name because he thinks it right, and asks for a
Scripture which forbids it. Can there be a plainer proof that
he has no scripture which proves it? e quotation of one
such could have settled the point. But he has none-nothing
but his own reasoning-to which no one ought to conde
on any scriptural subject. For, if he have even much reason
for doing so, if there be many things entirely in common
228
between the Old Testament saints and the New Testament,
as all believe, still the Holy Ghost has had some reason for
not doing it; and that ought to govern us. I see myself the
strongest possible reason why it should be so. e unity
228 Nor am I here questioning that all will be hereafter.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
517
of one body on earth, by the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven, is connected with this exclusive application of the
word ‘ church,’ to the saints gathered from Pentecost to the
Lord’s coming. But my seeing a reason, I agree, is no proof.
e proof is that the Holy Ghost does not apply it to others;
and therefore the author’s bestowing it is presuming above
Scripture, and the wisdom of the Spirit of God-of God
Himself. I think the answer
229
to the author’s argument
is very simple; but I do not go further here. His remarks
on angels seem to me unhappy. For though our exaltation
above them through our union with the Lord Jesus Christ
is plainly taught in Scripture, “ we shall judge
230
angels,” yet
the contrast is nowhere made that I know between angels
and the church, but between angels and man. “ Lord, what
is man? “ etc. Further, I know of no contrast between the
ancient saints, and those of this time, even supposing there
should be a dierence of circumstances in glory. at
they are children of God in the same resurrection glory
is plain; not from a long process of reasoning to make
229 e kingdom, and heavenly glory too, was the subject of
Abraham’s faith; the church was not. It was kept secret. And
so of John the Baptist. Only it may be reasoned here, that
Abraham did look for a city which hath foundations, and thus
saw the church in glory, even if not its union as bride. at I
do not contest at all: nor have I clear light from God as to its
full and exact force. Provided the real glory of the church itself
be recognized, I enter into no contest whatever as to the Old
Testament saints being in it. I do not admit that all who are
saved by Christ’s death are necessarily in Christ’s glory in the
kingdom; because it is written, If we suer with Him, we shall
reign with Him. We suer with Him that we may be gloried
together. And, during the millennium, the saints on earth will
certainly be saints in virtue of Christ’s death; and as certainly
they will not be in heavenly glory.
230 is is the passage nearest to such a contrast.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
518
them the church, but from the positive revelation of God
(Luke 20:36
231
) not to cite others. But, while our union
with Christ does give us peculiar exaltation even above
angels, still the language of the writer seems to me rash,
and to go beyond Scripture. Scripture never speaks of life
in connection with angels. ey are holy and blessed things
(at least, the elect angels), who are God’s messengers; and
more than this, save that there are some peculiarly exalted,
we know little. ey are spirits, we are told, and some few
other particulars are given. e author says, they have not
life from the Son of God. Who told him that? at they
have it not as we is quite true; because He has taken our
nature, and we have been quickened together with Him;
but where is it said, they have not life from Him? It seems
to me to be intruding into things which we have not seen.
By Him (Greek, in Him) all things exist, or subsist; and
therefore the angels. Nay, it is said of all men (no doubt,
man has a peculiar place)-” in him [God] we live, and
move, and have our being.” And I suppose that the Son
will not be shut out here, of whom it is specially said “ in
“ or “ by him all things consist.” And if the word union ‘
be insisted on, I repeat that union with the Son of God is
not a scriptural expression, nor a scriptural idea, though
it may have been used innocently, as equivalent to such
expressions as, “ He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit,”
and the like. e Father and the Son are one. We are one
in them, and as them. But for union with the Son there
is no scripture; it deies us, which Scripture never does.
Hence, though our place is indeed quite dierent from that
of angels (and blessed be God, for His unspeakable gift!)
231 Here however, though perhaps only in a particular respect, we
are said to be “ equal to the angels,” Luke 20:36.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
519
yet to say they have not life from the Son of God, is going
beyond scripture, and positively to arm things of which
Scripture is silent, save in that it says all things subsist in
the Son.
