We have before us a book of Dr. Bullinger's, entitled, " "The Apocalypse or the Day of the Lord" (Second Edition), running into no less than 741 pages. He lets himself go in the preface. He says: "It will be found to differ in its conclusions from any other work that has been issued with the same design." "Very few care to be thought peculiar, and therefore they like to have some names to appeal to. But this is the very reason why the mists of tradition have been allowed to take the place of independent research."
We propose to be very brief in our remarks on this subject. All through Dr. Bullinger's writings, as far as we have seen, he seems to take a delight in differing from everybody, and in so doing is constantly being driven into such tight corners that he has again and again to contradict himself. The most charitable critic cannot attribute to him humility, and he cannot escape the charge of excessive and conceited dogmatism. He is tight and everybody else is wrong. The above extracts are really very lamentable in a Christian writer.
Writing of the addresses to the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2 and 3) Dr. Bullinger writes: "The fact of their being called 'churches' has naturally led commentators and students to infer that it is the Church of God, or at any rate the historic Christian Church, which is meant" (p. 63).
Dr. Bullinger insists again and again on taking words at: their literal meaning. Why did he not apply this in this case? "Churches" are Churches, and so, in uniformity with the way this word is used to designate the Church of God, we would follow his example, and believe that "Churches" means Churches-Christian assemblies composed of members of the Body of Christ..
Then if these "churches" do not refer to the local representatives of the Church of God, what does Dr. Bullinger tell us they do refer to? He says: "If these 'churches' are future assemblies of Jewish believers on the earth, after the Church has been `caught up to meet the Lord,' then all is clear, consistent, and easy to be understood" (p. 71).
Dr. Bullinger seems determined to elbow the Church of God out of her choicest blessings, and to exalt "the elect Old Testament believers," and the "FUTURE assemblies of Jewish believers," into its place. These latter, he teaches, are the seven Churches of Asia; the former, the Bride of Christ and the Holy Jerusalem.
When he comments on the "seven lamp-stands," he says: "As to 'the seven lamp-stands,' ought not this expression at once to send our thoughts back to the one golden lamp-stand of the tabernacle (Ex. 25:31-39)?... So that just as the one lamp-stand represents Israel in its unity, the seven lamp-stands represent Israel in its dispersion: and tells us that Jehovah is about to make Jerusalem again the center of His dealings with the earth" (p. 72).
Did not Dr. Bullinger know that the Tabernacle spoke "of good things to come" (Heb. 9:11), and the "shadow of heavenly things" (Heb. 8:5)? The lamp-stand comes under this category, and instead of Dr. Bullinger looking back to the type, why does he not look forward to what it is a type of, and give us the anti-type? Why go back to the shadow, instead of rejoicing in the Substance? The whole of the Epistle to the Hebrews shows how the Tabernacle with its furniture and sacrifices all POINTED FORWARD to Christ, His Person and Work and the blessings He brings the be liever into. Surely the lamp-stand is a type of Christ, the Light of His people, and as such speaks of the testimony in responsibility the local assembly is permitted to bear to Christ. When the assembly fails in this, it will cease to be; the lamp-stand will be removed, as in the case of Ephesus.
Here we see another of the numerous occasions when Dr. Bullinger contradicts himself. He tells us these "churches" are "FUTURE assemblies of Jewish believers." Then he tells us that Ephesus sets forth "The Day of Israel's espousals;" that is, in one breath he tells us it is FUTURE, with the next breath that it is long PAST, that it dates back to Exodus, nearly 3,500 years ago.
Pergamos is said to refer to "The Wilderness Period;" "Thyatira-The Period of Israel's Kings;" "Sardis-The Period of Israel's Removal;" "Philadelphia-The Period of Judah's King (2 Chron.);" and "Laodicea-The Period of Judah's Removal."
These are all incidents LONG PAST, yet we are told the seven Churches are assemblies of FUTURE Jewish believers after the rapture of the Church. If this is not crazy exegesis we do not know what is.
