Grammatical interpretation of Philip Mauro's book

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello, I'm currently partially translating Philip Mauro's The Gospel of the Kingdom, and I have some difficulty interpreting some of the grammatical constructions of his writing style. Perhaps you can help me:

I've been having a hard time trying to figure out what the impersonal pronoun "it" is referring to in the sentence: "We recall that the "Scofield Bible" places it in the era of the law".

My guess is that "it" is referring to "now" in the previous sentence, but I'm not sure because it seems that "it" could also be referring to "the end of the ages" or "our Lord's coming".

What do you think?

Full paragraph:
Then we have the words of Paul who, referring to the things that befell the Israelites in the wilderness, said: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world (lit, the ends of the ages) are come" (I Cor. 10:11). And again it is written concerning the first coming of Christ that "now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26). It is worthy
of special note that this last passage contains the adverb of time, "now," emphasizing the fact that the period of our Lord's coming and of His sacrifice belongs to "the end of the ages." We recall that the "Scofield Bible" places it in the era of the law, and does so for the purpose of separating His words (and particularly His Sermon on the Mount) from us, God's children, and allocating them to an imaginary Jewish Kingdom of a supposed future dispensation. How satisfying to the heart, and how fatal to this modernistic and pernicious error are the words of Hebrews 1:1, 2, quoted above, which plainly declare that God "hath in these last days spoken UNTO US by His Son"!

Book source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1927_mauro_gospel-kingdom.html
 
I think "it" is the "first coming of Christ," referred to in both previous sentences, the second instance as "the Lord's coming."

It is a "coming" that according to Scofield stands in the era of and in relation to "the law," dodging the (church/grace) parenthesis of the present age, paralleled by the future coming that marks a new/resumed era of law (or similar) which he associates with the Sermon-on-the-Mount ethic.
 
Thank you Rev. Bruce. That did clarify the sentence for me.

If more grammatical issues come up, I'll post them in this thread.
 
Here is a new question. Is the last sentence of the last paragraph supposed to be a question?

WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS CONCERNING THE LAW

But it will be asked whether God's servants under the New Covenant, the
apostles of our Lord who have been taught by Grace, do not give a different
character to the Law, from that ascribed to it by Old Testament writers. We have
quoted the words of Christ that He came not to destroy the law and the
prophets, but to fulfil them; and also Paul's word to the same effect, that the
purpose of the Gospel is to "establish the Law." Further our Lord declared that
"the weightier matters of the law," which the Pharisees had omitted, are
"judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23).

The apostle Paul also, whose words are cited as authority for the teaching we
are now examining, speaks clearly and forcefully to the same effect. He says
that "the righteousness of God," which is now manifested apart from the law
(i.e. by the gospel) was "witnessed by the law and the prophets" (Rom. 3:21).
Further he declares that "the commandment" was "ordained TO LIFE"; that "the
law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good"; and that "the law
is spiritual" (Rom. 7:10, 12, 14); which testimonies carry the more weight
because they are found in that very passage which is supposed to teach things
derogatory to the law.
 
No, not an interrogative use of "which," but demonstrative.

If a period is placed after the Scripture refs., the following sentence could begin--replacing the word "which" with "those"--
"Those testimonies carry the more weight...," in reference to the several statements of the apostle just mentioned.​
 
Thank you once more, Rev.

Here is a third one. In the second to last sentence, what word is "it" referring to?

So far, I think it might be "the law", but I'm not sure.