I cannot doubt, on further reection, that the second
of the propositions in page 12 is deliberate error, and not
confusion (an error held by many dear saints, but still a
doctrine unsustained by Scripture, and which becomes
important here, because it is pushed to its consequences
of mischief)-I mean that union exists where there is no
life at all-the confounding God seeing us in the eternal
thoughts of His heart in Christ, and our union with Christ-
indeed calling our being so seen of God union. Hence
an unregenerate ungodly man (suppose a drunkard, or
unclean person) is, if elect, united to Christ! in union with
Him when he has no spiritual life at all, and receives that
spiritual life, or, in the words of the author’s proposition,
is regenerate in virtue of union with Him! e note (page
7) on which I will by and by add a remark or two, besides
abundance of oral teaching, fully conrms the statement
that this is the author’s view. Now, the word of God never
speaks of union other than living union. “ He that is joined
to the Lord is one spirit.” Is that true of a drunkard, or an
ungodly man, because he is elect? Clearly not.
Passages are quoted which speak of being crucied with
Christ, buried with Him, and the like. e answer is simple.
ey are invariably, and exclusively, applied to living saints,
who, having received life from Christ, can apply, as true
of and to themselves, all that was true of Him who died
and suered these things eectually for them. To suppose
anything else would make union without life. e question
is not really whether there is life without union, but
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
520
whether there is union without life. e author arms that
there is, and that we receive life in consequence of a union
which existed without it. And see the gure by which he
illustrates it. What a strange mysticism it involves! Christ
and His membersunion-is compared to a grain which is
united to what is produced as a plant afterward in some
mysterious way within itself, and so produces that plant by
dying and rising again.
So that Christ really contained, though in a mysterious
232
way, all His members in Himself before He died and
produced them out of Himself in due time. Does Scripture
ever speak in this way? Is this the use it makes of the corn
of wheat falling into the ground and dying?
In the Ephesians, which the author cites, the distinction
of the elect dead in trespasses and sins, and those quickened
together with Christ, and the application of the “ quickened
together “ only to the living regenerate saint, to the believer,
is as plain as possible. “ What is the exceeding greatness
of his power to us-ward who believed, according to the
working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ
when he raised him from the dead.” It is real, quickening,
living, life-giving power; not union without life at all. So, “
When we were dead in sins he hath quickened us together
with Christ,” etc. Were we in Christ dead in trespasses and
sins?
I read, “ If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature “;
and “ if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
his.” at they were written in the book of life of the Lamb
slain, from the foundation of the world, I bless God in
232 is may be said guratively in a peculiar way, as in Heb. 7:10.
But this is not union as the body with the head, which is the
point here under consideration.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
521
believing, and that thus God sees them in Christ, so that,
when quickened, all that is true of Christ can be armed
of them; but this does not state that there is union without
living power exercised towards them. So in Gal. 2:20, “ I
am crucied with Christ “ (for here again the authorized
translation is more accurate than the author’s; it is the
perfect, not the aorist); “ nevertheless, I live, yet not I but
Christ liveth in me.” at is, it is Paul in living real union
that can attribute to himself all that had been done in
Christ, and that because really united to Him as the Head.
So in Rom. 6, it is applied to the baptism of the saints. ey
were baptized into His death and should walk in newness
of life. Col. 2:12 is as clear and plain as the rest-if possible
still more so. “ Buried with him in baptism, in whom also
ye have been raised with him through faith of the operation
of God who raised him from the. dead; and you being
dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your esh, he
hath quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses.” e scripture statements therefore (though the
author’s statements may catch an ear taught in the school
of rigid and systematic high Calvinism) subvert entirely
the article of the author, that we are regenerate in virtue of
union. It is wholly unscriptural.
And here I will add that a new translation, much insisted
on at the close of Rom. 4, is, I judge, entirely wrong too.
As substantially it resulted in the thing in the mind, I have
never felt it necessary to controvert it; but, as we are on
the point, I will do so here. As the ecient cause of our
justication was the work of Christ, though we are only
justied when we believe, the mind can rest on either, or
rather on both together, with truth. But as a translation,
and as doctrine, “ raised again because of our justication,”
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
522
in the sense because we were justied, is quite wrong. e
common translation is the true one-” raised again for our
justication.” Because the noun used has an active sense, as
all others of that form in Greek, and others derived from
the second person of the perfect passive, as all scholars
know; and may be rendered in English “ for our justifying.”