We now go to the end of the Book, and ask, How does Dr. Bullinger view the passage, "That great city, the Holy Jerusalem" of Rev. 21:9-27;22:1-5?
He appears to be so anxious to contradict every other writer and glorify himself, that he writes: "Man says that the idea of a city literally descending from heaven... is absurd' (Barnes, in loco). But we ask, Why? True, it is contrary to our experience" (The Apocalypse, p. 658). "Many things we once thought, when measured by our experience, to be absurd have been proved to be the contrary" (The Apocalypse, p. 659). "Who shall dare to question the reality of this description? Man only exposes his folly and ignorance when he dares to question whether this is a literal city. Great Babylon was a literal city. Herodotus tells us it was 120 furlongs on each side. Why should not this Holy City be 12,000? Babylon had a wall 50 royal cubits wide and 200 in height. Why should not the wall of this city be 144 cubits high? Babylon had 100 gates of bronze. Why should this not have 12 gates of pearl? In other words, why not believe what God says? It is simpler, easier and happier" (The Apocalypse, p. 659).
We would like to ask a few questions. Dr. Bullinger says this city is literal, and any who dares to question this exposes his folly and ignorance. What does Rev. 21:9 say? "Come hither, I will show you the Bride, the Lamb's wife." The angel then proceeds to show John "that great city, the Holy Jerusalem." This identifies the Bride and the City as two presentations of the SAME thing. We believe the city sets forth the Church as seen in administration over a renewed earth during the Millennium; the Bride; the Church seen as the Bride of Christ in relation to the new heaven and the new earth during the blissful eternal state.
We ask, Why did Dr. Bullinger not insist that the Bride was a literal WOMAN? He insists on the city being literal. Why did be not insist on the woman being literal? The same thing could not be a literal city and a literal woman. Someone may unctuously say that with God all things are possible. We answer, God does not do foolish things. He does not do things that are contrary to His Being. To charge God with folly is the pass to which Dr. Bullinger's vagaries bring him.
It has been wisely said that if a passage in its literal sense makes sense, that is the interpretation of it. But if a passage taken literally does not make sense, then it is clearly symbolical. To take the "Bride, the Lamb's wife," as literal would be absurd. To think that the §heep of Christ have four legs and eat grass would be absurd. The title, "sheep," sets forth symbolically most beautifully the wonderful care of the Lord for His own.
Into what absurdities Dr. Bullinger's literal city would land him! Take the length of the walls. The city lies foursquare. Its length and breadth are equal. It measures 12,000 furlongs, or about 1,500 miles. Each side measures 1,500 miles, according to Dr. Bullinger. There were three gates of pearl on each side, that would give a distance of 500 miles between each gate. If an architect were guilty of such a lack of proportion he would be roundly condemned. Shall the heavenly Architect be guilty of such folly? Even the furthest removed cities of refuge in the land of Israel were within reach by a long run of the man-slayer seeking refuge.
Take, again, the wall, 144 cubits high, equaling about 80 yards. The length, breadth, and height are equal, so the height would be 1,500 miles. A wall round a building bears some sort of proportion to the building. But what is 84 yards compared to a height of 1,500 miles? Dr. Bullinger says, "Man only exposes his folly and ignorance when he dares to question whether this is a literal city" (The Apocalypse, p. 659). We consider that Dr. Bullinger exposes his folly and ignorance in supposing the city to be literal. Why is he not consistent, and consider the Bride, an aspect of the same thing as the city, as literal-a woman?
Take the figures of the Church in Scripture. None of them is literal. Why make this an impossible exception? The "one flock and one Shepherd"—are believers literal sheep, and the Lord a literal shepherd? The one Body, and Christ the exalted Head. Is this a real body with legs, and arms, and head, and blood circulation, eating and drinking material food and drink? An holy temple in the Lord built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets-is this a literal building, superimposed on the bodies of apostles and prophets? Lively stones, built up a spiritual house-is this literal? The Bride of Christ-is this a literal woman? The New Jerusalem-is this a literal city? We do not need to answer these questions. They answer themselves. It is the absurdity of imagining the city to be literal that forces us to ask such absurd questions. Scripture says, "Answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5).