Returning to Paul, we note that after saying that "the commandment was
ordained unto life," he immediately adds that he "found it to be unto death"
(Rom. 7:10). Why so? Because Paul was a Pharisee. He had been thoroughly
indoctrinated into rabbinism, one of the cardinal doctrines of which was this very
teaching as to the earthly and "Jewish" character of the Kingdom which has
become the cornerstone of modern dispensationalism. He had been schooled
in a barren orthodoxy. He was "called a Jew," and made his "boast of the law"
(Rom. 2:17, 18, 23); but he had yet to learn that "He is not a Jew"---though
"called a Jew"--"who is one outwardly; . . . but he is a Jew who is one inwardly"
(vv. 28, 29). 1 Of course to such it will be found that the law was "unto death";
and precisely so with the gospel. But all who were like Ezra, of whom it is
recorded that he "prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it"
(Ezra 7:10) have found that it was indeed "ordained unto life." Paul clearly
states the principle here involved when he says, "But we know that the law is
good, if a man use it lawfully" (I Tim. 1:8). And the same is true of the gospel as
well.
 
brjesusfreak said:
Thank you once more, Rev.

Here is a third one. In the second to last sentence, what word is "it" referring to?

So far, I think it might be "the law", but I'm not sure.

Returning to Paul, we note that after saying that "the commandment was
ordained unto life," he immediately adds that he "found it to be unto death"
(Rom. 7:10). Why so? Because Paul was a Pharisee. He had been thoroughly
indoctrinated into rabbinism, one of the cardinal doctrines of which was this very
teaching as to the earthly and "Jewish" character of the Kingdom which has
become the cornerstone of modern dispensationalism. He had been schooled
in a barren orthodoxy. He was "called a Jew," and made his "boast of the law"
(Rom. 2:17, 18, 23); but he had yet to learn that "He is not a Jew"---though
"called a Jew"--"who is one outwardly; . . . but he is a Jew who is one inwardly"
(vv. 28, 29). 1 Of course to such it will be found that the law was "unto death";
and precisely so with the gospel. But all who were like Ezra, of whom it is
recorded that he "prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it"
(Ezra 7:10) have found that it was indeed "ordained unto life." Paul clearly
states the principle here involved when he says, "But we know that the law is
good, if a man use it lawfully" (I Tim. 1:8). And the same is true of the gospel as
well.
Click to expand...

It here refers to law earlier in the sentence, or is put in place of commandment; note his earlier quotation of Paul: "the commandment was ordained unto life." Either way, the meaning is is identical.
 
Thank you Tyler.

Question 4.

In the sentence, “So it was under the Law precisely as now under Grace”, is “it” referring to “curse”?


Then as regards the statement often heard in these days, that those who were
under the law were under a curse, what Paul says is that "as many, as are of
the works of the law are under the curse" (Gal. 3:10) which is quite another
thing. For Paul is here remonstrating with those who were relying for their
salvation upon the rites and ceremonies (the "works") of the law, upon
circumcision, keeping of days and the like. "A man," he says, "is not justified by
the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:16). So it was
under the Law precisely as now under Grace. And it should not be necessary to
say that a man can no more be saved by christian rites and observances
(baptism, the Lord's supper, keeping holy days etc.) than by those of Judaism.
So the apostle declared in another place, saying, that "Israel, which followed
after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore?" (Was it because righteousness was unattainable by the law? Not
at all; but) "Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of
the law" (Rom. 11:7); and as we have seen from the word of Christ Himself,
faith is one of "the weightier matters of the law"; and of course no amount of
"the works of the law" will serve instead.
 
Hello Nathan,

I believe "it" in the sentence you highlight refers to justification, which is what is being discussed, and what Gal 2:16 is about. I would read it like this, "So it [justification] was under the Law precisely as now under Grace, [by faith]." As it is written in Habakkuk 2:4, "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." It was so even in the OT.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Hello Nathan,

I believe "it" in the sentence you highlight refers to justification, which is what is being discussed, and what Gal 2:16 is about. I would read it like this, "So it [justification] was under the Law precisely as now under Grace, [by faith]." As it is written in Habakkuk 2:4, "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." It was so even in the OT.
Click to expand...

Thank you Jerusalem Blade. Do you think, perhaps, "it" could be referring to "faith", since pronouns substitutes nouns? "justified" isn't a noun.
 
"So it was" is a colloquialism, otherwise put: "So it happened, or came to be." The language refers to the condition that was reality in the past. "So it is," is a present-tense way of conveying the same thought, as otherwise: "It is now the case that..."