Were it because of our having been justied by Christ’s
resurrection, it would assuredly have been dia to dikaiothenai
hemas, or dedikaiosthai if expressing its present continuing
ecacy; but rather the former. And hence this form is used
when we are actually justied by faithdikaiothentes oun ek
pisteos.
I would make another remark here: we are never said
to have been one with Christ in death. e hymn, “ One
233
with Him on the cursed tree,” I judge to be unscriptural:
sung harmlessly, I do not doubt, because viewed as there
by God, and therefore by faith, because He was there for
us. But it is not doctrinally just. Scripture never states it.
And, though I do not doubt both its author, and many
who so speak, as sound in the doctrine of substitution as
myself, yet we have to take care of statements of the kind,
because they really do militate against the distinct force of
substitution. Christ was alone to bear the wrath for His
church. In conventional language we may say they were
all there when He was; and we all understand it as a most
precious blessed truth; and so, when I hear a Calvinist
speak in this way, my heart can go along with him, my soul
really leans on the same truth and work as his, though I
may think his expressions inaccurate.
But when this is used to state as a doctrine, that there
is union before and without life, and that we were really
233 is in some editions has been altered.
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
523
one with Christ in His death; and to pretend that this is
guarding and saving and suering for the truth, when it is
really totally unscriptural, it is going too far, and it is well
to sift what it is worth.
e importance of it to the author is this, that he can
thus set aside anything special as to the church in the
present dispensation on the point of union: since it is not a
living consequence of what is wrought by the living power
of Christ, but as true before those united lived, or existed
even by a natural life, as when they are regenerate. Hence
the sitting in heavenly places in Christ has been said to
be by faith merely; and its being so stated because of their
Head being there, with whom they were now really and
livingly one, so as to sit there in Him, has been treated
as mysticism. Hence the desire of the author to arm
that “ raised up together “ is in Him as much as sitting
together-a construction the author would nd it dicult
to prove, though, for my own part, as it is armed of those
actually quickened, I am aware of no scriptural principle
against which it militates. All I desire is that the attention
of the saints may be drawn to the source of this statement,
that regeneration is in virtue of union; namely, that there is
union without life at all. Nor will I go further than to ask,
how far such a tenet can be considered as the safeguard
of “ the truth,” and a ground for denouncing as subverters
of the truth those who do not hold it? e present living
union of the saints as Christ’s body being thus really set
aside-regeneration being in virtue of union, which clearly
therefore is not living union-the church becomes either
all saints from the beginning to the end of time; or a sort
of model or pattern frame-work formed by the labors of
God’s servants down here: and such passages as 1Cor. 12
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
524
either this or a local church. e whole doctrine of the
epistle to the Ephesians is thus entirely lost, as the chapter
in 1Corinthians is merged into a local or pattern church
or body down here; and the power of the doctrine of the
church’s union with the Head as a real living vitalized body
united to Christ, and lled with the Holy Ghost, is wholly
lost. I would much press upon the reader to examine Eph. 4
and 1Cor. 12. He will soon be set clear in all this. Compare
page 5 of “ Second Letter.” “ If I confound between what
God did in exalting Christ and the church in Him, and
what His servants did in constituting the church on earth.”
Did not God constitute it as the living body of Christ by
the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven?
In recurring to the letter I nd the following
extraordinary statement, which may further open the
bearing of the author’s views, and how far he apprehends
the work of God’s Spirit, and its connection with that
of Christ. “ Its [unity in heaven] preciousness is to be
valued … because it is the evidence of the grace given in
Christ overcoming all dierences that may have existed
here, whether dierences in the Spirit, or dierences in the
esh, and bringing in everlasting oneness.” Grace given in
Christ overcoming dierences in the Spirit! One is really
led to doubt how one taught of God can use such language.
It may be well the reader should remark the extraordinary
admission of the author in page 54. “ Observe, I do not say
that there was the same character of union as afterward
in resurrection.” Now I do ask and appeal solemnly to the
consciences of all the saints, what is the meaning of the
indefatigable eorts to calumniate and denounce brethren
long known in the church of God after this statement?
