Spurgeon, Darby, and Israel: Why Biography Is a Poor Substitute for Biblical Interpretation
- Brent Madaris
- 2 days ago
- 9 min read
When Polemics Replace Precision
Recent social-media posts by a sitting U.S. Senator have sought to discredit dispensational theology by attacking a few of its historical figures—most notably John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, and Clarence Larkin. These posts present the debate as a necessary exposure of theological corruption, linking dispensationalism to alleged doctrinal heresy, financial impropriety, and moral suspicion. While the individual behind these posts is public, the focus here is not on them personally but on the ideas they are promoting.
Yet, what is striking is not merely the strength of the rhetoric, but the method employed: biography is substituted for exegesis, and genealogy is treated as a proxy for truth. This approach raises a far more important question than whether Darby, Scofield, or Larkin were flawed men:
Is theology to be judged by its textual faithfulness to Scripture—or by the perceived (or actual) failures of its proponents?
This question matters deeply — not only for theology, but also for how Christians understand Israel, biblical prophecy, and the authority of Scripture itself. The social‑media posts seek to discredit dispensational theology, and while critics have tied dispensationalism historically to strong theological support for the modern State of Israel, the publicly stated motivation in these posts is framed more broadly as a critique of the theology’s interpretive claims.
Here are quotes where the Senator pits Spurgeon and Darby against each other. The following are from two different Social media quotes but with the same stream of thought...
“JOHN NELSON DARBY’S MOST DIVISIVE HERESY: THE FRACTURED CROSS —This was not a mere academic debate; it was a clash of 19th-century Titans.
"On one side stood the Architect of Dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, and on the other, the 'Prince of Preachers,' Charles Spurgeon, who led a public crusade against Darby’s 'Third Class' theory as a threat to the very heart of the Gospel.
"I contend that Christians should not only know what they believe, but should also know and deeply trust the sources in how they formed those beliefs.
"Just because your Pastor says it's okay to follow Darby's teachings, isn't an excuse...
“Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” — John 18:36
The Genetic Fallacy Disguised as Discernment
The Senator's argument consistently relies on what philosophers call the genetic fallacy—discrediting an idea by attacking its origin or itsproponents rather than engaging with the idea itself.
By this reasoning:
Augustine’s theology collapses under his pre-conversion immorality,
Luther’s doctrine of justification fails due to his intemperate language and anti-semitism,
Calvin’s exegesis is invalidated by Geneva’s civic decisions.
Scripture itself rejects this logic. God has always used imperfect instruments to convey perfect truth:
“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” (2 Corinthians 4:7)
The validity of an interpretation must rise or fall on hermeneutics, not hagiography.
Darby, the Cross, and the Charge of “Fracture”
One of the most serious claims made by this Senator is that John Nelson Darby taught a “fractured cross,” allegedly dividing Christ’s sufferings into atoning and non-atoning categories in a way that undermines the gospel.
This accusation is not new. Charles Spurgeon addressed and critiqued aspects of John Nelson Darby’s teaching within the context of his conflict with the Plymouth Brethren, especially in his Sword and Trowel writings (e.g., “The Darby Brethren,” Sword and Trowel June 1869). But the modern presentation of this disagreement is often exaggerated beyond historical accuracy.
Scholars such as Dennis M. Swanson note that while Spurgeon rejected certain speculative elements in Darby’s system, he did not frame Darby as denying substitutionary atonement itself.³ The debate concerned theological precision and pastoral implications—not whether Christ’s death saved sinners. Darby did not deny subsititutionary atonement. Darby did not teach two gospels. Darby did not deny that Christ's death atoned for sin.
To equate Darby with heresy at the level of gospel denial is historically careless. The senator is retrojecting modern polemics onto a 19th century intramural dispute!
What Spurgeon Actually Said—And What He Didn't; Primary Sources Versus Modern Rhetoric
Such language as used above is circulating widely on the internet, yet it is rarely accompanied by careful engagement with the primary sources. When those sources are examined, a more precise—and more restrained—picture emerges.
In The Sword and the Trowel (June 1869), the monthly magazine edited by Spurgeon, a contemporary critique of Plymouth Brethren theology by F. W. Grant was published and approved for circulation. In that article, Grant cited Darby’s own words concerning the sufferings of Christ, which Spurgeon allowed to stand as a representative example of Darby’s theological language:
“There was, too, to Him,” says Mr. Darby, “in addition to the pain of the death, the legal curse appended, by God’s righteous judgment as King of Israel, to the form of the death; as it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.’ But this curse of the law was not the same thing as the wrath, when He cried out, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’
"The thieves bore it as He did; that thief, too, who went with Him to paradise the same day, and who could go there to be with his Lord, because He, the Prince of Life, had borne the wrath due to sin in His own body on the tree. But the cross had been endured by many an unrepentant rebel against man and God; and the cross in itself would not take away sin.
"Yea, more, while the time in which He endured the cross was the period in part of which the wrath came on Him (when He endured the wrath of God’s judgment against sin), He only of the three that were crucified together could or did bear the wrath; and the agony of that wrath, if His alone of the three then and there crucified, was distinct from, though present to Him at the same time as the agonies (infinitely lesser) of the cross of wood.”¹
Darby’s purpose in this passage was not to deny substitutionary atonement, but to distinguish between:
the physical sufferings of crucifixion,
the legal curse associated with the form of death, and
the unique experience of divine wrath borne by Christ alone as sin-bearer. In fact, Darby explicitly affirms that Christ “had borne the wrath due to sin in His own body on the tree.”
