THE GOSPEL OF THE
KINGDOM
With an Examination of
DISPENSATIONALISM and the
"Scofield Bible"
By Philip
Mauro
Let us
at this point inquire what,
if any, support the Bible lends to the basic idea of modern
dispensationalism,
namely, that God has divided all time (past and future) into seven
distinct and
clearly distinguishable "dispensations;" and that in each of those
"dispensations" He deals with mankind upon a special plan and upon
peculiar principles that differ from those of all the others.
WHAT IS A
"DISPENSATION"?
And first, as regards the meaning
of the word itself, it is easily to be seen, that the Biblical meaning
thereof
is radically different from that assigned to it by the "Scofield
Bible," where it is stated that:--
"A dispensation is a period
of time during which man is tested in respect to some specific
revelation of
the Will of God" (note to Gen. 1:28).
But in our English Version of the
Scriptures the word "dispensation" is not in a single instance used
to designate a period of time. Paul says, "a dispensation of the gospel
is
committed to me" (I Cor. 9:17 ); that is to say, the gospel had been
entrusted to him to be dispensed by him. And the word has a like
signification
in other passages, all its occurrences being in the writings of the
apostle
Paul. Thus in Ephesians 1:10 is a reference to "the dispensation of the
fulness of the times"; and the apostle is there speaking of that which
God
had purposed to administer or dispense in these last days. ("The
fulness
of the time," according to Galatians 4:4, is the era when "God sent
forth His Son.").
Again in Ephesians 3:2 Paul speaks
of "the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to
you-ward"; the meaning being that the ministry given him was to
dispense
the grace of God to the Gentiles.
And lastly, in Colossians 1:25 he
refers to "the dispensation of God," that had been given him,
"to fulfill the word of God"; the reference being to that which God
had made him responsible to administer or dispense, in fulfilment of
the word
of God concerning His previously concealed purpose as to the salvation
of the
Gentiles. These are all the occurrences of the word.
In the English Version of the
Bible, therefore, the word "dispensation" means always administration
or stewardship. Our English word "economy", comes directly from the
Greek word rendered, "dispensation" in the four passages above
referred to. It is to be deplored that a biblical word of definite
signification should have been chosen for the purpose of this new
system of
doctrine, and a radically different meaning assigned to it.
Then further we are told, in the
words of a prominent dispensationalist, that each of these seven
distinct
periods of time has "a character exclusively its own," being
"wholly complete and sufficient in itself," that it "is in no
wise exchangeable for the others, and cannot be commingled." That is to
say, each "dispensation" has its own peculiar and distinguishing
characteristics, insomuch that, when one succeeds another, there is a
complete
and radical change in the character and principles of God's dealings
with the
world. So say the dispensationalists; but I find in the Scriptures no
evidence
to support the statement. On the contrary, I find that, in every age
and era,
God has accepted those who believed Him and refused those who
disbelieved Him.
Salvation has always been "by grace, through faith," and upon the
ground of the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the
world. Adam and Eve and Abel and Enoch and Noah and Abraham and David
were one
and all saved precisely as we are.
WHY SEVEN DISPENSATIONS?
And now, what warrant is there for
the statement that "seven such dispensations are distinguished in the
Scripture" (Scofield Bible, note to Gen. (1:28)? And how does the
Scripture distinguish them?
The correct answer is that there
are no "such dispensations distinguished in the Scripture." The
method by which they have been arrived at is purely arbitrary,
fanciful, and
destitute of scriptural support; the method being to select arbitrarily
some
epoch, such as the Exodus, and say "here began a new dispensation."
But obviously the number seven is entirely arbitrary; for it is
possible, by
the method described, to divide human history as recorded in the
Scriptures
into any desired number of "dispensations." One is at liberty to take
any and every important era as the beginning of the era of the Judges,
of that
of the Israelitish kingdom, that of its division into two parts, the
Assyrian
captivity, the return from Babylon, the destruction of Jerusalem, the
preaching
of Christ to the Gentiles (Acts X) , and say, "Here began a new
dispensation";
and he would have for his dispensational scheme all the warrant that
our
dispensationalists have for their's -- that is to say, none at all.