Does not the author very well know, that they hold, and
Answer to “Second Letter to the Brethren Who Meet for Communion in Ebrington Street”
525
always held, that all saints received divine spiritual life from
the Lord, and that they would not listen to any contrary
doctrine? And what they have ever said which was in any
way more than the author’s statement here?
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
526
62450
Notice of “Remarks on the
Seventh Chapter of
Daniel”
I AM glad of an opportunity of taking up the subject of
the following brief notice in an instance which precludes
all question of personal feeling or opposition-in which my
remarks must be evidently divested of it to every upright
mind-the writer, on whose statement I comment, having
fully, I believe, embraced a wrong doctrinal system, but
having never, as far as I know, departed from Christian
kindness, or given any possible occasion to myself to do
so. His statement of what the church is, in his remarks
on Dan. 7, distinctly shows that total and entire rejection
or ignorance of its true calling, as presented in the New
Testament, which characterizes the system he has
embraced. I take this occasion of earnestly drawing the
attention of saints to it. It is as follows:-
“ In Rom. 9:24, we read, concerning the saints of God,
‘ us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of
the Gentiles.’ In Rom. 11:24, we read of ‘ their own olive
tree ‘ (Israel’s), as being that into which Gentile believers
are graed. Now I believe, that if we would give a scriptural
denition of the church of God, we should say that they
are Abraham’s seed. If we would dene the church as
it now exists upon this earth, from the time of Christ’s
rst coming, resurrection, and ascension, to His second
coming, we should say, that they are a body of believing
Jews, during the time that the nation at large is under
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
527
blindness, with whom God, in sovereign and marvelous
grace, has associated believing Gentiles, making all one
body, joint-heirs, etc. us, although on every side we see
many Gentiles professing or holding the faith of Jesus, and
very few Jews, we must not forget that at Pentecost the
gathered company was entirely Jewish as to nation: hopes,
thoughts, and glory, were opened to them beyond those
of their nation: they were instructed to look upwards to
a risen Messiah waiting at God’s right hand, till His foes
should have been made His footstool (Acts 2:33-35) they
were told of blessing, while their nation was in blindness (v.
40); and they heard of judgment as necessarily preceding
Israel’s earthly blessing: but still they were Jews; and most
gradual was the opening to them of the possibility of
Gentiles sharing in the new fellowship, hopes, and glory,
which they learned to be their true portion. Gentiles were
one by one brought into this believing body; and thus we
see the meaning of the words, ‘us, whom he hath called, not
of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.’ Whatever the
church on earth may seem to us now to be, it is still, as to
its constituent parts, a company of Jews, partakers of grace,
amongst whom God has brought in certain Gentiles.”
Such is the account of the church! I trust that, at any
rate, it may never be made a subject of reproach again, that
the Pentecostal church is said to be Jewish. Now compare
the statements of Paul’s epistles, the whole of Ephesians
and Colossians for example, and see if the idea of the
church there given be “ a company of Jews … amongst
whom God has brought in certain Gentiles.” Take Col.
3:9-11: “ Ye have put o the old man with his deeds; and
have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge
after the image of him that created him: where there is
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
528
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
barbarian., Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in
all.” Can there be a plainer denial in terms of the statement
of the writer of the tract on Dan. 7? Is it possible that
anyone who had really believed this, and understood it by
the teaching of the Holy Ghost, should say, “ If we would
dene the church as it now exists upon this earth, from the
time of Christ’s rst coming, resurrection, and ascension,
to His second coming, that they are a body of believing
Jews,” etc.?
Nor is it merely an isolated passage in Colossians in
which the opposite statement to the writer’s is declared
in express terms by the Holy Ghost. Eph. 2 is a full
development of the doctrine itself, connecting it with the
great principles of eternal truth, the Jew being a sinner and
child of wrath as well as the Gentile: and both, previously
near or afar o, as it might be, as to earthly administration,
were brought nigh in the true sense, and made one new
man in one body, both being reconciled to God in one body
by the cross. at is, not that Gentiles were brought into
a company of Jews, but that Jews and Gentiles were alike
brought out of the position they were previously in, into
a new body in Christ, where there was neither Jew nor
Greek.
