Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 28: T.B. Baines

Baines’ Citations and Explanations of the book of Hebrews

Taken from: The Hope of Israel and Creation.

by T. B. Baines.

“To some minds it may present a difficulty that animal sacrifices should be again spoken of But an animal sacrifice was never in itself of any value as an offering. It was but a type of the true sacrifice, and such a type may be just as suitable in remembrance of the sacrifice as in anticipation”.

It is very interesting that, just today (March 27, 2008), Dr. Sam Waldron, whom I have quoted a time or two in the past regarding this topic, posted these words among others in a blog article responding to the arguments of a Premillenialist for the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecies.

“There is, of course, a well-known explanation which speaks of the “memorial” character of these sin-offerings. There are two problems with this. The one is that this explanation is itself a departure from consistently literal interpretation. Ezekiel never qualifies these sin offerings as “memorial,” but uses the exact language which elsewhere occurs with regard to the Old Testament sacrifices. As far as Ezekiel interpreted literally is concerned, these predicted sin offerings are no different than the ones offered in the Tabernacle and Temple from the time of the Exodus. The other problem is that it is not allowed to types and shadows to be memorials. By definition a type and shadow is fulfilled and abolished by the coming of its fulfillment. The fact is that the New Testament teaches that as shadows sin offerings have been abolished by the death of Christ, the great and final sin offering.”

I don’t believe I could say it any better than this,

“We observe the Lord's Supper, showing His body given and His blood shed. In an earthly religion the types are of a more earthly character, and the actual shedding of blood, not in renewal, but in remembrance, of the sacrifice of Himself made by Jesus to God, will be the divinely-appointed way of celebrating this event. Nor is this the only difference. Our sphere of worship is in heaven itself, inside the veil, where Christ has entered "by His own blood" (Heb. 9: 12), so that we have "boldness to enter into the holiest," by "a new and living way which He hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh" (Heb. 10: 19, 20). Any "pattern," therefore, of the heavenly things, whether temple, altar, sacrifice, or priest, would be inappropriate — in fact, a denial of the heavenly character of our worship. But when God resumes His dealings with the earth, the worship on earth will again be, what it ought to have been in Israel of old, a "pattern" of the heavenly worship. There will, therefore, be again a holy city, a holy temple, a holy altar, a holy sacrifice, and a holy priesthood — all patterns of the heavenly things. For if patterns of heavenly worship are restored, sacrifices must be restored too, inasmuch as it is "necessary that the patterns of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these" (Heb. 9: 23). Here the distinction is not between the times before Christ's death and the times after; but between worship in the heavenly places, which we now have, and worship in an earthly temple — a figure of the heavenly — which Israel had in old times, and will have again in the days spoken of by the prophet. Thus the teaching of the Hebrews shows the reason, — indeed the necessity — for that which Ezekiel predicts, and if we apprehend the difference between heavenly and earthly worship, the beauty and significance of the return to these types will not be difficult to discern.”

It is difficult not to just say that Baines has been utterly blinded to the right interpretation of the texts of the New Testament (those opposing the view that suggests a consistently literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophesy) because of his dispensational presuppositions of the utter separation of two peoples of God. I have been shocked at the number of times Baines has misquoted the text of scripture, and whether this is intentional or not, I cannot say. He misses several very important words in his citation of Heb. 9:23, here is the verse in full, “23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Baines conveniently leaves out the, “Thus is was” so he can apply it to eschatological sacrifices; this is at best, irresponsible as a citation, but at worst, dishonest eisegesis. Here is the verse in its immediate context. Notice how no commentary is necessary to show that Baines’ interpretation is in error—his attempt to inject the future temple sacrifices into the text is blocked its contextual understanding,

“19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

On the whole, I was really surprised by how little attention Baines had given the text of the book of Hebrews. While he may well have considered it in more detail, I had a great deal of difficulty finding any such treatment.