When a point has been established by full proof from Holy Scripture, it
is often impossible, and in general needless, to meet each objection or
difficulty which may be raised. It is often impossible, because all the modes
in which different objectors will find difficulties may be unknown to those who
rest on the simple warrants of the Word of God. It is commonly needless,
because when we have to do with those who are subject to the authority of God
in His Word, full Scripture proof of a point is enough; and also it is felt
that the varying grounds taken by objectors, and their contradictions of
Scripture, show that they are striving (even though at times unconsciously)
against truths which cannot be overthrown.
Thus, if we have to establish the Deity of Christ, we bring forward the direct
proofs, the distinct statements that He is God over all, blessed for ever, and
that He is the Creator, Sustainer, and essentially the Lord of all. We do not think
it needful to inquire into every cavil of every objector, and to discuss these
one by one, before we regard the point as proved. We do not pretend to meet what
may be called the difficulties of the case; indeed, we do wisely not to imagine
that we can overcome the prejudice which is proof against the distinct words of
inspired prophets and apostles. We have, as well as we are enabled, to state
the revealed truth; and then its application can be made with efficacious power
by the secret working of the Holy Ghost.
Although reference has been made to particular objections, to discuss
them in detail has not been attempted. The reasons just stated will suffice for
this: answers have been given to some of the ways in which the Scriptures cited
have been set aside; but beyond this it is impossible to go without an
extensive inquiry into the various modes in which advocates of the secret
coming and secret rapture seek to make the theory plausible. It would be as
much to the purpose to discuss all that has been written against the truth that
“we are justified freely by the grace of God, for the sake of Christ's merits,
through faith”, before firmly and definitely setting forth the Gospel. All the
grounds of objection to the hope of Christ's people being His glorious
appearing, to which I refer, are such as really have been relied on. I do not
discuss mere surmises; I notice a few points for the help (as I trust) of some;
but I do not charge any one with holding anything which he rejects: different
maintainers of the secret rapture have taken different grounds.
A supposed distinction has been made between the coming of Christ and
the day of the Lord, as if the one could be a secret hope before the other
which is manifest; but in 1 Corinthians 1:8, “the day of our Lord” is the hope
of the Church: so, too, in 2 Corinthians 1:14, is “the day of the Lord Jesus”;
in Philippians 1:6,10 believers are directed on to “the day of Jesus Christ”;
in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, Christians are spoken of as knowing that the day of the
Lord cometh like a thief in the night, but (verses 4 and 5) it will not come
like a thief on those who are children of light; but still it is the day that
they expect. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2; “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”,
and “the day of the Lord” (true reading) are used as co-ordinate terms. And
well may this be done; for at the coming of the Lord Jesus the day begins: the only
contrast that could be drawn is, that the coming is one point of time, while the
day is a continuous period: to those who are in the darkness of night, however,
it is the same thing to expect the dawn of the sun-light and the beginning of
the day: and he who tried to distinguish these things as to time, would fail in
finding intelligible language in which to express himself. In 2 Peter 3:12,
believers are spoken of as “looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day
of God”; this is the same “day of the Lord” which verse 10 speaks of as the fulfilment
of “the promise of His (Christ's) coming” (verse 4), about which the scoffer
asks, as if it were a hope that had failed. The passages which speak of the day
as our hope contradict all theory of secrecy. Could the Sun of Righteousness
arise without the day beginning? Had a distinction been made the dawn would
precede the sun-rising.
Some, indeed, ask, “Have you not overlooked how plainly the secret
rapture of the Church is set forth in the Canticles?” But is it intended that
we should interpret the New Testament by the Canticles? Should we not rather
let the full light of the Christian Revelation shine on the ancient Scriptures?
Of one thing we may be certain, that nothing in the Canticles can contradict
our Lord's words, and His promise that His elect shall be gathered unto Him by
His angels at His manifest coming with power and great glory. Whatever may be
the import of passages in the Canticles which speak of secrecy (“the secret [10] places of the stairs”, etc.), or of the withdrawal of the bride from any
particular scene (“Come with me from Lebanon”, etc.), we ought to be so
established in New Testament truth as not to imagine that these can set forth a
secret rapture, unless such a rapture had been definitely taught in the
Word--instead of its being contradicted.
To learn the distinct hope of the Lord's coming is a far simpler thing
than it is to interpret the Canticles. Many may know definitely the promises of
our Lord, who can but ponder as to that book, valuing it not according to their
intelligence of its contents, but because they see Christ there.[11]
Others ask whether it is not evident that the Church is seen in the Book
of Revelation in heavenly glory, long before the visible coming of our Lord.[12]
Now, our hopes may be known very clearly, even though we have but little
ability to interpret the Apocalypse; nay, it is rather by apprehending our
hopes that we shall begin to use that closing book of Scripture aright.