But it will, perhaps, be alleged that the writer of the
tract speaks of the church as it now exists on earth. Truly
so: and I press attention to this circumstance, because it
is the denial of the real character of the unity of the body,
in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, on earth. His
statement might leave it to be gathered that there would or
might be such a unity in heaven, such a body there, where
patriarchs, Jewish saints, and Christians would be found.
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
529
It would not exclude this; but as existing now on earth,
between Christ’s rst coming and second, it does not enter
into the denition of the church. ere “ they are a body
of believing Jews,” etc. Now this is the important point. In
the system laid down in this tract, place is left for unity in
heaven, such a unity, perhaps, as may include all saints from
the beginning to the end of time: but as regards the period
of this dispensation on earth, they are always “ a body of
believing Jews.”
Hence, in other statements on this subject, Paul is said
to speak of unity in heaven; while, on the other hand, Eph.
2:19, “ fellowship of the saints “ is used as meaning the
association of the New Testament saints with those of
the Old already recognized. at is to say, the doctrine
of the epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians
234
(according to which there is neither Jew nor Greek, but
both have been brought. nigh in one new man in one body,
through the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven) is excluded from all application to earth, and from
special application to the time from Christ’s rst coming
to the second. But I go farther than this; and I add, that
Rom. 11, which is declared to aord special instruction
as to what the church is (nay, to supply the materials of
scripturally dening it), does not apply to the church at
235
234 So also Gal. 3:27.
235 Great handle is made of this expression, as if, because any
passage did not apply to the church as such, it was not for it. But
this is the weakest idea possible. Instruction as to the Father’s
glory, as to Christ’s millennial earthly glory, is for, but not
about, the church. So instruction as to individual justication
does not apply to the church as such, though the members of it
in its fullest sense possess it; and it is for them. e church, as
such, is not the subject treated of, although deeply concerned
in it and aected by it as a dispensation.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
530
all properly as such: so entirely has this system mistaken
the teaching of the word of God on the subject. Indeed,
the being Abraham’s seed is only a consequence to us of
our being in the church.
But rst as to Rom. 11e epistle to the Romans does
not treat properly of the doctrine of the church (that is, of
the gathering of the assembly), but of the justication of the
saints who compose it, connected with their spiritual life;
and this applies to all saints in any possible circumstances,
though the strain of reasoning adapted itself of course to
those in which the apostle found himself. is closes, in the
full amount of the blessedness of such, in chapter 8. But
the apostle’s doctrine on the subject having brought out
the equal admission of Jews and Gentiles, the question of
the faithfulness of God to His distinctive promises to the
Jews naturally arose. To meet this, in chapter 9, he alleges
the sovereignty of God, and that “ Abraham’s seed “ did not
impart, by absolute descent, the possession of privilege, for
that then Ishmael and Esau should have shared it (whereas,
in both cases, there was an election)- in a word, that, in
conferring special favors, God had not abrogated His
sovereignty; and that now He was pleased, according to it,
to call Gentiles as well as Jews. In chapter to He shows that
the nation had stumbled at the stumbling-stone; and that
this disobedience of Israel, and testimony to others, had
been prophesied of.
e question then arises, Had God cast o His people
[Israel]? No. e gifts and calling of God were never
repented of. ree proofs of this are given, by which also the
administration of the promises on earth is explained. First,
there is an election now. Next, the fall, by which salvation
came to the Gentiles, was to provoke Israel to jealousy-
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
531
therefore not to cast them o. irdly, the Redeemer would
come to Zion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob; when
it would not be an election as now called, nor a provoking
of some to jealousy by the call of the Gentiles on the fall of
the nation, but all Israel (i.e., as a nation or body) would be
saved: for God’s gifts and calling were without repentance.
Now this was the order of the administration of promises
on earth, and not the calling of the church, according to
the mystery hidden from ages and generations, though the
church came into this administration of the promises in the
character of Gentiles
236
in contrast With Jews in a special
way. is is evident to any spiritual mind on considering
the statement: but that it is so, that it is not the doctrine
of the church which is here considered, is quite clear from
the consideration of the following points. By the church,
I mean, now, the heavenly body united to Christ on high,
and manifested on earth by the Holy Ghost sent down
from heaven.