And if one who searched the
Scriptures for indications of dispensational divisions were to assert
that
there was one dispensation that extended from Abraham to David, another
from
David to the Babylonian captivity, and another from the Babylonian
captivity to
Christ, he might refer to Matthew 1:17 as lending support to his
scheme;
whereas for the dispensational system set forth in the Scofield Bible
there is
no semblance of any scriptural proof.
In laying out its scheme of the
seven dispensations the Scofield Bible makes the first to be the
dispensation
of "Innocence," and has not much to say about that. The second we are
told, is that of "Conscience," which began, our authority asserts, at
the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. But where is there a scrap of
evidence
to support the idea that this period was distinguished in any special
way as regards
God's dealings with men, from later times? or that "conscience figured
in
it any more conspicuously than in other periods? To fulfil the
definitions
given by the dispensationalists themselves, it is necessary that
"conscience" should characterize this period exclusively; for there
must be "no commingling." But the fact is that nothing is said in the
Scriptures, either directly or by implication concerning the human
conscience
during that period of history, or concerning man's being left in those
remote
times to the voice of his conscience; whereas, on the other hand, much
is said
in the New Testament about the part conscience is to have in shaping
our
conduct in this gospel era and as to the importance of having a "good
conscience," a "pure conscience," a "conscience void of
offense"; and about what we are to do "for conscience' sake."
Thus the whole system breaks down
at this initial stage; for manifestly it is impossible to confine the
operations of the human conscience to the comparatively unknown period
that
extends from the fall of man to the flood.
Third Dispensation. This is said
to embrace the period extending from the flood to the call of Abraham;
and we
are told that this was the dispensation of HUMAN GOVERNMENT. (Scofield
Bible,
note to Gen. 8:20). But upon what evidence, I ask, can it be asserted
that God
was in any special sense (much less in an exclusive sense) dealing with
the
world, during that era of time, through the medium of "human
government"? The fact is that there is no mention at all of human
government during that period. The only recorded event belonging to it
is the
building of the tower of Babel; and there is no indication of human
government
in connection with that event. The building of that tower was not
begun,
continued or ended at the command of a human governor. On the contrary,
what we
read is that:--
"It came to pass as they
journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar;
and
they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make
brick . . .
and let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto
heaven; and
let us make us a name" (Gen. 11:1-4).
There is no trace of human
government here. But now, in this gospel era we are specially commanded
to be
in subjection to human governmental authorities,--kings, rulers, and
magistrates of lesser degree; and are instructed by the Scriptures that
"the powers that be are ordained of God," and the civil magistrate is
"the minister of God" (Rom. 13:14; Tit. 3:1; I Pet. 2:13, 14). Is not
this quite enough to show that the scheme of seven distinct
dispensations is
the product of the human imagination, and destitute of biblical
support? Are we
not justified in concluding without going further into the subject,
that the
reason why the discerning Bible students of past centuries did not find
the
seven dispensations in the Scriptures is that they are not there?
But let us nevertheless pursue the
interesting subject a little further, and give heed to what is said
concerning
The Fourth Dispensation. This, according
to the same authority, was the dispensation of "Promise" (S. B. note
on Gen. 12:1); and it extended from the call of Abraham to the giving
of the
law at Mt. Sinai. This period embraced the lives of Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and
Joseph. In it occurred the multiplication of their seed in Egypt, the
afflictions they endured in that land, their miraculous deliverance out
of it
by the hand of Moses, and the giving to them of the law of God with the
"statutes and judgments," which prescribed for that people the
worship of God and defined their relations and duties to one another.
Now I
ask, wherein was that period in any special sense the "dispensation of
Promise"? There were indeed promises given to the fathers of Israel
during
that period; but there had been promises given previously, notably that
grand,
all-embracing, most glorious promise recorded in Genesis 3:15,
concerning the
Seed of the woman; a promise that includes both "the sufferings of
Christ," the coming Redeemer of the world, and also "the glories that
should follow." There was also the world-embracing promise given to
Noah
(Gen 9:9-17). And there were also promises in profusion in subsequent
times, as
for example in the era of "the law and the prophets." And it is
needless to say that the New Testament Scriptures simply abound in
"exceeding great and precious promises." So there is not the
slightest warrant for marking off the centuries during which the
natural
descendants of Jacob were being multiplied into a nation, and making
that era a
"dispensation" specially characterized by divine promises.