As a matter of fact these measures we have been considering have a beautiful symbolical meaning. Dr. Bullinger says that, "Twelve is a perfect number, signifying perfection of government, or of governmental perfection. It is found as a multiple in all that has to do with rule" (Number in Scripture, p. 253). With this we agree.
Twelve thousand furlongs is 12 multiplied by 1,000, setting forth in a most intensive way that the government of the city will be the greatest, justest, most immaculate government that has ever been, as well as on the very largest scale, so large as to be beyond our calculation.
The wall was 144 cubits high. One hundred and forty-four is the square of twelve, again stressing the administrative idea. There were twelve gates of pearl, still further stressing the same idea.
The city lay foursquare. Four is the number setting forth that which is universal. This city is not to serve merely the land of Israel, but will be for the service of the whole world. "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it" (Rev. 21:24).
We get the four winds of heaven; the four quarters of the earth; four seasons of the year; four divisions mark the day-"even, midnight, cockcrowing, morning" (Mark 13:35); four components constitute the earth-matter, water, air, fire.
All this is very beautiful and suggestive as throwing light on these symbols of Scripture.
To recapitulate. Dr. Bullinger has already distinctly said that we are to understand that the "CITY" is declared to be the "BRIDE," the Lamb's wife, and that the "Bride" is composed of the "elect saints of the Old Testament." But he has also told us the city is LITERAL. If the "Bride" and the "City" are two representations of the same thing, as he states, how can the City be a literal city, and yet be composed of the Old Testament saints?
Then again he tells us that the Holy City MAY contain the Church, or Body of Christ. That would be the less containing the greater. But then he says that the Body of Christ is "PART OF THE. BRIDEGROOM," and "CANNOT POSSIBLY" be the Bride.
He likewise tells us that the Church of the early part of the Acts of the Apostles, the Church of the Day of Pentecost, is composed of Old Testament believers and has nothing to do with the Church of God. He tells us the Apostles of the Lamb do not belong to the Church.
What becomes then of the Church, the Body of Christ, founded on the teaching of the Mystery by the Apostle Paul? Dr. Bullinger cannot quite tell us when this happened, and what he does with this glorious Church we have not found out, because his self-contradictory statements leave us in doubt of what he really means. The mystery is a mystery still, only more so. Muddle would be the better word.
There are certain crank religions in the world that only get adherents through enquirers examining the Scriptures through the spectacles of their teachers, such as Mrs. Eddy, Pastor Russell, Judge Rutherford, Robert Roberts and the like. We fear those who follow Dr. Bullinger must read Dr. Bullinger first, and then their Bibles to find HIS views in them. We are sure they would not discover his views firsthand in the Bible.
One can understand the feelings of a recent author who says, "Into the wild dispensational theories of Dr. Bullinger it is not my intention to enter; one must draw the line somewhere in investigating the labyrinth of prophetic fads and theories."
We have only touched a fragment of what has come from the pen of Dr. Bullinger. We have not been astonished, in reviewing the works of anti-Christian writers of crank religions, to find that they misunderstand, misinterpret, and mangle scriptures, and; added to this, suppressing scriptures that they cannot explain away. Dr. Bullinger was a true Christian, and earnestly sought to serve his Lord, but never in all our reading have we come across a true Christian author so guilty of misinterpreting, misunderstanding and mangling the Scriptures as he has done. This is no exaggeration, but the sober truth.
It has been no pleasure to expose Dr. Bullinger's teaching. It has been profitable, as it has helped, in our judgment, to bring out the truth, and therefore has been with real profit to our own soul.
May God in His great mercy give deliverance to those who have been caught in "the labyrinth of prophetic fads and prophecies."