First, the Jews were natural branches, and the olive tree
was their own olive tree. is clearly was not the church;
no one was naturally in it. Even the unbelieving ones were
in the olive tree and had to be broken o, so that they
never formed part of the church gathered by faith, though
they had ostensibly of the olive tree. Now unbelieving
236 So that, if we would be indeed exact as to the arguing of this
chapter, it rather intimates a Gentile character being attached
to the nominal possessors of the promises, as we know has
been the case, though it recalls to the original constitution,
or rather Abrahamic promises, which set the Jews rst: for
the branches might in result be all Gentile, yet still they had
been graed into that root wherein the Jews had the rst place
in administration. But then in the church, according to its
heavenly character, this had no sort of place.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
532
Jews formed, in no sense or way, a part of branch even of
what the author of the tract describes the church to be; but
they did of the olive tree; yet it was of that olive, existing
long before, that the good branches continued a part. Nor,
further, if they were living members of the church of God,
could they be broken o. Nor are Gentiles graed into
the church in place of Jews: in the account we have of the
church in Ephesians, both are brought in together into
one new man. Next, the Gentiles, looked at as members
of this body, could not be cut o; and still more would it
be impossible to say that the Jewish branches, broken o
through unbelief, could be graed in again.
Considered as the earthly administration of promises,
nothing is more simple. e Jews, as a nation, had been
the depositaries of them. en the unbelievers were broken
o, and the election continued in them with clearer and
better apprehensions. Gentiles became, at the same time,
the depositaries of these promises in their administration
here below. is system, being unfaithful, would be cut o;
and the Jews will be received again to be the depositaries
of them in yet another condition, but which, note, will
not then be the church either. Proofs might be multiplied
from the chapter; but these must suce for any spiritual
mind. But the painful conclusion is forced upon us, that
the church, by this system, is reduced to the mere earthly
administration of promises, or else is excluded from the
earth; and what is armed to be its scriptural denition
entirely excludes the doctrine of Ephesians and Colossians.
is is a very serious point. It is a denial of the true
scriptural doctrine of the church of God, and deprives
us (unawares to the author, no doubt) of our own proper
place, and blessing, and privilege, in union with Christ our
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
533
exalted Head. Further, I have stated that we are Abraham’s
seed in consequence of being in the church. is is plainly
shown from Gal. 3, where the apostle presses that Christ
is the only seed of Abraham, “ and to thy seed, which is
Christ.” His, therefore, are the promises. If, therefore, we
be Christ’s, then are we Abraham’s seed. at is, Christ
having taken up alone in His own Person all the promises,
we come in, if united to Him, into the inheritance of them.
We are Abraham’s seed, because we belong to the church
(that is, are united to Christ as our Head). But the union of
the church with Christ is much more than this.
ere is another statement in this paragraph, which
imports a great deal, though probably it attracts little
attention; but it conrms what has been alleged of the
entire exclusion of the special instruction of Paul’s epistles
on the doctrine of the church-I mean the following: “ If we
would dene the church as it now exists upon this earth,
from the time of Christ’s rst coming, resurrection, and
ascension, to His second coming,” etc. Now, were it merely
“ Christ’s rst coming to His second,” it would not have
called for remark, as expressing merely the general period.
But here there is intentional precision, and the epochs are
distinctly designated, “ rst coming, resurrection, ascension
“; so that the denition of the church as it now exists is
carefully applied to them all. at is, that the denition
of the church,
237
as it now exists, is as applicable to the
disciples during Christ’s ministry, after His resurrection
and before His ascension, and after the last event, as it is
to their state after the descent of the Holy Ghost; which
last important event is wholly excluded from forming any
237 And the term “ church,” otherwise than as it now exists,
implied to be applicable to an entirely other state of things.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
534
epoch in the existence of the church. Hence, too, naturally
enough, the author continues: “ We should say, they are a
body of believing Jews.”