The teachers of the “secret” doctrine act in very contradictory ways
with regard to the Apocalypse. Some of them say that it is not for our
instruction, for it is given from Christ to show “His servants things which
must shortly come to pass”;[13] others say that the epistles to the seven
churches are our portion (“the things which are”); but that when a door is
opened in heaven (Chapter 4) the Church is caught up. Others maintain that the
whole book is future; that the seven churches even are bodies which shall be
formed (and which shall be thus taught), after the secret removal of the
present Church. Now, without discussing these contradictory theories, let it be
again noted that the coming of the Lord is set forth in the opening of the
book: “Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him”; and to this
coming, the Apostle responds, “Even so, Amen”. No supposition that the Church
is found in resurrection glory prior to such a coming can be admitted as
capable of reconciliation with this opening expectation. Nor can any symbol be
rightly interpreted as setting forth the Church as actually in resurrection
glory at a point of time previous to the first resurrection of Chapter 20, and
that is after the last anti-Christian persecution, in which the faithful are
beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus.[14]
It the manifest coming of our Lord in glory be not our hope, it would be
indeed strange that the apostles should have so habitually taught such a
coming, and have said so much about it in their epistles.
If the secret advent and secret removal of the Church be true, how can
the advocates of their theory show that the secret event did not take place
long ago? How do they know but that they themselves are living in the supposed
interval between the secret coming of Christ and His coming in glory? And thus,
How can they be sure that they are part of the Church at all? In fact, if the
secret rapture theory were true, they might be devoid of all knowledge of what
way of salvation (amongst the confused theories) is now available; for the
preaching of the Gospel may have ended with the rapture and resurrection of the
Church; and, if this is a private occurrence, it may be long past, without any
one being aware of it.
---------------
[10] I could hardly give the supposed detail how “the clefts of the rock”
became “the secret places of the stairs”, without going beyond that gravity and
reverence for Holy Scripture that should be maintained.
[11] That this book has a holy character is what few, I trust, who read
these pages, will doubt: that it must set forth Christ is what reverential
readers of Holy Scripture will of course admit. The theories of Ewald and others must be abhorrent to
every Christian mind; and although Ginsburg seeks to give a new turn to such theories,
yet it is vain to make the subject of the book of Canticles a shepherdess, who
contemns and finally rejects the addresses of King Solomon. The grounds on
which Ginsburg excludes Christ, and adopts, with less irreverence of expression, notions borrowed from Ewald,
etc., are of the weakest kind. Even unconverted
Jews, such as Aben Ezra, could teach him better. It would be marvellous
that he should find followers, except that any notion which unsettles definite
thoughts as to Holy Scripture, or which would exclude Christ, is sure to be admired by some. Dean Alford has well
said that he who does not find Christ everywhere in Holy Scripture, will not be
able to find Him anywhere. “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning
Christ and the Church”.
[12] See Appendix G.
[13] See p. 25.
[14] Much has been made, in connection with the supposed secret rapture
of the Church, of the description of the throne, etc., in Chapters 4 and 5, and
of the living creatures and elders. Chapter 5:9,10, is a passage which has been
thought to have an especial bearing on this subject. The true reading of the verses is, “And they sing
a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals
thereof; for thou wast slain, and redeemedst us to God by thy blood out of
every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) and thou madest them to
our God a kingdom and priests, and they reign on the earth”. That verse 10
should be read in the third person αυτους,
and βασιλευουσιν (or, -σουσιν), instead of ήμας and βασιλευσομεν, is
not at all a matter of doubt; whether the verb should be in the future or the
present is less certain. But in verse 9, ήμας, “us”, should certainly be read.
There was an opinion, many years ago, that it rested on but slight authority.
This arose through an error in a reprint of Griesbach's text; so that he was
supposed to have excluded it. On this misprint interpretations were based. Now
of all collated MSS. The Codex
Alexandrinus alone omits ήμας (and this is thought to have some support
from the Ethiopic version); and one MS. has ήμων
instead. The consent of the ancient versions has much weight in a case of this
kind. It is surprising that some later editors have omitted it only on the
authority mentioned. Its absence appears to have some supposed bearing on the
present question. A maintainer of the secret rapture, in publishing a text of
the Revelation, gave a few readings professedly from the Codex Sinaiticus, in which he prints, by some strange hallucination,
τω θ.ήνων as the reading of that MS. This was at first copied by Dean Alford in
his Greek Testament, and in Mr C.E. Stuart's very useful little work, Textual Criticism; so that the error has
become widely spread. But Codex
Sinaiticus reads τω θεω ήμας, exactly like the common text. I have seen the
passage in the MS. itself, and any one can verify it in the two editions of
Tischendorf. How the omission of ήμας
could be made to support the secret rapture doctrine I do not at all know.
