Works of John Bunyan — Complete

by John Bunyan

Second. It is evident by the difference of their measures and dimensions. The length of the temple was threescore cubits; but the length of the house of the forest of Lebanon was an hundred cubits; so that the house of the forest of Lebanon was forty cubits more than was that called Solomon's temple: The breadth of Solomon's temple was twenty cubits, but the breadth of the house of the forest of Lebanon was fifty cubits: And as there is odds between threescore and fivescore, so there is also between twenty and fifty.

As to their height, they were both alike; but equality in height can no more make them the same, than can a twenty years' age in two, make them one and the same person.

Their porches also differed greatly; the porch of the temple was in length but twenty cubits, but the length of that of the house of the forest of Lebanon was fifty cubits. So that here also is thirty odds.[2] The porch of the temple was but ten cubits broad; but the porch of the house of the forest of Lebanon thirty cubits. Now, I say, who that considereth these disproportions, can conclude that the house of the forest of Lebanon was none other than that called the temple of Jerusalem. For all this compare 1 Kings 6:2, 3 with 7:2, 6.

Third. If you add to these the different makes of the houses, it will sufficiently appear that they were not one. The house of the forest of Lebanon was built upon four rows of cedar pillars; but we read of no such pillars upon which the temple stood. The windows of the house of the forest of Lebanon stood in three rows, light against light; but we read of no such thing in the temple. The temple had two pillars before the door of its porch, but we read not of them before the door of the porch of the house of the forest of Lebanon. In the sixth and seventh chapters of the first book of Kings, these two houses, as to their make, are exactly set forth; so that he that listeth may search and see, if as to this I have not said the truth.

CHAPTER II.

OF WHAT THE HOUSE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON WAS A TYPE.

That the house of the forest of Lebanon was a house significant, I think is clear; also, if it had not, we should not have had so particular an account thereof in the holy Word of God: I read but of four buildings wherein, in a particular manner, the houses or fabrics are, as to their manner of building, distinctly handled. The tabernacle is one, the temple another; the porch which he built for his throne, his throne for judgment; and this house of the forest of Lebanon is the fourth. Now the three first, to wit, the tabernacle, the temple, the porch and throne, wise men will say are typical; and therefore so is this.

[First.] I will therefore take it for granted that the house of the forest of Lebanon is a significative thing, yea, a figure of the church, as the temple at Jerusalem was, though not under the same consideration. The temple was a figure of the church under the gospel, as she relateth to worship; but the house of the forest of Lebanon was a figure of that church as she is assaulted for her worship, as she is persecuted for the same. Or take it more expressly thus: I take this house of the forest of Lebanon to be a type of the church in the wilderness, or as she is in her sackcloth state.

We read, before this house was built, that there was a church in the wilderness; and also, after this house was demolished, that there would be a church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38; Rev 12:14). But we now respect that wilderness state that the church of the New Testament is in, and conclude that this house of the forest of Lebanon was a type and figure of that; that is, of her wilderness state. And, methinks, the very place where this house was built does intimate such a thing; for this house was not built in a town, a city, &c., as was that called the temple of the Lord, but was built in a kind of a wood, a wilderness; it was built in the forest of Lebanon, unto which that saying seems directly to answer. 'And to the woman,' the church, 'were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness into her place' (Rev 12:14). A wilderness state is a desolate, a tempted, an afflicted, a persecuted state (Jer 2:6). All which is more than intimated by the witnesses wearing of, and prophesying in sackcloth, and also expressed of by that Revelation 12.

Answerable to this is that of the prophet concerning this house of the forest of Lebanon, where he says, 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon! that the fire may devour thy cedars.' And again, 'Howl, fir-tree; for the cedar is fallen' (Zech 11:1,2). What can be more express? The prophet here knocks at the very door of the house of the forest of Lebanon, and tells her that her cedars are designed for fire; unto which also most plainly answer the flames to which so many of the cedars of Lebanon,[3] God's saints, I mean, for many hundred years, have been delivered for their profession; and by which, as another prophet has it, for many days they have fallen (Dan 11:33). Also when the king of Assyria came up with his army against Jerusalem, this was his vaunting, 'I am come—to the sides of Lebanon, and I will cut down the tall cedars thereof' (Isa 37:24).