Now, if I take up the account given of the church in the
Ephesians, is it possible to reconcile it with this? What
is there described and dened as the church is a state of
things impossible to exist before the death and resurrection
of Christ as its basis, and the presence of the Holy Ghost
as its formative and maintaining power. Any denition
we could give of it according to Ephesians supposes these
two things. e Spirit of God there treats Jew and Gentile
as alike children of wrath, speaks of the middle wall of
partition as broken down by the cross of Jesus, the actual
exaltation of Jesus above all principality and power, and
we to be raised and exalted with Him, and both Jew and
Gentile reconciled in one new man, in one body by the cross,
and “ builded together for an habitation of God through
the Spirit,” so that there is one body and one Spirit; and
declares, consequently, that “ now unto principalities and
powers in heavenly places is made known by the church the
manifold wisdom of God.” Moreover, while (by its union
with its Head as the heavenly ascended man), heavenly, it
exists now upon earth, and “ increaseth with the increase
of God,” by “ that which every joint supplieth.” It is where,
as we learn in the Galatians, “ there is neither Jew nor
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
535
Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus.”
238
ere is no single
idea presented by the Holy Ghost in the account of what
the church is, which is not negatived and neutralized by
the statement we are considering. e Holy Ghost, come
down from heaven, unites it to its gloried Head there, and
thus it exists on earth; while it is heavenly, belonging to,
and witnessing the character of, that place where it will be
displayed in glory, and where its Head, whence it derives its
being and power by the Holy Ghost, actually is.
ere are two great truths dependent on this doctrine:
the church united to Christ in glory accomplished hereafter;
and meanwhile, as far as existing or developed on earth, the
habitation of God through the Spirit. is is its calling, of
which it is to walk worthy-a calling clearly impossible in
its very nature, till the descent of the Holy Ghost made
it such a habitation. e truth is, the whole basis of the
system here commented on is an absolute ignorance of
the doctrine and calling of the church of God as given in
Scripture-an ignorance not dicult to be borne with as
such-we have all been in it; but, when imposed as light and
truth, to the condemnation of the instructions of God’s
own word, it has to be met, not so much by defending what
is in Scripture as if it were one’s own opinion, as by exposing
distinctly that the claim set up to instruct and enlighten is
238 It is somewhat singular, and shows the extreme prepossession
of mind and blinding eect of this system, that the passage of
scripture in which we are said to be Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:29)
is preceded by a statement of the Holy Ghost, that we have “
put on Christ,” that “ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor
free,” etc., but we are all “ one in Christ Jesus.” In the writer’s
statement we are declared to be Abraham’s seed, and a body
of believing Jews, Gentiles being associated by grace. I would
beg the reader to compare the passage in Galatians with the
writer’s statement (pp. 38, 39 of the tract).
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
536
at best ignorance, and too often ghting against the plain
and blessed truth of God.
I have not a complaint to make against the writer of
this tract on Dan. 7, but everything kind and gracious to
acknowledge personally in manner; but, having set himself
forward here to propagate this system, his writings come
under review as upholding it.
ere is much, I judge, in reading the tract, unfounded;
and I have seldom read so much assertion without proof;
but it is not my object to comment on more than this very
important passage.
Reaching round the sea more or less by conquests, has
nothing whatever to do with rising out of the sea. e
whole idea is a plain fallacy.
I see no similarity in the Son of man coming to the
Ancient of days, and the rod of His power being sent out
of Zion, though one may depend on the other.
No reason is given why we are to avoid considering
verses 13 and 14, as subsequent to the destruction of
the beast. It may be true; and I by no means resist it; but
all is without proof. Bringing to the Ancient of days to
receive the kingdom is not, as is recognized, His coming in
clouds; nor is there any proof that it immediately precedes.
e statement that the making His foes His footstool is
accomplished by God before they are set as a footstool
under Christ’s feet, which takes place by the investiture,
is one which has not the smallest possible pretense of
Scripture to warrant it, and is, indeed, contrary to the
evident force of Psalm He, which does not speak at all of
accomplishing the making the foes a footstool, and then
subsequently putting them under Christ’s feet or investing
Christ with the power to crush them: not such a thought is
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
537
found in Scripture in any part of it. Nor is it shown that the
Ancient of days coming, and the Ancient of days sitting in
verse 9, are the same thing.
e writer seems to be unaware, that eminent writers
on prophecy have taken Nebuchadnezzar’s madness as a
mystic time. He treats it as such nonsense as to disprove
the whole system. It may be wrong, but cannot be assumed
to be nonsense in this way. Mr. Faber thinks it so right that,
if my memory serves me, he makes it the groundwork of all
his computations.
