THE GOSPEL OF THE
KINGDOM
With an Examination of
DISPENSATIONALISM and the
"Scofield Bible"
By Philip
Mauro
Chapter 6: The Gospels: To What "Dispensation" Do They Belong?
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 disci ples were spoken (Acts 1:3). I do not
see how any testimonies as to this could possibly be clearer or
stronger than those we have cited from all the four Gospels; or how, in
the light of our Lord's own words, there can be any question that the
long accepted Christian doctrine as to the true Israel and as to the
Kingdom foretold by tile prophets, is founded squarely upon Christ's
own teaching. Yet the "Scofield Bible" as serts (in its "Introduction
to the Gospels") that the long accepted views of Christ's followers
concerning those supremely important subjects, were not derived from
His teaching:, but were "a legacy in Protestant thought from
post-apostolic and Roman Catholic theology."
The statements in this note are so radical, and they involve matters of
such superlative importance to all mankind, that I purpose now to give
them a thorough examination in the light of the Old Testament, as well
as in that of the New. For those statements raise a question both as to
"the Old Testament foreview of the Kingdom," and also as to what
Kingdom it was that Jesus Christ announced as at hand.
But before undertaking that examination, there is something that should
be said as to the truly calami tous effects of such a note as that just
referred to (quoted more fully below) when placed at the fore front of
the Gospels. It is a specimen of the means whereby it is sought to
fabricate a semblance of sup port for the novel and exceedingly
pernicious doctrine that the life and ministry of our Lord belong--not
to this era of grace, to "these last days" in which God has "spoken
unto us by His Son" (Heb. 1: 1, 2), but--to the era of law; and that
the commandments of God the Father spoken by Jesus Christ (specially
the Ser mon on the Mount) pertain--not to those who are saved by grace
now, but--to the Jewish people, a re constituted earthly nation of a
yet future "dispensa tion."
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 mys teries 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.
We will now take notice of the way the Gospels are handled in the notes
of the Scofield Bible with the in tent to make an opening for the new
doctrine we are examining. That publication, in its "Introduction to
the Gospels," says:
"In approaching the study of the Gospels the mind should be freed, so
far as possible from mere theolog ical concepts and presuppositions.
Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion-- a legacy in Protest
ant thought from post-Apostolic and Roman Catholic theology-- that the
church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the
kingdom is fulfilled in the church."
First we have here what appears to be merely a gen eral word of
caution; namely, that "in approaching the study of the Gospels," we
should free our minds "from mere theological concepts and
pre-suppositions." This seems reasonable enough; for who would dispute
that it were well to have our minds freed from mere theo logical
concepts, not only "when approaching the study of the Gospels," but at
all times?
But Dr. Scofield was not concerned, when he penned the above words,
with "theological concepts and pre suppositions" in general. For his
aim plainly was to cast discredit upon the view always held by the
house hold of faith touching the Kingdom of God the Gospel of God and
the Words of Jesus Christ, and to intro duce in its stead a new
doctrine radically different there from.
The editor of the Scofield Bible was aware, of course, that the great
theme of the Gospels is the King dom of God; for that is evident to the
most careless reader, and further he must have known that, from the
very beginning of the Christian era it had been accepted as
indisputable truth that, not only the prophecies con cerning the
glorious reign of David's promised Son, but also the announcements by
John the Baptist and Christ Himself that the Kingdom of heaven was at
hand, had their realization and fulfilment in that Kingdom of God' s
dear Son, into which those who are saved through faith in Jesus Christ
are forthwith translated (Col. 1:12,13). He must have known it to be
the universal, age-long, and elemental teaching of Christianity, that
the Kingdom foretold by the prophets, and that announced by the lord
and His forerunner, was realized in the blessed company of those who
are called and saved through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And since it
was the editor's purpose to introduce to his readers a kingdom-doctrine
"diverse" from the above, and "strange" to Christian ears, he must
needs begin by an attempt to discredit and to shake their confidence in
the long established and universally accepted Christian doctrine of the
Kingdom of God. This he pro ceeds to do in the two sentences quoted
above.
