724
December 1928
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
Mr. Philip Mauro Throws Down the Gauntlet I n A N ew B ook “ T h e G ospel O f T h e K ingdom ” ( With An Examination o f Modern Dispensationalism ) ■ B y T h e E d i T or - I n -C h ie f
MkJjM R- Philip Mauro is an outstanding Funda- JifW v ®) mentalist and the author of a large number B of books, many of which have been widely used by Fundamentalists. He is a man of legal training and wide culture and writes " with a good deal of logic and force. . This book is sure to challenge the thinking of Chris tians all over the world. It will undoubtedly arouse a great deal of adverse criticism because it is frank criticism of a certain system of interpretation and of the Scofield Bible, which he conceives to be the main vehicle of the new system of doctrine herein investigated. He was prompted to write the book on account of an incident which revealed to him the extent to which this particular Bible is being used among certain brethren in this country. It should be understood that Mr. Mauro believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word of God. He accepts all of the great fundamental doctrines of that Word, and this book is a criticism of an interpretation rather than the detail of any Biblical facts. If Biblical facts are denied it is because he misunderstands them and not because he questions the Bible. Therefore, the book is worthy of a most careful reading, and the questions he raises should be frankly answered. Nothing can be accom plished by insinuations or unkind denunciations. Zwingli’s famous saying ought to be kept in mind as we face some of these questions that may disturb some favorite theories. He said, “We ought to take the Holy Scriptures as our guide arid Master: if anyone uses them aright he should be unharmed, even though our little doctors be ever so much displeased.” At this time we will simply briefly review the book, trying to give a fair idea of the questions raised. In a later issue we may turn to a frank consideration of some of these. First of all, he objects to the use that is being made of what is known as the Scofield Bible. Of course, as a matter of fact, there is no such Bible. What is known as the Scofield Bible is the authorized version of the Scrip tures bound up with a set of notes that introduces a very definite system of interpretation which is carried through out the Bible. All that is "Scofield” about it are his notes and, of course, no man or scholar should be tested by these. D ispen sa tiona l D iv isions He then objects to a certain system of dispensational ism, which divides time up into seven dispensations, and challenges our right to so divide them, showing that a dis pensation that might be characterized as a dispensation of conscience is also a dispensation of law and grace. He also challenges the particular use of this word “dispen sation.” The theory that he criticizes is largely based on the idea that Jesus Christ, when He came into the world in His incarnation, offered to Israel the earthly kingdom. They rejected this, it is said, and therefore this kingdom was “postponed,” and the Church, which is a spiritual organization, comes in as a “parenthesis” and the age to which it belongs is known as the age of grace as standing ™ I
over especially- against the age of law as represented in the Jewish dispensation. After the Church is completed, and at the second coming of Christ is caught up to meet Him in the air, then the kingdom “postponed” will be taken up again and Chijst shall reign on the throne of David. Mr. Mauro first challenges the proposition that this kingdom was offered and postponed. He shows that Jesus Christ wa.feinnounced as the Saviour and the Lamb of God and that the beginning of “the Gospel o f Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk. 1 :l-3), is found at the very begin ning of the gospels. If an earthly kingdom was offered to Israel, where is this, fact recorded? When did they actually reject this earthly kingdom? If (as is generally conceded) the Jews were looking for that kind of a king dom and misunderstood Christ because He did not take it up, why d id they reject it ? These are questions that Mr. Mattro brings home in these chapters. K ingdom of H eaven He deals with the interpretation given in the Scofield Bible of the terms, “The Kingdom of Heaven” and “The Kingdom of God,” “are at hand.” The note reads as «follows: “When Christ appeared to the Jewish people the next thing in the order of revelation as it then stood should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom.” This makes it necessary to explain “at hand” so as to make it harmonize with the postponement idea. It is thus explained: “ ‘At hand’ is never a positive affirmation' that the person or thing said to be at hand will imme diately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must interfere.” Mr. Mauro shows that this term “at hand” is used by Christ and the inspired writers of the gospels and Acts over fifty times and in every instance it is just what the editor says it never is, namely, “a posi tive affirmation that the person or thing said to be at hand was at hand” Furthermore, if the kingdom was the next predicted event, Mr. Mauro asks how we can reconcile this with the fact that Peter declares that the order of the prophecy was “the sufferings o f Christ and the glories that should f ollow them.” He also shows that Jesus Him self said it is written that the Christ “should suffer and rise again'from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission o f sin should be preached in His name unto all nations.” Could there be a kingdom of righteousness before Jesus Christ disposed of the sin question and made possible the righteousness of God on the basis of His death upon Calvary? In the light of what is usually said about the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God by this particular school of inter pretation, he.asks if there were two kingdoms at hand, for a Kingdom of Heaven and a Kingdom of God were both announced by John and Christ. He challenges the statement that the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the priv ilege nor the duty of the church, and shows that it is both the privilege and duty of the church. If it is not, what did Jesus Christ mean when He said, “Every one therefore that heareth these words o f mine, and doeth
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker