The following section deals primarily with, “Section 1 of: The Lord's Coming, Israel, and the Church. 4th edition, revised and enlarged. Broom, 1881.
In this section of Baines’ work, he also shows his misunderstanding of the Amillennial position. Baines writes,
“Everybody is aware of the difference prevailing among the Lord's people as to the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which foretell the future in reserve for the Church and the world. The ordinary interpretation is, that the promises contained in the Psalms and Old Testament prophecies refer to the Church, which, as the spiritual Israel, has taken the place, in God's purposes, of the literal Israel, to whom these promises were given. So, the [fulfillment] of the promises is taken to be spiritual rather than literal, being brought about by the gradual spread of Christianity, and the blessings of peace and prosperity following the universal triumph of the gospel.”
It is interesting how much difference 150 years makes—at the time of Baines’ writing, the Amillennial view was the popular, ordinary view, and now his view is popular and considered ordinary. There are two misstatements in the paragraph above regarding the Amillennial view (if that in fact is the view he inteded to critique), one, that we believe that the Church as the Spiritual Israel has “taken the place” of national Israel, and two, that this usurping comes from an intepretation of prophecy that is “spiritual rather than literal”. Regarding the first, no Amillennialist I know is taken seriously on the subject in the 21st century regards the Church as having taken over the place of national Israel…no one I know says that. Instead, the view actually maintains that, after the dividing wall was broken down; after the veil was rent in two, gentiles were then to be considered as, “brought near to the commonwealth of Israel” as Ephesians 2 puts it, and that they also have been “grafted into the true olive branch” as Paul states in his Roman epistle, not that the gentile Church has taken the place of national, territorial, or ethnic Israel, nor that the Church is comprised exclusively of gentiles. The Church doesn’t “take place” of so called, literal Israel, the promises were never made to that Israel, only to the remnant. Note here that there certainly have been those in the Amillennial camp who would qualify as so called “Supercessionists”, but their existence is one of minority when considering a 2000 year history. Baines has more incorrect assumptions when he makes this claim about his opposition,
“Indeed, the very thought that the constant references to the future scattered through the sacred writings are not meant to be understood, carries its own refutation.”
Certainly any self-respecting Amillennialist would agree that this view carries its own refutation as it were, but no Amillennialist worth his salt would claim that the prophecies contained in Scripture were “not meant to be understood”, so it is a straw man that Baines sets up and burns at this point. In the following bold assertion, Baines attributes the “mystery” referred to in Scripture as the mysterious division of the Lord Jesus’ return into two different parts: what its’ proponents would in present days call the rapture and the glorious appearing.
“But in the epistles there appears another fact, a "mystery" hidden from the Old Testament prophets, and only hinted at by Jesus himself. This is that the Lord's coming is divided into two different acts.”
Again, the mystery of the Old Testament that is now revealed in the New is that the gentiles will be included, and the Old cultic practices of circumcision and sacrifice have gone away. The only problem is that the isn’t even one passage of scripture which tells explicitly of this secret coming of Christ to “rapture” His Church prior to His coming in power and glory, I think that only inferrence fed by false dispensational presuppositions can result in such a view. The following paragraph in the words of Baines are somewhat puzzling to me; it appears quite obvious that he is straining their meanings to develop some sort of half baked proof that the “coming” to which Christ refers is not the second coming in power and glory but rather, it is the secret, taking up of the members of the Church exclusively, resulting from dispensational presuppositions.
“That these words disclose a new prospect, not the spirit's presence with Jesus after death, is clear from the closing verses of this gospel. There our Lord first foretells Peter's death; then, being asked what should become of John, replies — "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John 21: 22). Now this could not mean that John might live till the end of the world. But neither could it mean that John might go to be with Jesus at his death. In this case, how would he have differed from Peter or any of the other disciples? Moreover, such an interpretation would rob the words of all meaning, making them equivalent to this — "If I will that he lives till he dies, what is that to thee?" The coming referred to, therefore, is neither the departure to be with Jesus at death, nor His appearing at the end of the world.”
