Darbyism and Its New Bible/Doctrinal reasons
DOCTRINAL REASONS.
Now Mr. Darby undertakes to exclude all these, quite gratuitously, from the New Testament, and gives reasons both doctrinal and critical for so doing. The doctrinal reasons are as follows:
“And this leads me to the use of the words, ‘do homage, instead of ‘worship,’ which I do only for the sake of other people’s minds not used to such questions. I have not a doubt of the justness of the change, and just because in modern English worship is used for what is rendered to God only. When the English translation was made, it was not; and the use of it now falsifies the sense in three-quarters of the passages it is used in. It is quite certain that in the vast majority of instances of persons coming to the Lord they had not the least idea of owning him as God. And it falsifies the sense in a material point to use the word now. That we worship Christ, who do know He is God, is another matter. In the English Bible it is all right, because worship did not mean what it does now. The man when he is married says, ‘with my body I thee worship,’ etc.” (Preface, p. 8.)
The only part true in this paragraph is, that the word “worship” had a lower sense when the Bible was translated. It still has the lower sense in human affairs, as when it is said, “his worship the Lord Mayor.” But who confounds the reverence due to the chief magistrate with the worship of God? or who confounds the word “grace,” when used in reference to men, as, “his grace the Duke of so and so,” with the grace of God, though the same word is used? Both words have in Scripture the highest sense; and the question is not, if it can be used in the lower sense, but if it be “falsified” when used for the worship of Christ in the New Testament. And to this question Mr. Darby gives a very distinct reply—that it is falsified in a material point when so used. And why? Because “worship is used for God only, and they had not the least idea of owning Him as God.”
If this indeed be true, it is one of the gravest things we have met since Christianity dawned upon us, and pregnant with the gravest consequences. For, if our Lord accepted the worship given Him when they had not the least idea of owning Him as God, He was supporting and sanctioning the greatest sin known to the Old Testament Scriptures.
On the other hand, if they merely meant to give Him homage and mere human reverence, then He was in their eyes inferior to what Peter was in the eyes of Cornelius, and to what the angel was in the eyes of John. For when Cornelius falls down to worship (Acts, x. 25, 26), Peter forbids him, saying, “Stand up, I myself also am a man. And when John falls down to worship (Rev. xxii. 8, 9), the angel says, “See thou do it not, I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets. Worship God.” Neither Peter nor the angel would incur the guilt of allowing their own worship. Consequently, as those who fell down and worshipped Christ “had not the least idea of owning Him as God,” and only gave Him homage, He must have been in their eyes inferior to what Peter and the angel were in the eyes of Cornelius and John. Does Mr. Darby believe this, or do any of his followers believe it? Yet this shocking doctrine is insisted upon in Mr. Darby’s preface, and carried out in Mr. Darby’s Bible.
But let us look at the statements, Mr. Darby has “no doubt of the justness of the change.” And why? Because in three fourths of the cases they had not the “least idea of owning him as God.” All the cases are given above, and which of those cases constituted the one-fourth in which they did own Him as God? for whether it be in showing His power over creation—walking on the sea, stilling the tempest, ascending up to heaven in presence of His disciples, or the Lamb in the throne (Rev. v.), it is “homage” all the same throughout.
It would be well if Mr. Darby can explain this, and more also; for if it “falsifies the sense in a material point to use the word worship towards Christ in the vast majority of instances,” how is it that it does not falsify the sense of “homage” in any instance? Yes, how is it that this lower human word is falsified in no instance. We shall be glad if Mr. Darby can explain this also.
But Mr. Darby adds, “That we worship Christ who know He is God, is another matter.” What other matter is it, if not sustained in the New Testament? And what is to prevent any of the simple followers, when Mr. Darby is dead and gone, from saying, “I don’t see that I am called on to worship Christ, when it is not sustained in the New Testament.” And this will be the more likely, for the community does not even now revolt from such teaching “They are not used to such questions,” Mr. Darby says, and it is true—for the poor people are used to take in all without questioning—so true, indeed, that when these statements were questioned by others, their teachers searched up old dictionaries with a view to level up the word “homage,” and make it all the same; but the difficulty increased as they tried the French language, and so they had to consent that it was all right, and give in, though they knew not why.
However, Mr. Darby has boldly avoided these subterfuges, and avowed the grounds of his destructive doctrine, viz., “that they had no idea of owning Him as God.” Were Gilbert Wakefield alive, who translated the New Testament, exactly in the same way, and Priestly and Belsham, these noted Unitarians, they would say: “Let us shake hands, good sir; we are agreed so far, at all events.” Not that we say Mr. Darby holds Unitarian sentiments; but we say that no evangelical man living has, so far as we know, played better into their hands or more gratuitously.
ANSWER.
The answer to the doctrinal reasoning of Mr. Darby is this: The same Scriptures that proscribed and denounced idolatry and false worship as the greatest sin that could be perpetrated, confining worship to Jehovah, carefully prescribed and proclaimed the worship and divinity of the Messiah when He should come. Hence the question was, not whether Messiah was to get divine worship, but whether Jesus of Nazareth were the Messiah? And it is clear that all in Israel who believed Jesus to be Messiah did, and should, give Him divine worship, and He accepted it. A few quotations will make this evident: “Worship him, all ye gods. (Ps. xcvii. 7.) “Let all the angels of God worship him.” “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Ps. cii., Heb. i.) “To him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship.” (Is. xlix. 7.) “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Is. vii. 14.) We need not multiply references. And the Lord Jesus, when born, was announced by an angel as this “Immanuel—God with us” (Matt. i.), and acknowledged at the beginning of His ministry as “him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write” (John, i.), and confessed by Peter as “the Christ the Son of the living God.” “Doing works which no other man did amongst them.” (John, xv.) As “he that should come.” (Matt. xi.) Therefore the disciples and all in Israel who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, did, and should, give Him divine worship, and He accepted it of them. Even the legion gave it to Him in terror, as the great Judge; and the soldiers in mockery, as the great King. But whether in pretence or in truth, worship He got, and worship He took “as God”—God with us—Immanuel. “The word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”