Thus, the highlighted sentence can be paraphrased: "In time of the Law (now past) conditions were no different then than is now in the time of Grace particularly of the case in consideration, i.e. respecting Justification: ever was and still is through the instrumentality of faith, works failing in all ages."
 
Contra_Mundum said:
"So it was" is a colloquialism, otherwise put: "So it happened, or came to be." The language refers to the condition that was reality in the past. "So it is," is a present-tense way of conveying the same thought, as otherwise: "It is now the case that..."

Thus, the highlighted sentence can be paraphrased: "In time of the Law (now past) conditions were no different then than is now in the time of Grace particularly of the case in consideration, i.e. respecting Justification: ever was and still is through the instrumentality of faith, works failing in all ages."
Click to expand...

Thank you again Rev. Bruce. This was a tough one for me.
 
Question 5.

In the underlined sentence below, "...to fulfill introductory to the coming of the One...", the word "introductory" is being used as a noun. However, I checked Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, and it defines "introductory" as an adjective: "being or belonging to an introduction or serving to introduce : PRELIMINARY, PREFATORY <an introductory section of a book> <an introductory course in mathematics> <remarks introductory to a main speaker>".

How can that sentence be fixed or rewritten, or was that exactly what the author meant to write?


Further in chapter III of Galatians, Paul takes up the question whether the law is
against the promises of God" (v. 21). According to dispensational teaching the
answer would be "yes." For, as we have seen, the so-called "dispensation of
promise," which embraced the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and their
descendants for several generations, terminated at Mt. Sinai where Israel
"rashly accepted the law"; and thereupon a new dispensation (the law, with its
ministry of condemnation, death and the curse, and with a character and ruling
principles totally different) was inaugurated. Thus it is clearly the teaching of
the Scofield Bible that the law is against the promises of God. But Paul rejects
with indignation the idea that "the law" is in anywise contrary to "the promises of
God," saying: "God forbid" (v. 21); and he goes on to show that the law had a
great purpose to fulfill introducto ry to the coming of the One who was to
accomplish eternal righteousness and to be the Fountain of eternal life to all
the world. For he says: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster"; and what
for? "to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (v. 24). And he
adds: "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (v.
25). So far, therefore, from speaking with disparagement of that divinely-given
"schoolmaster," or saying that his ministry was useless and worse, he shows
that it was most necessary and important. It did not vacate the previously given
promises. It did not introduce a new era characterized by contradictory
principles; but "It was added" (to what God had previously done) "because of
transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (v.
19). And a further purpose of the law, in preparation for the gospel, was "that
every mouth might be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD BECOME GUILTY
BEFORE GOD" (Rom. 3:19).
 
No, introductory not being used as a noun. The adjective is being used to modify the noun "purpose."

Rephrased: "The law had a great, introductory purpose to fulfill: [introductory relative to] the coming of the One..." or alternatively, "...to introduce the coming of the One..."
 
Contra_Mundum said:
No, introductory not being used as a noun. The adjective is being used to modify the noun "purpose."

Rephrased: "The law had a great, introductory purpose to fulfill: [introductory relative to] the coming of the One..." or alternatively, "...to introduce the coming of the One..."
Click to expand...

Perfect! I would never have figured that out. The more I read older texts such as this one, the more familiar I'm becoming with the grammar styles of those times. Thank you again!
 
Thanks for your clarification, Bruce. Nathan, re your post #10, "justification" is a noun. Instead of "it" it could be translated "faith that justifies", or "justification by faith", or "justifying faith"; I prefer the second. "It" refers to one concept comprised of the two elements. I must commend you for the precision and fidelity to the original you are seeking to attain--not an easy job!
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Thanks for your clarification, Bruce. Nathan, re your post #10, "justification" is a noun. Instead of "it" it could be translated "faith that justifies", or "justification by faith", or "justifying faith"; I prefer the second. "It" refers to one concept comprised of the two elements. I must commend you for the precision and fidelity to the original you are seeking to attain--not an easy job!
Click to expand...