I think that the only reason that Baines could say “it could not be the end of the world” is because he presupposes a secret rapture typified by dispensational eschatology, whereby saints, on that day, will be secretly (apparently not with a very loud shout) removed from the earth. I think this doctrine has largely grown in popularity in our day due to its teaching that we believers will not have to endure the “Great Tribulation” and “miss the wrath of God” which misunderstands what “missing the wrath of God” actually entails and how it is actually accomplished. These words to which he above refers are the words of 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, and in that passage, it is very clear that its meaning is that we are to seek contentment whether in the physical body of our present sort of life, or the spiritual body in our future presence with the Lord, and it is this passage about which he speaks first, in the paragraph above. Baines trys in vain to appropriate this for proof of a secret rapture. He suggests that words such as Paul used in 2 Corithians 5:1-9 are similar to the words used by Jesus to His disciples in order to comfort them in their distress as He left, and that they necessarily must then refer to a secret rapture prior to the Second coming in order to be words of salve. That is why he claims in error that the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians refer, “not the spirit's presence with Jesus after death”. He concludes at the end of the paragraph that, because of the timing of John’s death, it refers neither to Johns’ physical death nor to Christ’s Second coming, so then there must be a coming of Christ between those two event…hence the enigmatic and elusive doctrine of the secret rapture. Regarding his conclusion summed up in his last sentence, this interpretation totally ignores why Peter asked the question about John’s death. Peter is taken aback by the prophesy of his own death and thus he inquires about John and the manner in which he might die, and this question then prompts Jesus to say something like, “…well Peter, that’s just not your business.”. If Jesus actually wanted to comfort His disciples by reassuring them that they would not face “The” tribulation, but rather, they would be raptured out before the time of the “Great Tribulation”, (as Baines would likely suggest) then He certainly would not have done so by prophesying Peter’s death, even if he is excluded. At the risk of assuming upon myself something that I think the God-Man should have done during His incarnate ministry, this would have been the perfect place to make the doctrine of a secret rapture clear enough to the disciples that it would calm their hearts in the future, and provide them with enough information that they could later describe the event accurately enough in their letters and other writings so that the teaching could also calm and edify the faith of the believers they would later be called to shepherd.
While it is as clear to the Amillennialist as it is to the dispensationalist that when the Lord returns, the saints of God will be translated and they will not die a physical death. Without any preconceived notion of a secret rapture prior to Christ’s coming in power and glory, one should never derive such a belief from the reading of the passages Baines and others use to promote it. His argument for such a secret rapture seems to rely largely on his assumption that the disciples could not have been comforted by the desciption of Christ’s return “at the end of the world”. I am not certain, but it almost appears that Baines, either believes for himself, or believes that those who oppose the secret rapture claim that all persons living at the second coming of Christ in triumph will necessarily die a physical death, therefore it cannot be comforting to Christ’s disciples.
This next discussion is clearly an aside, but I do find the following statement (which is in order with the statements as made in Baines’ material) to be very curious due to the popular emphasis today on “the eminent return of Christ” as being a doctrine of proper Biblical interpretation.
“The time of the Lord's coming is studiously kept out of sight. The only event that must necessarily happen, according to these scriptures, before the promised return of Jesus for his disciples, was the martyrdom of Peter, a thing which, in an age of persecution, might have occurred at almost any hour. When that had taken place, there was no reason to be deduced from these passages why the return of Jesus should not be momentarily expected.”
The way I have heard persons speak about the “eminent” return of Christ as being a mark of “correct” eschatology, one might get the feeling that such persons think that the word “eminent” is a synonym for certain. To be sure, the “certain” return of Christ is a mark of true Christian orthodoxy, and its rejection is a sure sign of heterodoxy, but to elevate the “eminence” of Christ’s return to such a position is horibly ungracious at the very best, because the disciples themselves knew that Peter had to be martyred before Christ’s return in any form, thus Christ never would have spoken of His return to them as being eminent! I gather from his statements above that Baines would not do this, but it is interesting that this might be a point of difference between Baines’ dispensationalism and 21st century dispensationalism.
In the quote above, the part that I have underlined is the classic and popular, modern argument against the eminence of Christ’s return that covenant theologians would level against present day Ryrie style dispensationalists; because Christ told of His certain return, and Peter expected His return to Earth as a certainty (though he must have know he would die before it) they knew that there was at the very least, one event that would have to happen before it…namely, Peter’s martyrdom.
Now to continue with the discussion of the secret rapture and the prophetic discussion of Peter’s death and John’s possible tarrying.
