Dr. Bullinger denies that the Church is seen in Scripture as the Bride of Christ. He writes: "It is clear from all the Scriptures relating to the mystery, that the members of Christ's body are not the bride, but part of the Bridegroom Himself. Whereas the elect Old Testament saints will form the bride" ("The Mystery," pp. 49, 50). "What are we to understand but that this "CITY," which is declared to be the "BRIDE," the Lamb's wife -is the city for which all those who were partakers of the heavenly calling looked; and that these elect saints of the Old Testament will form the bride" ("The Mystery," p. 48). This is definite enough. The Old Testament believers, according to Dr. Bullinger, will form the Bride, the Lamb's wife. That means "That great city, The Holy Jerusalem," is likewise formed of the Old Testament saints. There is not one word in Scripture to substantiate this.
John the Baptist belonged to the Old Testament saints. He was not in the Kingdom of Heaven, as is plain from our Lord's illuminating words: "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:1111Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matthew 11:11)). That is, the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, the new and wonderful Kingdom in connection with the Lord of Glory as King, renders the least in that Kingdom greater than the greatest in Old Testament times. That does not mean such are greater in themselves, but in their RELATIVE positions to Christ; just as the Princess Elizabeth of England is the third lady in the land, not because of her intellectual powers or personality as a human being, but because of her near relationship to the King. So on State occasions she takes precedence of ladies far superior to her in knowledge, attainments and experience.
But, if what Dr. Bullinger states, that "the elect Old Testament saints will form the Bride," is true, John the Baptist would be part of the Bride. But hear the position John the Baptist takes for himself. One imagines he knew better than Dr. Bullinger his position in relation to Christ. John the Baptist says: "He that hath the Bride is the Bridegroom: but the FRIEND OF THE BRIDEGROOM, which standeth and heareth Him, rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegroom's voice: this MY JOY is therefore fulfilled" (John 3:2929He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. (John 3:29)). So John himself takes the place of "THE FRIEND OF THE BRIDEGROOM." The friend of the Bridegroom is neither the Bridegroom, nor the Bride. What becomes of Dr. Bullinger's contention? And, in describing himself as "THE FRIEND OF THE BRIDEGROOM," John assigns the place that all the Old Testament believers will have. In that case instead of their being the Bride, Scripture gives them the place of being the friends of the Bridegroom.
Is this not a distinct intimation of the Church as the Bride of Christ? To be "espoused" as "a chaste virgin to Christ," is language definite enough. The Greek word here translated, "espoused," means, to give in marriage.
Eph. 5:22, 2322Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Ephesians 5:22‑23) carries this thought on. There the relation between husband and wife is illustrated by the relationship of Christ and the Church. It seems that the marriage relationship does not happen to be a convenient illustration, used as such by the Spirit of God; but that it was designed as the type of the prototype of the relationship of Christ and the Church. This puts marriage on a very sacred footing.
Let us follow this through this deeply interesting passage. We read: "As the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it." "That He might present it to Himself a glorious Church." "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh" [referring to a man's wife] "but nourisheth and cherisheth it, EVEN AS THE LORD THE CHURCH: for we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" [illustrated by Eve being built of the side of Adam, and Adam exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh"—Gen. 2:2323And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:23).] (vers. 24-30).
Then the whole of the illustration is wound up by the deeply significant words: "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church" (ver. 32). Surely, if the Church were not the Bride of Christ, the whole of this beautiful passage would be evacuated of all meaning.
Then we come to Rev. 19:7, 87Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. (Revelation 19:7‑8). We read: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness [literally, righteousnesses, plural] of saints."
Who would imagine that John would have in his mind Old Testament saints, when he is writing to New Testament saints? What a miserable idea of the Bride of Christ Dr. Bullinger must have, when he confines it to the few saints in Old Testament times connected with the little land of Israel, a paltry 180 miles long and about 80 miles wide, and shuts out the heavenly saints of this Dispensation, a glorious company.
Nor is Dr. Bullinger consistent with himself. He says: "This 'Holy Jerusalem' may contain the Church or Body of Christ, as well as the Bride, inasmuch as `the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb, are the Temple of it' (Rev. 21:2222And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (Revelation 21:22)), and 'the Lamb is the light thereof.' But it is not necessary on this account that we should identify them" ("The Mystery," p. 48).
Now with one breath he tells us the Bride is composed of "the elect Old Testament saints." If this is so, the Bride is COMPLETE, and yet he says that the saints of this dispensation, a far, far larger number than the "elect Old Testament saints," MAY be part of the Bride, or the "Holy Jerusalem." He gives no Scripture to support this extraordinary statement.
