The following editorial was written by E.W. Bullinger in the Things to Come Journal in May of 1902. The SAME false accusations are STILL made against those who teach Right Division today. Our opponents keep using the same old tired strawman arguments and false accusations that have been answered again and again (see Study Notes in Defense of Mid-Acts Right Division). It seems that Bullinger was Mid-Acts until that the last few years of his ministry (1906-1913) when he unfortunately strayed into the Acts 28 position.
Dispensational Teaching
It is evident that either we have not made our position as to this quite clear; or that some of our friends are unable to understand it. We do not say that only the Church Epistles are for the Church of God. We believe that the whole word of God is for us; and that there is not one of its words which we do not need. “Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” is necessary for our spiritual life. That is one thing. But surely every word is not about the Church of God!
Every word is “written for our learning,” and there is much to be learned from every portion of the Scriptures.
Yet it is sometimes said that we rob Christians of all the Bible except the Epistles addressed to them; while others express surprise that we have not said that Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with the Church!
All this misunderstanding arises because our friends do not see the difference between Interpretation and Application.
Every Scripture has its own proper interpretation, which must be determined by its scope.
After this it may have one or many applications of much importance concerning the Church of God, or of others.
Take Isa. 53. This has a most true and blessed application for the Church of God, and it is made for us in the Church Epistles. But surely the interpretation belongs in a special manner to Israel: and they will understand the words by and by, as we cannot understand them of ourselves now, “we hid as it were our faces from him: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” And again, “when we shall see him, there is no beauty in him that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:3, 2).
The interpretation of these words, we repeat, was true of Israel in a sense in which it is not true of the Church of God. And there will be a further application also for Israel— when they shall see Him and mourn over the solemn fact that they hid their faces from him, and they saw no form nor comeliness nor beauty in Him, and did not desire Him.
Of course there is an application of these words to us, for by nature no one desires Him. Though, surely no one would dream of asserting that this application of these words is actually their interpretation, and that they have no reference to Israel at all.
Or take such a scripture as Deut. 6:25, “It shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments.” Is this addressed to the church of God? If so, it stands in flat contradiction to Gal. 2:16, “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” But distinguish between interpretation and application, and all difficulty vanishes. Both scriptures are true. The one is true of Israel, of the persons and time to which it refers, and the covenant which the people were under; and the latter is true of the present dispensation of Grace, and of the church of God.
If any do not yet see our position on this matter, and wish to interpret everything of the church of God, then, by all means let them take Rom. 11 and believe that God threatens to cut those off of whom He has just before declared “there is no condemnation” and no separation. Let them appropriate Heb. 6 and 10 and believe they may “fall away” and be lost. Let them send for the Elders of the Assembly and be anointed with oil, etc., etc.
We prefer to believe that the Epistles addressed to the Church of God are the Church’s special Text Books and the guide to all Church Doctrine; but we believe also part of God’s Word belongs to and is for the Church, and is for its application. We must, however, also hold that this application must be governed by our Church Epistles; it must be applied in harmony with their teaching. Otherwise, we shall be committing the fatal mistake of using one truth to upset another truth; and robbing others of what is specially addressed to and should be interpreted of them.
Many of the differences arise from being misunderstood; and we trust that what we have now said will remove one difference which may be easily fostered and used by the enemy to cause bitterness and division.
