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. Baines continues.
“But though our Lord's own language seems sufficiently plain, it may be asked, whether it is in agreement with other portions of God's Word? Christ's teaching [teaching of the secret rapture], as we have said, only slightly touched this special subject of His separate advent for His saints; and He left its full significance to be brought to the hearts of His disciples by that Spirit of Truth, who was to teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever He had said unto them. What, then, does this Holy Spirit teach us concerning the wondrous theme we are here considering?”
Here we see Baines acknowledging the fact that evidence for a division in the return of Christ is sparse at best, and I would claim that it is nonexistent. So he goes on to answer the question he poses in the last sentence above by examining Acts 1:10-11.
“10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."”
“Now no time is here mentioned, and if the passage stood by itself it might be supposed to refer to the end of the world. But, comparing it with other passages, this interpretation becomes impossible. For, in the first place, His coming again was to be "in like manner" with His ascension, and nothing can be conceived more unlike to this event than the appearance of the Judge upon the great white throne. Secondly, when the Judge then appears, He does not come to the world, for "the earth and the heaven flee away." It is the dead who are summoned before the Judge, not the Judge who comes to them. (Rev. 20: 11-15.) But thirdly, our Lord had Himself constantly spoken of His coming, and had only recently named its effect upon the disciples as a special ground of consolation and hope, as the one precious comfort to stay their hearts during His absence.”
Regarding the verses in Acts 11, Baines does admit that, in isolation the passage would easily be interpreted as the end of the world, but he also assumes that the phrase, “will come in the same way” necessarily excludes the future coming referred to here because Christ’s second coming is described as being in power, glory, and judgment. But this conclusion is drawn from a deficient view of other passages he cites for support. His assumptions regarding Rev. 20: 11-15 about the nature of Christ’s second coming (specifically his assumption that this judgment doesn’t take place on Earth) are in error—there is no reason in the context of the Revelation passage to assume that th Great White Throne Judgment does not take place on Earth. What is more is that, even if it were proven that this judgment must take place in a separate dimension of God’s rule, the fact that Christ’s return prior to it could also be “in the same way” as the men of Galilee saw Him ascend is not precluded, because we know that the second coming of Christ is described as His glorious appearing, and this entails more than just judgment. For some reason, Baines wants to dichotomize a return of Christ (which is in part to judge the wicked) and the possibility of hope for the disciples in the anticipation of the same event; just because the return of Christ is in part to judge, does not mean that saints cannot gain hope through their anticipation of it.
But Baines resumes his argument for a secret rapture by stating that it is actually in the epistles where its enigmatic character is more clearly revealed. I can’t help but think here that for some reason, Baines has the writing’s order in the cannon in view as he formulates his reasons for the sheer absence of explicit teaching of the secret rapture.
Baines begins his mining for the secret rapture in the epistles by appealing to the fact that the Thessalonian church had turned from idols and are waiting for Christ to appear from Heaven, and he determines that the outstanding character, uncommon in his own day (according to Baines’ assessment) because it had drawn the attention of others, it therefore could not have resulted from the expectation of Christ’s return in power and glory, but must have resulted from the hope derived from another coming, the supposed coming for saints alone. Let’s read…
“These, then, were the two characteristics of the Thessalonian Church. Can it be said that they are the distinguishing marks of Christians at the present day? It may be answered that all believers expect Jesus to come from heaven, and this is, no doubt, true. But surely no person, looking at modern Christians, would seize upon this as a leading feature of their faith The expression appears to imply, what the rest of the epistle plainly shows, that there was among these Thessalonians something much more than a distant expectation of the Lord's coming at the end of the world; that it was a present hope, influencing all their thoughts, their feelings, and their practical life, a hope so vivid and powerful as to attract the attention of "all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia."”
Is it possible that Baines would charge all previous centuries of believers who have, instead of in secret rapture, found their hope in and were driven from idols by an anticipation of the second coming of Christ; (why would one need “something much more” anyway) would they have a hope and deliverance that is second rate? My guess is that he would not say that aloud, but the thought is implied in his pronouncement of great hope only to be had in a secret rapture; he seems to say that the lack of persevering hope in the church of his day was a result of not having their hope found in this type of return. Furthermore, if the Thessalonians or believers of any age cannot find their hope in the Lord’s coming at the end of the world, then I submit that whatever future return of Christ in which they are attempting to find their hopes is terribly misplaced. My assessment of Baines’ view of this first century church is that they have actually been driven from their past idolatry to their idolatry—into a different type—the hope of a secret rapture; if any of us finds more hope in any gift of God (whether it be a secret rapture or the end of the world) than we find in God Himself, then we have made that gift into an idol, and we have placed it on the throne of God to be worshiped instead of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Clearly referring to the hope that the Thessalonians had, Baines makes these remakes,
“If then, this [their hope] was a delusion arising from imperfect knowledge, how is it that the apostle, instead of putting them right, records this waiting attitude, side by side with their turning to God, as a portion of the bright testimony they were bearing? In the next chapter he again incidentally alludes to the hope, and again without the slightest hint that the Thessalonians had fallen into error, or were cherishing unfounded expectations.”
I think this argument above is a type of straw man because Baines is assuming and arguing against an unreality—that, if there is no secret rapture, then the Amillennialist must believe that the hope of the believers in Thessalonica was a delusion. Or it could be this, that in this induction he assumes the secret rapture as fact (not necessarily deduced from the scriptures clear reading) and must be answering an objection to his position presented by some hyper-preterist type interpretation (because they see all biblical prophecy as having been fulfilled by AD70) that interpretation alone suggests that the Thessalonians were in error. The problem with his argument here is that it is, in large measure, irrelevant today. No orthodox covenant theologian who is an Amillennialist would have to answer Baines concerns at this point; no one is claiming that they had “imperfect knowledge” which Paul should have corrected. Now regarding some of the text of the Thessalonian letter itself,
“15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.”
Strangely enough, when he quotes the passage above, Baines leaves out the underlined portion above. It is in this portion we see a distinct description that would certainly forgo any secrecy to the interpretation of the nature of Christ’s return (he conveniently left out, “with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.”), but even with the portion of the text he did quote, secrecy, I think, is not best described as “a shout”. Furthermore, it does make one wonder that if Paul in fact did have a secret return of Christ for only His saints in mind, why did he not use the coming as “a thief in the night” language he uses later in the letter?
No comments:
Post a Comment