“Let us look at the position of the early disciples, remembering that this was almost all the light they yet had on the subject. Of the two whose future career had been spoken of, one had been told that he must suffer death, the other that he might tarry till Jesus came. Would it not be a perfectly natural and lawful thing for John to be living in anticipation of the Lord's coming? Yes, Amillennialists would agree because Christ’s words tell all of us to do so. Would it not, indeed, have shown sad unbelief if he had not looked for translation, but had looked for death instead of translation? Christ doesn’t predict John’s life like He does Peter’s death, and Baines’ working assumption seems to be that future events will transpire in this way: secret rapture, The Great Tribulation, Christ’s return, and then a millennial reign. Would it not also have been lawful for the other disciples, Peter excepted, to anticipate that the Lord might come in their lifetime, and to have constantly before their souls the refreshing hope that the One whom they loved, and who had departed from them would soon return to take them to Himself? Again, Amillennialists would say yes, as long as all the expected events happened first. I think Baines’ dispensational assumptions upon the character of the rapture, tribulation, and second coming blinded him to passages that firmly evidence an eschatology that opposes his own. It is important to ascertain the legitimate effect which these words of our Lord would have on the minds of the disciples, because they were the only clear light on this subject which they yet possessed. It is true there were other prophecies as to His coming uttered by Himself, but these were intentionally obscure as to the great point here brought out namely, the coming of the Lord for His saints apart from and before His coming in power and glory.
The intent of Jesus telling Peter of the possible tarrying of John until His return was simply to make a point to Peter, that if it was the will of the Father, John would live until Christ’s return, or that Christ would return prior to John’s death. Jesus assures him that John’s future was lastly any of Peter’s concern. Christ was not here in this statement proclaiming some great treatise of the division of His return into two parts: secret and triumphant. Certainly, all who lived after Christ’s ascension were to look for His return, but the simple fact that John was encouraged to do so even though Christ also told Peter that it might happen prior to John’s death could never mean that Christ must return in “secret” in order for His words to be accurate prophesy, and for them to ring true in their hearts as an encouragement to hope. Just because this admonition of Christ here for His disciples to look for His return was more detailed than His description of events that would be preliminary to it, in no way gives the theologian license to separate these out into two particular returns; in fact, I believe that, unless you assume a secret rapture, it would be impossible to draw that conclusion from this text. The discussion Christ has with Peter regarding John’s life would not necessarily preclude his expectation of possible death.
“In no other place had the Lord Jesus held out the hope of His return for His disciples, without reference to other events affecting His coming to the world. The hope, therefore, was clearly expressed, in very few words, and of little capable of erroneous interpretations. It is a serious thing to maintain that a hope so clearly and definitely stated is a mistake; that the conclusion legitimately flowing from our Lord's own words was a conclusion which He did not mean His disciples to draw; that the hope reasonably founded on His own promise was a hope which He did not mean them to cherish. Rather, surely, should we infer that, though in His wisdom God has seen fit to conceal the time, and though in His mercy He has seen fit to delay that event, which, however blessed for believers, puts a period to the grace in which He is now acting towards the world, yet His purpose was to hold out this coming of His Son as a precious perennial hope for the souls of those who are His.”
Baines avows that because, at this point, Christ holds out hope of His return without reference to any necessary preliminary event (which is not true because Baines exempts, without authority in my opinion, Peter’s martyrdom) that Christ cannot be referring to His second coming in power. Even if Peter’s death was not necessary as an event, the simple fact that (at least it is not recorded for us) Christ didn’t mention any required event does not oblige us to believe that He must be speaking of another, return, separate from His return in glory.
On the surface it appears as though Baines would have his readers believe that a compelling argument for the secret rapture is the fact that, other than in the passages addressed immediately above, Christ never tried to give His disciples hope of His return as being eminent, and because it is spoken of here in eminency then here Christ cannot be speaking of the end of the world because prior to that event we know other things must happen, thus Christ must here be speaking of a different return; Baines would he would assert that return to be the secret rapture. Of course, we have already addressed the fact that even to the disciples, the secret rapture could not have happened at ANY time because Peter had to die before its occurrence. Baines really just tries to gloss over this fact and in my opinion just because he exempts Peter from having the same hope of an eminent return does not mean that the return is necessarily eminent, thus separating it from the return in power and glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment