The Rev. Ethelbert W. Bullinger, D. D., was a well-known clergyman in the Church of England, a prominent preacher, a frequent speaker on Convention platforms, and the author of numerous books and pamphlets. The then Archbishop of Canterbury rewarded him for his labors in producing a Greek Lexicon to the New Testament by conferring upon him the degree of doctor of divinity. He died on the 6th of June, 1913.
It is reported that on his deathbed he said to a clergyman present, "This is NOT sleeping." We wonder if, in the light of the coming world, his dying eyes saw something that caused him to realize that though "absent from the body" he would be "present with the Lord." We hope so.
The writer has been urgently asked in the interests of truth to examine his Bible teaching. The reason for this is that both in the United States and Canada, as well as in Great Britain, many have imbibed his teaching. Wherever this has happened it has caused sorrow, and in some cases divisions among Christians.
The writer never met Dr. Bullinger. This examination is undertaken solely in the interests of the truth, that Christians may be delivered from serious error, and that seeds of unrest, sorrow and division may not germinate. In examining Dr. Bullinger's writings the desire will be to find therein the truth. If there is any departure from the truth, and this departure can be shown from Scripture, we believe no one would rejoice more than Dr. Bullinger himself, could he know of it.
If any, who have imbibed Dr. Bullinger's views, read these lines, may we crave a careful reading of this pamphlet to the end? It is a sign of great weakness when there is a refusal to read the other side. If the truth is attacked, the weakness of the assault upon it will only strengthen the reader in the truth. If error is attacked, the strength of the truth is sufficient to convince any fair-minded reader of the error.
May the reader emulate the example of the Berean believers, who subjected even the teaching of the great Apostle Paul to the test of the Word of God. We read, "These [the Berean believers] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).
The writer has before him a pamphlet by Dr. Bullinger of 52 pages. It is entitled, "The Rich Man and Lazarus; or 'The Intermediate State" (Third Edition). In it he teaches that at death the extinction of life in man-that is, in spirit, soul and body-takes place.
The spirit in which he writes may be gauged by the following extract, "It will be well for us to remember that all such expressions as 'Intermediate State,' 'Church Triumphant,' and others similar to them, are unknown to Scripture. They have been inherited by us from Tradition; and have been accepted without thought or examination" (p. 4).
Such a statement pulls one up with a start at the very commencement. It may look very convincing in the eyes of the unthinking. But such a sweeping statement will not convince the thinker. It is true that such expressions as "Intermediate State," and "Church Triumphant," are not found in Scripture. But are the ideas conveyed by these expressions found in Scripture? If they are, then the expressions are useful and helpful. To jibe at them is only ignorance.
Such expressions as "Trinity," "Sovereignty," "Substitution," "Eternal Father," "Eternal Son," are not found in Scripture. Are we therefore to reject them as "inherited from Tradition," because the actual words are not found in Scripture? Dr. Bullinger was a very able man, and a scholar of repute, and should have known better than to make such a crude and sweeping and illogical statement.
What is "Tradition?" Used in the connection in which Dr. Bullinger employs it, it means religious teaching, handed down from father to son, from generation to generation-teaching that is either corrupted, garbled, added to or taken from, something that we cannot be sure how much is truth and how much is error.
Dr. Bullinger most unfairly classes as "Tradition" everything that does not square with his teaching. He says, "In dealing with this Scripture [Luke 16:19-31], and the subject of the so-called 'intermediate state,' it is important that we should confine ourselves to the Word of God, and not go to Tradition. Yet, when nine out of ten believe what they have learned from Tradition, we have a thankless task, so far as pleasing man is concerned" (p. 1).
Is this fair to class everything as "Tradition," which differs from his teaching? And to say that nine out of ten accept Tradition "without thought or examination" is a charge as reckless as it is untrue.
Do all theologians rely on "Tradition" for their teaching? On the contrary, is not the appeal of all respectable theologians made to the fountain-head of all divine knowledge, the Word of God, and not to "Tradition?" To say that teaching as to "the Intermediate State" is accepted "without thought or examination" is a libel upon men just as scholarly and Christian as Dr. Bullinger -men who have given us their thoughts based on a careful examination of Scripture.
Anyone carefully reading Dr. Bullinger's writings will see that he teaches that at death man ceases to exist. According to him not only does his body die, but his soul and spirit cease to exist. He says, "There is Eccl. 9:5, which declares that 'The dead know not anything.' This also seems so clear as to admit of no second meaning. 'The dead' are the dead; they are those who have ceased to live; and, if the dead do or can know anything, then words are useless for the purpose of revelation" (pp. 4, 5).