Spurgeon’s concern, concerning Darby's expression, lay in the categorization itself. In the commentary that followed, Spurgeon approved a warning that such analytical distinctions risked fragmenting the believer’s understanding of the cross. His objection was pastoral and theological: he feared that dividing Christ’s sufferings into discrete classes could obscure the unity and sufficiency of the atonement and lead ordinary Christians to think that portions of Christ’s suffering were non-atoning or merely incidental.²
What Spurgeon did not say is just as important as what he did say. He did not accuse Darby of denying the atonement, preaching another gospel, or undermining salvation by grace. Nor did he frame the disagreement as a fundamental threat to the heart of Christianity. Rather, the dispute reflects a nineteenth-century intramural debate over theological precision, pastoral clarity, and the dangers of over-systematizing the mystery of the cross.
Modern attempts to recast this episode as a wholesale denunciation of Darby’s theology—or of dispensationalism as such—go well beyond the historical record. The primary sources show a measured critique of method and emphasis, not a charge of heresy.
What Spurgeon Actually Believed About Eschatology and Israel (and Why It Matters)
Charles Haddon Spurgeon is frequently conscripted into modern polemics as a champion of covenant theology against dispensationalism. The reality is more nuanced—and more interesting.
Spurgeon’s Eschatology
In his paper on "THE MILLENNIAL POSITION OF SPURGEON," Dennis M. Swanson states the following,
"Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not specialize in eschatology, but supporters of almost every eschatological position have appealed to him as an authority to support their views.
"Spurgeon and his contemporaries were familiar with the four current millenial views—amillenialism, postmillenialism, historic premillenialism, and dispensational millenialism—though the earlier nomenclature may have differed.³
Swanson’s study concludes:
“Spurgeon’s eschatology is best categorized as historic premillennialism.”³
According to Lewis A. Drummond, in Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Spurgeon openly identified as premillennial, though not dispensational.⁴
He believed in:
A literal, bodily return of Christ,
A future reign of righteousness,
The resurrection of the dead and final judgment.
This places Spurgeon outside both strict covenantal amillennialism and later Scofieldian dispensationalism.
Spurgeon on Israel
Contrary to claims that Spurgeon erased Israel from God’s future purposes, his sermons tell a different story. In his message, “The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews,” Spurgeon urged prayer for the Jews and anticipated a future turning of Israel to Christ:
“The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel."
"Israel is now blotted out from the map of nations; her sons are scattered far and wide; her daughters mourn beside all the rivers of the earth. Her sacred song is hushed; no king reigns in Jerusalem; she bringeth forth no governors among her tribes. But she is to be restored; she is to be restored “as from the dead.” When her own sons have given up all hope of her, then is God to appear for her."⁵
While Spurgeon did not articulate a modern geopolitical Zionism, he clearly rejected the idea that God was finished with Israel altogether. This alone should caution against simplistic narratives as presented by the Senator (or anyone else, for that matter).
By the way, it would be helpful in discussions like these if people would accurately define their terms concerning "Zionism." There are three types of "Zionism."
Biblical Zionism (God’s covenant promises to Abraham and Israel)
Theological Zionism (Christian interpretations of Israel’s prophetic role)
Geopolitical Zionsim (the twentieth-century political movement that sought the establishment of a Jewish nation-state through international diplomacy and statecraft)
Charts, Clarence Larkin, and the Misuse of Visual Theology
The Senator goes on in his genetic fallacy attack to criticize Clarence Larkin’s charts as “cherry-picked Scripture,” implying that visual theology manipulates congregations into accepting dispensational conclusions.
Yet charts do not create theology; they illustrate theology already derived from textual premises. Augustine had outlines. Calvin had Institutes. Covenant theology itself employs systematic frameworks.
The real question is not whether Scripture is arranged—but whether it is rightly divided:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Disagreement belongs at the level of interpretation, not presentation.
Israel, the Church, and Why This Debate Has Real Consequences
This controversy is not academic. How Christians interpret Israel affects:
biblical prophecy,
missions,
Jewish evangelism,
and even modern geopolitical ethics.
Dispensationalists do not deny covenants. They affirm the Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, and New Covenants—and insist these promises mean what they say when read in their original context.
To collapse Israel into the Church entirely is not a neutral theological move; it reshapes prophecy, land promises, and eschatology in ways Scripture itself resists (Romans 11:1–29).
Scripture Over Soundbites
Christians should indeed “know the sources” of their beliefs—but more importantly, they must test every system by Scripture itself.
Spurgeon deserves better than being weaponized.
Darby deserves better than caricature.
And the Church deserves better than rhetoric that substitutes biography for biblical reasoning.
The question that really matters is not who taught this or that, but,
Is it written?
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)
__________________
References
John Nelson Darby, quoted in F. W. Grant, “Mr. Grant on ‘The Darby Brethren,’” The Sword and the Trowel, June 1869, edited by Charles H. Spurgeon.
Charles H. Spurgeon, editorial approval and commentary in The Sword and the Trowel, June 1869; see also discussion in Lewis A. Drummond, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1992), esp. sections on Spurgeon’s theological controversies.
Dennis M. Swanson, “The Millennial Position of Spurgeon,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 7, no. 2 (1996).
Lewis A. Drummond, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993) 650.
C. H. Spurgeon, “The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 10 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1864), 428.
Some readers might wonder what this discussion of dispensational theology and its critics has to do with church revitalization. The connection is this: when eschatology, prophecy, and doctrinal truths about Israel (or any other subject) are muddled or misrepresented in the public arena, it creates confusion and stumbling blocks for local churches. Clear, biblically grounded teaching strengthens the flock’s understanding, preserves unity, and equips congregations to pursue true spiritual health and revitalization, rather than being distracted or divided by popular but flawed ideas.
Read More Here:
Comments