Thank you Jerusalem Blade. Today, I finished translating the third chapter. It is quite a tiring process to translate an older text such as this one, but I pray that it will set free many Brazilians who believe in dispensationalism.

I appreciate all the help that has been offered to me. Pray that this translation, as well as Rev. Gunn's An Abbreviaed Critique of Dispensationalism, which I also have finished translating, may set free many people that believe in this system.
 
Question 6.

I don't understand the underlined sentence below. How can it be rewritten in a more modern style?


How is it possible, I ask, for any who undertake to explain the Scriptures to
arrive at the conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" which actually was "at
hand," is not the "Kingdom of God" which the Lord said to be "at hand"; or, (to
state it the other way) that the "Kingdom of God" which the Lord publicly
declared at hand, proved to be not at hand at all; whereas, marvelous to relate!
another "Kingdom of God" whereof He made no mention, was at hand?
 
First, the clause: "marvelous to relate" is an aside, a parenthetical remark (without this punctuation).

It appears, in this context, that this is a sarcastic aside, in other words it is doubly ambiguous to a foreign reader.

So, he asks how such and such is possible to conclude; then offers a second way of putting the issue into a confusing pair of contrasts (with an exclamation between them).
 
Contra_Mundum said:
First, the clause: "marvelous to relate" is an aside, a parenthetical remark (without this punctuation).

It appears, in this context, that this is a sarcastic aside, in other words it is doubly ambiguous to a foreign reader.

So, he asks how such and such is possible to conclude; then offers a second way of putting the issue into a confusing pair of contrasts (with an exclamation between them).
Click to expand...

Great! That was another tough one for me.
 
Question 7.


What does "take a little pains" mean?
So far, I thought about translating that portion as "put a bit of effort", but I don't know if that is the correct interpretation.


But the attempt is an impossibility. In fact the editor himself abandons it
completely after carrying it partly through the Gospel of Matthew. Anyone can
see this for himself who will take a little pains to examine the matter. For we
have to begin with the bold but unfounded assumption that the words
"Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" in our Lord's lips meant the earthly
kingdom of Israel.
 
That's accurate. "Pains" is wordplay, a figure of speech (metonymy) in which an effect is put for the cause; in this case pain (ache, strain) in place of effort.

He's not asking for much, he says; just a little.
 
Question 8.

To what word(s) is the adverb "thereon" referring to in this sentence: "...the sufferings of Christ and the eternal and spiritual kingdom...that was to be founded thereon"?


We see then that, according to Scripture, the Lord proclaimed the Kingdom of
God as "at hand" from the very beginning to the very end of His public ministry;
and that, so far from abandoning the proclamation, He gave it a wider publicity
toward the end. The notes of the "Scofield Bible" flatly contradict this clear
record, and say that the testimony of the kingdom was ended about the time of
the beheading of John the Baptist. And what is most remarkable is the fact that
long after the time when, according to the "Scofield Bible," the announcement
of the kingdom ceased, the Lord's messengers were, by His special command,
making that very announcement everywhere with the added words "Be ye sure
of this." We see then that the rejection of the message by the Jews was not to
change the declared purpose of God; and how could anyone have supposed
for a moment that it would? Indeed, the hatred and opposition of the Jews did
but serve to accomplish the eternal purpose of God; and their attention was
called to that fact by the apostle Peter, who, after accusing them of having
"killed the Prince of Life," went on to say: "But those things, which God before
had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath
so fulfilled" (Acts 3:13-18).

Here again is a Scripture which tells plainly what was the great topic of all the
prophets of God; and which also tells plainly that it was not the restoration of
the Jewish nation, but the sufferings of Christ and the eternal and spiritual
kingdom, "the Kingdom which cannot be shaken," that was to be founded
thereon.
 
Christ's "sufferings"--this was the "great topic" obsession of the prophets; and to the extent a kingdom was factored in, it was the one founded on it/them (the sufferings are here thought of as one thing). It was not a perpetuation of the Moses-theocracy capturing the prophetic imagination (though they spoke in just those terms that should resonate with the hearers). The old kingdom had another basis, an inferior basis compared with the latter foundation.