Then to make his meaning crystal clear he says, "It does not say dead bodies know not anything, but 'the dead,' i.e., dead people, who are set in contrast with 'the living' " (p. 5).
Dr. Bullinger goes further than teaching soul-sleep, for in soul-sleep the soul is in a state of suspended animation. A man asleep is in a state of suspended animation, but can be awakened to normal life. But Dr. Bullinger teaches that at death a man-spirit, soul and body-ceases to exist.
Right throughout his pamphlet Dr. Bullinger takes Eccl. 9:5 as his great foundation text. He gives it a settled meaning, and builds on that. If his interpretation of Eccl. 9:5 is correct, then all other scriptures bearing on the point will fall into line. But, alas, we have to show that his interpretation is plainly a false one, and that the subsequent texts adduced as proofs are by him twisted and misrepresented in shocking fashion. It is the case of a man getting a fixed idea into his mind, and then making everything conform to it. He becomes the slave of an idea.
But let us see if Eccl. 9:5 teaches all that Dr. Bullinger dogmatically says it does. He must have known surely that "UNDER THE SUN" is the great key-phrase of Ecclesiastes, occurring no less than twenty-five times in the book. Solomon, the writer of the book, is stating the condition of the dead in relation TO THIS EARTH. When death supervenes a dead man is completely out of touch with his earthly environment. He knows nothing of his former surroundings. Let us quote the passage in full: "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun" (Eccl. 9:5, 6).
Indeed, to explain the passage as Dr. Bullinger does is to go too far, even for him. He teaches the resurrection, but here in this passage the dead have no more a portion forever. This can be true only as far as this world is concerned. A dead person will never have a portion in this life forever. But to take it literally, as Dr. Bullinger does, would shut out the resurrection. Indeed, if the man ceases to exist, it is not a resurrection that can take place, but a re-creation. But when it is seen that the outlook Solomon had was "under the sun," all is plain and simple. Dr. Bullinger builds up a whole theory on a gross misinterpretation of a single verse.
It is significant that Dr. Bullinger begins his proofs by quoting Old Testament passages. It is not that the Old Testament is not equally inspired and equally authoritative as the New Testament, but that the New Testament gives fuller light on such subjects as we are examining.
Christadelphian and Adventist writers do the same thing. They base their anti-Christian theories on misinterpreted Old Testament scriptures.
Reviewing a Christadelphian writer, the late F. W. Grant in his monumental work, "Facts and Theories as to. a Future State," writes: "Thus for his own views [Mr. Roberts, a Christadelphian writer], out of over fifty passages produced, nine belong to the New Testament and forty-seven to the Old. Whilst out of the passages which he thinks might be adduced as against his views (though scanty in number), nine out of ten are from the New Testament.... Really does it not seem a question between the Old Testament and the New?
It is not that; but still there is a tale that these quotations tell, the moral of which will be found in 2 Tim. 1:10; where the Apostle tells us that Christ `has abolished death, and brought life and incorruption [not immortality] to light by the GOSPEL.
That means that these writers are groping for light amid the shadows of a dispensation where was yet upon this subject comparative darkness. They look at death as it existed before Christ had for the believer abolished it. They look at life there where as yet it had not been 'brought to light.' No wonder if they stumble in the darkness they have chosen" (pp. 124, 125).
It is no wonder that Dr. Bullinger was quoted as an authority in a debate by Miles Grant, a prominent Annihilationist.
On page 6 Dr. Bullinger quotes a scripture that completely upsets his own theory: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. 12:7). Surely when the dust returns to the earth, that is, when death supervenes, THEN the spirit RETURNS TO GOD. But this is just what Dr. Bullinger denies. He writes: "Where Scripture is silent, we may well be silent too; and, therefore, as to the spirit and its possibilities between dying and resurrection we have not said, and do not say, anything. Scripture says it will 'return TO GOD.' We do not go beyond this; nor dare we contradict it by saying, with Tradition, that it goes to Purgatory or to Paradise; or with Spiritualism that it goes elsewhere" (p. 6). But Dr. Bullinger has just said the very opposite of this on the strength of his misapplication of Eccl. 9:5. Now he affirms that he dare not contradict the statement that the spirit returns to God when the dust returns to the earth. But he plainly does contradict this. He is not consistent.