The Fifth Dispensation. This is
said to be the dispensation of "Law," and it is put in the strongest
possible contrast to 'the next succeeding "dispensation," that of
"Grace." And further we are told that "This dispensation [of
Law] extends from Sinai to Calvary; from the Exodus to the Cross; from
Ex.
19:8, to Matt. 27:35" (S. B. notes).
Here is where some of the most
serious evils of dispensationalism come clearly into view; for the
aspersions
which the teachers of that system cast upon the holy law of God
constitute in
their totality a complete and grievous misrepresentation thereof; and
in
certain extreme instances they assume the character of slanderous
vilification.
But before glancing at some of these, let it be noted that the much
maligned
"dispensation of law" is said to have embraced the entire lifetime of
our Lord--"from Ex. 19:8 to Matt. 27:35"; for it is one of the points
upon which the dispensationalists mainly insist, that the Gospels
belong to the
era of law, and not to that of grace; which I am bold to say is
palpable and
pernicious error. For as regards the termination of the era of the law,
we have
the word of our Lord that "The Law and the prophets were"--not until
Calvary, but--"until John; since that time the kingdom o[ God is
preached" (Lu. 16:16). And in agreement with this it is written: "For
the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"
(John 1:17).
These Scriptures declare in the
plainest terms that the life and words and works of our Lord "in the
days
of His flesh," including the "Sermon on the Mount" (concerning
which we have something special to say) belong, not in the twilight era
of the
law of Moses, but in the full daylight era of "grace and truth." They
also make it plain that the era of "the Kingdom of God" followed
immediately upon that of "the law and the prophets"; and further that
the era of "the Kingdom of God," and that of "grace and
truth" are one and the same. And this a matter of special importance
because, as I expect to point out in some detail later on, the humanly
concocted scheme of the "seven dispensations," which we are now
considering, has had the effect of blotting out, for those who accept
it, the
illuminating truth which the Scriptures reveal concerning the Two
Covenants,
"the old covenant," whereof Moses was the mediator, and "the new
covenant" whereof Jesus Christ is the Mediator. For the Bible clearly
distinguishes those two covenants and the eras to which they
respectively belong;
and moreover, upon that difference depends truth of the highest value.
Therefore, one object I have in view, in exposing the unfounded
character of
dispensationalism, is to clear the ground for the presentation of the
truth
concerning "THE TWO COVENANTS" (Gal. 4:24).
But apart from the palpable error
of placing our Lord's life and ministry in the era of law as
distinguished from
that of grace, the strongest exception is to be taken to the teaching
that
grace was entirely absent from the era of law, even as law is said to
be absent
from the era of grace; this being a two-fold error. And in this
connection I
would particularly like to ask those who hold that view, and who place
the
ministry of Christ in the dispensation of law, was not His ministry a
ministry
of grace? and were not His words "words of grace"? I wonder that this
grievous teaching does not evoke bursts of indignation from those who
love the
Lord and who are accustomed to go for their comforts to the Gospels.
This brings us to what the
"Scofield Bible" teaches concerning the holy law which God gave at
Mount Sinai to the people He had delivered out of the "iron furnace"
of Egypt. And first I call attention to these extraordinary statements:
"It is exceedingly important
to observe . . . that the Law was not imposed until it had been
proposed and
voluntarily accepted" (Note on Ex. 19:3). "At Sinai they (Israel)
exchanged Grace for Law. They rashly accepted the Law" (Note on Gen.
12:7).
Here we have in brief the teaching
(which is amplified in the writings of this new school of theology)
that Israel
was given an opportunity to choose between Law and Grace, that they
were put
under the law of God by their own choice; and further that they chose
"rashly," and hence made,-- not a bad choice merely, but-- one that
was fatal, if so be that the differences between Law and Grace are what
the
dispensationalists aver.
