One of E.W. Bullinger’s greatest attributes was the ease with which he amended his views in light of his acquisition of fresh truth.  He once said:  “If anyone would know what I believe upon a subject, he must find out what I believe now.” Never claiming to have all the answers, Bullinger worked over a period of many years to produce a system of theology that is still airtight against the arguments of rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Replacement Theology.  During the closing years of his ministry, he grappled with the doctrines of Preterism; and his researches in this field produced the monumental work, “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth” (1913).  Although hastily written, the amount of scholarship poured into this work is amazing. 

  But because Bullinger modified his views on the rapture, many Dispensationalists steer away from his books, thinking that perhaps he capitulated on his stance toward pre-tribulationism.  Well, this is not the case at all!  While Bullinger revised his views concerning the timing of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, he never wavered from his belief that the church would not enter into the tribulation.  In fact, Bullinger did more than any other writer to retain the distinction between the church and Israel.  This comes into play more explicitly in his later writings, in which he draws a Dispensational frontier at Acts 28. 

   Bullinger believed that the Book of Acts describes the transition from the kingdom to the church.   In his scheme the church of the “one body” actually begins after Acts 28.  The Acts Dispensation chronicles the final offer of the kingdom to the children of Israel upon the one condition of national repentance (see Acts 3: 19-21).  When Israel rejected this offer in Acts 28, the nation was temporarily set aside by God as unuseable, and salvation sent to the Gentiles.  A new body began to be formed at this juncture, designated by Paul as “one new man” (Eph. 2: 15).  According to Bullinger, this is where the church age officially begins.

  Although I do not agree with Bullinger’s teaching concerning the commencement of the Christian church, I tend to agree that the Book of Acts is transitional in nature, and that the present parenthetical Dispensation begins after Acts 28: 28.  However, in my understanding the ‘pure parenthesis‘ does not officially begin until A.D. 70, when the “people of the prince” sacked Jerusalem (Dan. 9: 26).  The period between this desolation of the city and the sanctuary and the advent of the “prince” himself, is filled up by the present Dispensation of Grace.  Not that grace didn’t have a place before A.D. 70.  But that from A.D. 30-70 the Israel question was being settled —  ”Let the children first be filled“ (Mark 7: 27).  The Gentile economy did not come into full swing until Israel lost its dispensational advantage over the Gentiles.   This was in A.D. 70.

   Clarence Larkin seemed to hint as much when he wrote: “This Dispensation [i.e., the church age] is a parenthetical Dispensation thrown in between the ‘Dispersion’ of Israel, and their ‘Restoration’ to their own land.  The purpose of this Dispensation is to gather out a ‘People for His Name,’ called the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile” (Dispensational Truth, 1920 edition, pg. 39).

   If Larkin saw the parenthesis of the present age as connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then it quite possible that he derived his views from Bullinger.  Even modern scholars such as Randall Price, have marked on their prophecy charts the significance of A.D. 70 in God’s purpose to call out the church (see Jerusalem In Prophecy, pg. 234, 239, 257).  Larkin, however, does mention that the Dispensation of Grace extends from the Cross (A.D. 30) to the Crown (Second Coming of Christ).  Perhaps he saw the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem as transitional in nature.  We’ll probably never know.

  Anyhow, because Thessalonians and Corinthians were written prior to the Acts 28 council, Bullinger construed that the rapture of saints described therein must be tied to Israel’s kingdom blessings (which were forfeited and postponed in Acts 28), rather than to the church age proper.  I would, again, disagree with him on this point.  However, far from denying the pre-trib rapture, Bullinger saw Paul’s later revelation of the “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (see Phil. 3: 11, 14) as entirely pre-tribulational in nature. 

  In the Companion Bible, he writes:

  “The term ‘resurrection of the dead’ (anastasis nekron) is of frequent occurrence (Matt. 22: 31; Acts 17: 32; 23: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6: 2, etc.), and includes the resurrection to life, of the just, and the resurrection to judgment, of the unjust (John 5: 29; Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2).  Resurrection from the dead (ek nekron) implies the resurrection of some, the former of these two classes, the others being left behind.  See Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2.  Paul had no doubt of attaining to this, as as may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, written some ten years before.  The exanastasis must therefore mean a further selection of some before the anastasis of 1 Thess. 4: 14, and Paul was not yet sure of attaining to this.  Perhaps he had the assurance when he wrote 2 Tim. 4: 7.  It is noteworthy that there is no reference to any living ones being caught up, or any parousia of the Lord, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, 16.” (note on Philippians 3: 11, Companion Bible, pg. 1778).

   In his later books, Bullinger seemed to relegate the rapture of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15 to the close of Daniel’s 70th week.  But since he held that Acts 28: 28 commenced a new economy, he saw in Philippians 3: 14 the church’s charter for a pre-tribulational up-calling.  As he came to this view gradually, his books must be diligently studied in order to see exactly how his understanding of the rapture evolved. 

   In later years, theologians such as A.E. Knoch corrected Bullinger on some of his views.  Whereas others took the more unique elements of Bullinger’s theology and ran them out into what is now known as “Acts 28 Dispensationalism.”   Interestingly, however, all of Bullinger’s works are still in print today; and though he exercises little influence in modern Dispensational circles, his contributions to Biblical and exegetical scholarship are never downplayed.    It is hoped that in future months his work will be seriously studied afresh by all who love the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1: 19) and look for that “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13).