Then he has a fling at his bugbear-"Tradition." He knew well that only the Roman Catholics believe in Purgatory; and as to Paradise did not so great an authority as the Son of God declare that the dying thief should be with Him in Paradise? As to Spiritualists they are not Christians at all. So his fling is rather misjudged.
We wonder how he would have explained Eccl. 8:15. Solomon writes: "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing UNDER THE SUN, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry."
If Dr. Bullinger had followed that out he never would have been a clergyman, or preached, or written books and pamphlets. To take this passage other than in its manifest setting would be arrant folly; it would necessitate the throwing aside of the Sermon on the Mount, and all the exhortations to the heights of Christian living, just as Dr. Bullinger has refused the fuller light of the New Testament by pinning his faith to a misconception of an Old Testament passage. Verily he builds a grotesque superstructure on a handful of shifting sand.
Dr. Bullinger tells us: "There are five passages which are generally relied on and referred to by Traditionists; viz.:-
1. Matt. 22:32.
2. Luke 23:43.
3. 2 Cor. 5:6, 8.
4. Phil. 1:23.
5. Luke 16:1 9-31" (p. 24).
He proposes to comment on them in that order. The first is "THE GOD OF THE LIVING" (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38). Dr. Bullinger gives his whole case away in the following extract: "In these Scriptures it is stated that 'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.' But, Traditionists believing that the 'dead' are the 'living,' make God the 'God of the dead,' which He distinctly says He is not" (p. 24). It looks as if the reverend writer had some misgiving at the bottom of his heart, for in a footnote, referring directly to the quotation just given, he writes, "If not, and these New Testament passages do uphold the teaching of Tradition, then, quite a different meaning must be given to those passages which we have quoted above from the Old Testament; and Traditionists must show how they understand them; and support their interpretations by proofs from the Word of God."
Here Dr. Bullinger touches the fatal mistake he has made in misinterpreting the Old Testament Scriptures, which misinterpretation we have clearly pointed out in reference to his great foundation text, "The dead know not anything" (Eccl. 9:5). He builds on an illogical foundation a superstructure of twisted and mangled texts.
How blind Dr. Bullinger is when he gets a fixed idea into his mind! He is not here for us to quote for his benefit the whole of the last scripture he refers to. We quote it for the benefit of his followers: "For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living; FOR ALL LIVE UNTO HIM" (Luke 20:38). If ALL live unto Him, then ALL are alive. If I am alive on this earth, I live unto God in the wide sense of the word, involving responsibility; if I am dead, so far as this earth is concerned, I still live unto God.
This is what the passage plainly teaches. It teaches the survival of the soul after death.
Dr. Bullinger goes on to say: "The whole context... shows that the words refer to the RESURRECTION, and not to the dead at all" (p. 25).
We ask in amazement, Can the resurrection be apart from the dead? Does not the resurrection, perforce, refer to the dead, and to the dead only? Yet ten lines further down Dr. Bullinger, forgetting his own extraordinary statement, quotes from this very incident: "Matt. 22, 'as touching the RESURRECTION of the dead' (ver. 31). Mark 12, 'as touching the dead, that they RISE'" (ver. 26).
It is remarkable that this incident occurs in each of the Synoptical Gospels. In each of them our Lord quoted from Ex. 3:6. Here we are surely on authoritative ground when our Lord Himself quotes THE VERY WORDS OF GOD addressed to Moses out of the burning bush: "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Ex. 3:6). Our Lord's comment on this is plain and unmistakable: "For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:38), adding the words, "FOR ALL LIVE UNTO HIM."
We wonder why Dr. Bullinger did not refer to Ex. 3:6, especially when he had already found his proof (?) texts in the Old Testament. Why did he not refer to this important passage? Was it that he could not bring in the resurrection there, and could not explain away its plain meaning? In Ex. 3:6 there is no question of resurrection, but GOD HIMSELF says without any qualification, "I AM the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."
When God spoke out of the burning bush to Moses Abraham had been dead over three hundred years, and yet He said, "I AM the God of Abraham." If Abraham, having died, had ceased to exist, spirit, soul and body, as Dr. Bullinger teaches, God could not have said this. God could not call Himself the God of that which does not exist.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead, as far as this world was concerned, but they were all alive unto God. Our Lord by that statement has settled the question once for all. THERE IS AN INTERMEDIATE STATE. We prefer to believe our Lord rather than to bow to a false interpretation of Scripture such as Dr. Bullinger offers to us.