The first sentence deals in generalities, the obvious intent being to
create suspicion of the accepted teach ing by referring to it
contemptuously as a "mere theo logical concept." The second sentence,
however, is quite explicit. Here the accepted doctrine of the king dom
is termed a "notion"; and the assertion is boldly made that it is
"necessary to exclude" it. Why "neces sary"? For no other reason, so
far as appears, than that it stands squarely in the way of the new
doctrine the editor and those of his way of thinking have under taken
to propagate. We do not question in the least that their intentions are
good, their motives pure, and their purposes sincere. But that does not
make their doctrine any the less a startling innovation and a dan
gerous heresy. Most certainly it is "necessary to ex clude" either that
doctrine concerning the Kingdom of God which all Christians have held
from the beginning of the gospel era, or else to exclude this new
doctrine that is now offered as a substitute; for there is irrecon
cilable antagonism between them. It is some satisfaction to me that Dr.
Scofield recognized this; for it makes quite evident that a sharp issue
has been raised, and that a choice must be made between the two
conflicting views.
But now we come to a more serious matter. For the assertion is made
that this "notion" is ~ not pro perly a part of true Protestant
doctrine at all, but merely "a legacy in Protestant thought from
post-apostolic and Roman Catholic theology."
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
chal lenging this new doctrine, and largely upon the score of its
entire novelty, for ten years past.
My first answer therefore, to the above quoted state ment is that it is
not true; and that on the contrary the teaching here referred to as a
"notion," and as a legacy from post-apostolic theology is the teaching
of the New Testament itself, and has been the teaching also of sound
and evangelical teachers and expositors of the Bible from the days of
the Apostles to the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Furthermore, the assertion in the above quotation from the Scofield
Bible that what is therein termed a "notion" is a legacy from "Roman
Catholic theology" is an evil mixture of innuendo and
misrepresentation. If it were true that Roman Catholic theology teaches
the same doctrine of the Kingdom of God that has been accepted
heretofore by all evangelical christians, that fact would be not at all
to the discredit of the doctrine itself. It would be just as fair and
just as reasonable to attempt to cast discredit upon the doctrine of
the Deity of Christ, or that of His bodily resurrection, or that of the
inspiration of the Scriptures, by pointing to the fact that Rome has
given a place to those doc trines in her theology.
But the truth of the matter is that the Romish doc trine of the
Kingdom, in the respects wherein it differs from the accepted
Protestant doctrine, presents a striking resemblance to ancient
rabbinism and to modern dispensationalism. For the essential feature of
each of those three systems of error is that "the Old Testament
foreview of the Kingdom" was a Kingdom of earthly character. In respect
to that cardinal feature of the great kingdom heresy, Judaism,
Dispensational ism, and Romanism are all in perfect agreement. Where
they differ among themselves is that the first two say the earthly
Kingdom foretold by the prophets was to be Jewish, and the last says it
was to be Romish --and as between those two variant views it makes
little difference, to my mind, which is preferred.
And not only is the new "dispensational teaching" in accord with both
Judaism and Romanism in holding the Kingdom of God to be of earthly
character, but it is, in respect to another of its distinctive
features, closely akin to another great heresy of today, Russell ism.
For the outstanding doctrine of the latter is that, following this
gospel era, there is to be another "dis pensation" (the Millennium) in
which salvation is to be on a wholesale scale. Dispensationalism does
not go to the length of teaching that there is to be universal
salvation in a coming day; but it comes dangerously close to it. For it
avers that every person of Jewish descent is to be saved; and that they
will be constituted into a nation on earth. And further it is sometimes
expressly taught by dispensationalists, and always is implied in their
doctrine, that there will then be other saved nations (and indeed none
but saved nations) in the world; for it is a prominent feature of this
teach ing that the Jews are to be the chief of the nations, and in some
sense are to exercise authority over all the na tions on earth. So this
comes, I say, dangerously close to Russellism.
But if there be any truth at all in this doctrine of abounding
salvation in a coming day, it is clear that the apostle Paul did
greatly err in saying, "Behold, NOW is the day of salvation" (2 Cor.
6:2): for that designation would justly belong to the coming Millennium.
I expect to return to this subject in a subsequent chapter.
back to
index