I will add, that in page 37, association with Christ in
the kingdom-glory is spoken of as an intimation of union
and Christ’s death and resurrection as that in which it is
brought out. I notice this, not to oppose it, though it is
extremely ambiguous, but as showing how union with
Christ exalted by the Holy Ghost is everywhere left out.
My object here, however, is not to comment on these
statements, but to rest on the one point-to draw the
attention of the saints of God to what the real view of the
church which is maintained by this system is: that is, that the
real blessed union of the church with Christ exalted, by the
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, is entirely denied or
unknown. I am satised that, to a really spiritual intelligent
mind, the simple reading of the passage I comment on
would be more eectual than any argument. What I have
added may only awaken attention in comparing it with
Scripture, and show what it is sought to reduce us to. ere
may be a unity in heaven in which, as far as appears, all
saints of all times will be found; but “ the church, as it
now exists on earth, is a company of believing Jews, with
Gentiles added “; and this applies to Christ’s rst coming,
resurrection, and ascension. Now, that the saints will all
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
538
be gathered into everlasting blessedness, as partaking of
Christ as their life, and redeemed by His blood, according
to the counsels of God, and conformed to the image of
His Son, is owned. It has been attempted to be charged on
those who hold just views of the church that they denied
this, or that it was not founded on the blood of Christ as
to some, or on wrong views of the life by which they lived.
Most unfoundedly. ey are all redeemed by blood, and all
quickened with divine life.
But the doctrine insisted on is this: at, Christ having
broken down the middle wall of partition by His death,
and ascended up on high and sat down on the right hand
of God, and thus presented the full ecacy of His work
in the presence of God, the Holy Ghost has come down
and united together believers in one body, thus united to
Christ as one body; which body is in Scripture designated
the church or assembly of God, and is His habitation
through the Spirit. In this, as founded on the risen and
exalted Savior, and united to Him, as seen on high, by the
Holy Ghost, there is neither Jew nor Greek. Christ, so
exalted, is entirely above these distinctions. Jew or Greek
are alike brought nigh as having been children of wrath,
by the blood of that cross by which the middle wall of
partition has been broken down. To make the church a
company of believing Jews with Gentiles added to them,
and Abraham’s seed their proper denition, entirely shuts
out this divine teaching; because the position given to the
church in Ephesians entirely precludes their being looked
at as Jews; and the character of “ Abraham’s seed “ comes
in merely to show they are true heirs of promise, because
they are Christ’s, who is the Seed of Abraham and Heir of
the promises. But, most clearly, this is altogether the lower
Notice of “Remarks on the Seventh Chapter of Daniel”
539
ground on which to speak of Christ, in comparison with
His glorious exaltation at the right hand of God, on which
the church as such is founded.
Further, it is equally evident, that the church as one
body existing on earth, though heavenly in privilege and
character, takes its place consequent on the work of the
cross, the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God, and
the coming down of the Holy Ghost. No one can read the
Ephesians attentively without seeing this. Hence, to give
any denition of the church which implies its existence
(other than in the counsels of God), which speaks of its
existence on earth during the life of Christ on earth, or
previous to His exaltation and the descent of the Holy
Ghost, denies its nature and sets aside its character. e
church, as we are taught in the Ephesians, is the one body,
formed and maintained by the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven, consequent on the exaltation of Christ to the right
hand of God. I add no further comment, having stated
the doctrine of the word as presented in the epistles, and
compared the statement of this tract with it. If this system
be admitted, the saints are deprived of their proper and
blessed privileges, and the view of their present condition,
as compared with their calling, will be equally enfeebled
and set aside. Abraham’s seed we are individually, whatever
the condition of the church, and believing Jews or added
Gentiles, whether we walk in unity or have the power of
the Spirit or not.
Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
540
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text
has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation
corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@
bibletruthpublishers.com.
