Darbyism and Its New Bible/Critical reasons
CRITICAL REASONS.
Having given in the preface the doctrinal reasons for the exclusion of the worship of Christ, from the New Testament, Mr. Darby now gives his critical reasons in a note on Matt. iv. 10, as follows:
“The LXX. vary. The word is used alike for men and for God. [See 1 Chron. xxix. 20], and is all but always an act of personal reverence and homage. What in modern language is called worship, is latreuo. The nearest approach to this in the use of proskuneo is in John, iv. 23, 24.” What a criticism!
Of course the reader knows that by “The LXX.,” is meant the Greek Old Testament—a version most venerable. Mr. Darby says, “The LXX. vary.” Where do they vary, or how? He might have given a few examples to prove his assertion. We challenge Mr. Darby to produce any one passage where the LXX. vary. The Greek word for worship (proskuneo) is the highest word known in the language for worship, just as the English word; and the highest known in the Greek Scriptures, as the following will prove: “For thou shalt worship (proskunesete) no other God; for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Ex. xxxiv. 14.) “And in thy fear will I worship (proskuneso) towards thy holy temple.” (Ps. vii. 5.) “All flesh shall come and worship (tou proskunesai) before me, saith the Lord.” (Is. lxvi. 23.) “Worship (proskunesate) him, all ye gods.” (Ps. xcvii. 7.) “Neither shalt thou worship (proskuneseis) any strange god.” (Ps. lxxxi. 9.) “The Lord shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship (proskunesete).” (2 Kings, xvii. 36.) Now these are but samples of all the other passages; and where is the variation? But Mr. Darby, still bent on calling it a lower word, says that it is “used alike for men and for God.” Of course it is—just as we say, “his worship the Lord Mayor.” But what has that to do with it? Who dreams of confounding the reverence due to the Lord Mayor with the worship of God or Christ, though the same word be used? or that the word is lowered on that account? But the last sentence in this extraordinary criticism beats all the rest. Mr. Darby adds, “What in modern language is called worship, is latreuo. The nearest approach to this in the use of proskuneo is in John, iv. 23, 24.”
If this be true, it settles the whole question, and settles it at once, as the apostles and writers of the New Testament are used in proof; for they never use Mr. Darby’s word for worship in reference to Christ, not even once. On the contrary, they use systematically and methodically Mr. Darby’s word for mere “personal reverence and homage.”
In this way, the apostles themselves exclude the worship of Christ from the New Testament, and Mr. Darby is only following in their footsteps, and has done just as they did!!
Behold, then, reader, what the apostles have done, and how they did it; and how blind everyone was who thought that Christ was worshipped in the New Testament, until an advanced teacher of the nineteenth century comes to enlighten us, and tell us that the apostles designedly used a word which would be “falsified in a material point” if used for the worship of Christ. Alas, alas, what have we come to! The apostles of Christ have carefully excluded the worship of Christ from the New Testament!
ANSWER.
Will the reader be greatly surprised if told that Mr. Darby’s word for worship, “in the modern English sense,” is never used for worship at all in the Greek Scriptures. It occurs in the New Testament twenty-one times, and is translated, even in “English,” but three times by the word, “worship”—twice in the Acts, and again in Phil. iii. 3. In the first of these (Acts, vii. 42, 43) it is distinguished by the inspired writer from proskuneo, and refers to Israel serving other gods. In the next (Acts, xxiv. 14) it refers to the vows, etc., that St. Paul took on him in the Temple; and in Phil. iii. 3, it refers to the self-dedication to God in the spirit, in contrast to circumcision in the flesh, as the Apostle himself explains in the subsequent verses. In short, that which of old belonged to the ritual and divine service of the people and sanctuary, and that which in Christianity appertains to the self-dedication and service of the Christian, gives the sense of latreuo. It means to serve, as the following will sufficiently prove:
“Ye shall keep this service” (latreian), viz., the Passover (Ex.xii. 25). The Levites were appointed “to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister (latreuin) unto them” (Numb.xvi. 9). “Gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect (ton latreuonta) as pertaining to the conscience.” (Heb. ix. 9.). “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat who serve (hoi latreuontes) the tabernacle.” (Heb. xiii. 10.) “Who worshipped and served (elatreusan) the creature more than the creator.” (Rom. i. 25.)
These are examples of the general and universal use of the word in the Bible; and so far from signifying worship in the “modern English sense,” it does not signify worship in that sense at all. Beyond all question, the force of the two words is this the word used by the apostles signifies what cannot be done vicariously, as the personal adoration of an object, its derivation (from kuon, a dog ) signifying prostration before that object; and this gave the term the highest characteristic of worship, as it must be done by people for themselves, and cannot be transferred to another. Whereas, the other word refers to what can be done vicariously—by the priests in the sanctuary on behalf of the people, and to religious services generally, as in the references given above. The word means properly, “to serve for hire” (latron hire—see Trench’s “Synonyms”). But it never means worship at all “in the modern English sense, except in the imagination of Mr. Darby, and his associates.
The true word for worship (proskuneo) is employed upwards of one hundred and twenty times for the very highest order of worship in the Old and New Testaments; whereas the other word is never employed once in the Greek Scriptures for that purpose.
However, to justify himself, Mr. Darby concludes that the apostles and writers of the New Testament have done exactly what he has done—never employing towards Christ Mr. Darby’s higher word, which means “worship in the modern English sense,” but invariably the word that only means “personal homage and reverence.” This is what the apostles have done—strange to say, they sytematically, and methodically excluded the worship of Christ from the New Testament, by always omitting the higher word, and by always employing one that, if used for worship, would be “falsified in a material point,” and Mr. Darby has thought proper to justify in this way these baseless assertions!
Such are the latest conclusions of Darbyism regarding the New Testament. This we are further warranted in saying, for Mr. Kelly also comes out to the same effect, and, in justification of his chief, says: “We are not aware of a single orthodox Christian of competent biblical knowledge, who would not, in the main, support the discriminating value given to proskuneo in J. N. Darby’s version, as against the authorised version,” etc. (“Bible Treasury,” Dec. 1868—June, 1869.) Thus it appears that the “discriminating value” which “competent biblical knowledge” arrives at, with respect to the word which the apostles always employ towards Christ, is, that it does not signify worship at all, and would be “falsified in a material point” to suppose it!! The meaning of the apostles is thus “discriminated!” We wonder where Mr. Darby and Mr. Kelly got their “competent biblical knowledge” on this subject, announced with the usual tone of assumption and dogmatism.
But how two men could agree together to impose thus on a confiding community, and trade on their ignorance by assertions on the most vital subject of Christianity which have not the shadow of a shade of truth to rest upon, beats anything that we have met in our experience as coming from evangelical men. Our estimate of the “competent biblical knowledge” of either has not been very high for a very long time; but we confess, that we were not prepared for such a climax as this. This is what Germans call the ”verifying faculty” imposed on a well-intentioned and confiding people, apart from all evidence. The temerity of attempting such a process upon an uncultured community, and that in reference to the highest subject of Christianity, is something very fearful and sad in the extreme!