This, by the way, is what is meant when it is said: Moses is the servant in Christ's house, not the other way around. Christ doesn't work for Moses. Christ builds the permanent house, Heb.3:3. Christ is the Mediator of the better covenant, so Moses (the Siniatic covenant) doesn't call the shots. Jesus' humiliating period "under the Law" (Gal.4:4) had a particular redemptive purpose; and that business is DONE, Amen.
 
Question 9.

For what noun could I substitute the word "realm" in this context? It seems "realm" has different definitions: kingdom, sphere, domain, territory etc.

My first choice is to substitute "realm" for the term "kingdom".


I HAVE sought to show in the preceding pages that the Kingdom of God
which was the subject of Christ's preaching and teaching is just what all
Christians have understood it to be until recent times, that is, a purely spiritual
realm; and further that it had not been postponed when His parting words to
His disciples were spoken (Acts 1:3).
 
Last edited:
Question 10.

Is "treasurers" actually supposed to be "treasures"?

So far, I understood "treasurers" to mean: "one having official charge of treasure; especially : a guardian of a collection of treasures (as in a cathedral church : CURATOR" (Merriam-Webster).


In view of the peculiarly tender affection with which the Lord's people,
throughout the centuries of our era, have regarded the four Gospels, and of the
fact that those particular parts of the Word of God have ever been specially
cherished by all the household of faith, it is a mystery indeed, one of the
greatest of "the mysteries of the Kingdom," how this new doctrine, which takes
away from the redeemed people of God their priceless treasurers, and
relegates them to a conjectural future generation of "Israel after all flesh," has
ever found even a foothold among them.
 
Last edited:
Question 11.

I don't understand the meaning of the expression "upon the score of" in the last sentence.


Here is a statement of fact; but one for which not a scrap of evidence has ever
been produced, and for which, I confidently declare, not a scrap of evidence
exists. The history of christian doctrine continues in an unbroken line from
apostolic times to our day; and if it had been possible to produce from the
copious writings of the "Church fathers," any proof that the doctrine concerning
the Kingdom of God taught by the Scofield Bible and by certain Bible Schools
of our day was ever held by christians, real or nominal, in times past, it would
have been produced long ago; seeing that the present writer and not a few
others have been challenging this new doctrine, and largely upon the score of
its entire novelty, for ten years past.
 
brjesusfreak said:
For what noun could I substitute the word "realm" in this context?
Click to expand...

"Kingdom" is fine. Without being able to guarantee knowledge of the author's precise, possibly nuanced choice, one can say in general that the word "realm" often brings to mind the whole scope (in earthly, territorial terms: to the limits north, south, east, west) where a particular monarch enforces his will.

brjesusfreak said:
"...seeing that the present writer and not a few others have been challenging this new doctrine, and largely upon the score of
its entire novelty, for ten years past."
Click to expand...

"Score" means "ground" or "reason" in this place.

"...since I with many critics have for ten years challenged this fresh doctrine, and especially on this ground: that it is utterly newfangled."
 
Contra_Mundum said:
brjesusfreak said:
For what noun could I substitute the word "realm" in this context?
Click to expand...

"Kingdom" is fine. Without being able to guarantee knowledge of the author's precise, possibly nuanced choice, one can say in general that the word "realm" often brings to mind the whole scope (in earthly, territorial terms: to the limits north, south, east, west) where a particular monarch enforces his will.

brjesusfreak said:
"...seeing that the present writer and not a few others have been challenging this new doctrine, and largely upon the score of
its entire novelty, for ten years past."
Click to expand...

"Score" means "ground" or "reason" in this place.

"...since I with many critics have for ten years challenged this fresh doctrine, and especially on this ground: that it is utterly newfangled."
Click to expand...

Thank you Rev. Bruce, that was very helpful.

Do you know how to solve Question 10 concerning the term "treasurers"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top