As to this I say, first of all,
that it is palpable error. For no choice was presented to Israel
between Law
and Grace, or between Law and any alternative. On the contrary, it was
an
essential part of God's plan in taking them out of Egypt, which He
accomplished
by signs and by wonders and by a mighty hand, that He might have a
people who
should be the custodians of His law. Thus, Psalm 105 recites the fact
that the
giving of the law was in fulfilment of God's covenant with Abraham (vv.
8-10).
And it goes on to recall how He delivered them out of Egypt by the hand
of
Moses and Aaron, led them by the pillar of cloud and fire, gave them
food in the
desert and water out of the rock; and all to the end "That they might
observe His statutes and keep His laws" (v. 45).
It is quite plain from the account
given in Exodus, and also from references to the wondrous event in many
later
Scriptures, that the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai was God's act
alone; and
also that it was an act of grace and goodness. The reason He gave them
His
"fiery law" was because "He loved the people." Yet the
teaching of the "Scofield Bible" is that the people of Israel made a
fatally bad choice in consenting to be under the law of God. The
statement that
"they rashly accepted the Law" implies that they acted without due
consideration, and did not know what they were doing or what would be
the
consequences of their rash choice. And this necessarily implies that
God acted
unfairly toward them; that He took advantage of their ignorance
concerning what
it meant to be "under the law," that He thus led them into a deadly
trap from which it was impossible thereafter for them or their
posterity to
extricate themselves.
But nothing could he farther from
the truth. For the gift of law to Israel was both a distinguished
honor, and an
unspeakable benefit. It gave them the knowledge of the true God; it
gave them a
way of access to Him for worship and for obtaining mercies and
blessings; it
gave them a sanctuary, a priesthood, acceptable sacrifices--including a
sin-offering--and promises such that, by meeting the fair and
reasonable
conditions, they might have been a "peculiar treasure" to God and
"a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" forever (Ex. 19:4,5).
Therefore, if it be asked, "What advantage then hath the Jew," over
all other nations in the world? the inspired answer is, "Much every
way.'
Chiefly because that UNTO THEM WERE COMMITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD" (Rom.
3
:1).
Most certainly the Scripture last
quoted could never have been written if Israel had been put under law
by their
own choice, and if their choice had been a bad one; for it declares
that the
Jew, so far from being put at a disadvantage, enjoyed much advantage
and in
every respect; and that the chief of all their advantages was that unto
them
had been committed the oracles of God--the law and the prophets.
This subject, however, is too
large and too important to receive proper notice at this stage of our
inquiry.
So we reserve it for further consideration later on.
The Sixth Dispensation. The sixth
place in the dispensational scheme we are examining is assigned to
Grace. And
well may we rejoice that "the grace o[ God that bringeth salvation hath
appeared" (Tit 2:11). But it is quite another thing to say that God's
Grace characterizes this era exclusively; that Law and Grace cannot be
commingled; and that "They are as far asunder as Mount Sinai and the
place
called Calvary, and can no more mingle than the iron and clay of
Nebuchadnezzar's dream-statue."
The truth in this regard is that
there was grace during the era of the Law, and that there is law during
this
era of the Gospel; that the New Covenant is the completion of the Old;
and that
the Gospel of God finishes the work that was begun by the Law of God.
It would
seem from the language our Lord used in Matthew 5 :17 that He had this
very
error in view; for His words were "Think not that I am come to destroy
the
law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." And
likewise Paul, in the question he asks and answers concerning the
Gospel:
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
establish
the law."
Further consideration of this
subject likewise must be deferred to a later chapter: so we will only
add that
the great difference between the past era and the present in respect to
the law
is that then the law of God was engraved upon tables of stone, whereas
now it
is written upon the hearts of His redeemed people (2 Cor. 3:3: Heb. 8
:10).
The Seventh Dispensation. This,
according to the most commonly held dispensational scheme, will be the
Millennium; though some give a dispensational place to a supposed
"great
tribulation," or "time of Jacob's trouble," which they hold to
be yet to come. But inasmuch as our present concern is not with any
conjectural
dispensations yet in the future, we shall pass this part of the general
subject
by without comment.
back to
index