On page 48 he says the Holy Jerusalem may contain the Body of Christ, on page 51 he tells us it "cannot possibly" be. Here is the extract: "What is clear and certain is that the Church is the Body of Christ Himself, and that the members of that Body being 'in Christ' (mystical), are PART OF THE BRIDEGROOM, and cannot possibly, therefore be the Bride herself" ("The Mystery," p. 51). What are we to believe? That the New Testament saints "may" be part of the Bride, as stated on page 48, or "CANNOT POSSIBLY" be so, as stated on page 51? Both statements cannot be true. "Cannot possibly" is fairly strong language, as compared to the "may" three pages earlier. Dr. Bullinger is mixing symbols. He mixes the symbol of the one body with that of the Bridegroom, and thereby gets mixed himself.
To speak of a bridegroom suggests a bride, and to speak of a bride suggests a bridegroom. The one is complementary and necessary to the other.
And to say that the saints of this dispensation, the Church, MAY be part of the Bride, and then to state they are part of the Bridegroom, seems juggling with words. How can they be part of the Bridegroom, and part of the Bride?
And further, if the Church is part of the Bridegroom and the Bridegroom is married to the "elect Old Testament saints," it follows that the Church will be married to the Old Testament saints. The further Dr. Bullinger goes, the more he makes confusion worse confounded.
In his attempt to prove that "The Holy Jerusalem," or "the Lamb's Bride" is made up of "elect Old Testament saints," he writes: "It will be noted that the names ON the GATES of the city (i. e., the visible parts of the city), are `the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel' (Rev. 21:1212And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (Revelation 21:12)); whilst the names 'IN the FOUNDATION' (i. e., the invisible parts of the city) are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb' (ver. 14). This again carries us to the Gospels (Matt. 19:2828And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)), to the solemn words of the Lord Jesus in answer to a specific inquiry as to the portion of the Twelve Apostles. "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in (upon) the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."... The promise to the twelve apostles has never been abrogated; and we ask, what are we to do with it, if the apostles form part of the body of Christ? The Church is part of Christ the Bridegroom; but the apostles, by a comparison of Matt. 19:2828And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28), with Rev. 21:1414And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14), form part of the Bride" ("The Mystery," p. 49).
These proofs, that the "Holy Jerusalem" is made up of "the elect Old Testament saints," as Dr. Bullinger claims, are, in our judgment, proofs the other way.
What is meant by the names of the twelve tribes of Israel being on the GATES of the city, a visible part thereof? Gates in Scripture set forth the place where disputes were settled by the elders of the city and the place where judgment was carried out. So we read: "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee IN ALL THY GATES, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment" (Deut. 16:1818Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. (Deuteronomy 16:18)). "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, UNTO THY GATES, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die" (Deut. 17:55Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deuteronomy 17:5)).
In the light of this scripture we can quite understand the twelve apostles sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes. That by no means proves that the city sets forth the Old Testament saints. The Old Testament saints died many centuries ago, and to form the city would have to be resurrected. If that were so, would there be any necessity for judging? Is there going to be any judging in Heaven, or in that which comes down from Heaven? The idea is absurd. When saints are raised, they are not going to be judged by their fellowmen. The Apostles, too, would have to be raised, and will they judge their countrymen, who have been raised? The question needs no answer. It is too obvious.
What is meant by the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb being in the foundation of the city, its invisible part? Dr. Bullinger says that this carries his mind to Matt. 19:2828And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28). One never knows where Dr. Bullinger's mind will carry him. It carries our mind very obviously to Eph. 2:18-2118For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (Ephesians 2:18‑21). We read: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built UPON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CHIEF CORNER STONE; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." This passage clearly proves that the New Jerusalem is a symbolical representation of the Church of God in relation to the millennial age. It is very singular what scriptures Dr. Bullinger fails to notice, in this case a very striking and germane passage.
In the Index of Texts Explained, in his book, "How to Enjoy the Bible," a book of no less than 436 pages, Eph. 2:19-2219Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19‑22) is not ONCE mentioned, nor is it in his pamphlet of 56 pages, "The Mystery." We ask in wonderment, Why? It so obviously bears on the subject in hand. He writes: "The apostles, by a comparison of Matt. 19:2828And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28), with Rev. 21:1414And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14), form part of the Bride" ("The Mystery," p. 49). We think this pamphlet, "The Mystery," is well named. Fancy the Apostles of the Lamb being part of "the elect Old Testament saints," in the face of the Church being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Dr. Bullinger unchristianizes the very apostles. They are not, according to him, God's heavenly saints, but earthly and Jewish saints. Fancy Peter an Old Testament saint and Paul a New Testament saint. We think we have reached the high-water mark of crazy exegesis. There we will leave it.