Brethren Archive
The Year 1928

The Gospel of the Kingdom: An Examination of Modern Dispensationalism

by Philip Mauro

⚠️



Comments:
Marty said ...
A REVIEW OF MR. PHILIP MAURO'S BOOK,
"THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM"
Mr. Philip Mauro, in his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom," bitterly assaults dispensational truth, particularly as set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible, denouncing it as a "fabrication," "a humanly concocted scheme" not derived from the Bible but imposed on the Bible. Mr. Mauro advocates stopping the further pubHcation and sale of the Scofield Bible because it contains, in his opinion, "so grievous a misreprentation—amounting to vilification of the holy Law of God." He severely criticizes the late Dr. C. I. Scofield as a deceptive, misleading, dishonest Bible teacher who perverted the Scriptures to fit his theory of dispensational truth. Mr. Mauro writes his book as a challenge to all who believe in the literal, earthly, future reign of Jesus Christ.
Dr. I. M, Haldeman, for nearly fifty years the pastor of the First Baptist Church of New York City, has ably answered the challenge in his volume, "A Review of Mr. Philip Mauro's Book 'The Gospel of the Kingdom.' " He writes, "Dr. Scofield is not here. He cannot defend himself. But the Word of God defends him and sustains him." And throughout Dr. Haldeman's book, one is confronted by a mass of Scriptures in a continuous chain, producing overwhelming cumulative evidence that "the Word of God defends and sustains" Dr. Scofield's teaching of the millennial earthly kingdom of Christ.
Dr. Haldeman's vindication of dispensational truth is superb. He refutes Mr. Mauro's imaginative spiritualizing exegesis in masterly fashion. For example, in discussing Mr. Mauro's claim that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. was the second coming of Christ, Dr. Haldeman's keen analysis and biting satire expose the utter fallacy of Mr. Mauro's position in the light of the plain statements of the Word of God. Again Mr. Mauro in his determined effort to support his false notion that the Kingdom is not earthly, takes the prophecy that Christ will reign upon the earth executing judgment and justice, ruling the whole earth with righteous government—and actually declares this prophecy fulfilled today. Replying to this, Dr. Haldeman holds before us the condition of our sin-sick world with all its crime, war, greed, idolatry in heathen lands, Bolshevism, rebellion against the authority of man and God; and then he says,
"To say that in such an hour Jesus Christ, our Lord, is reigning as a King, prospering and executing judgment and justice in the earth, and thereby bringing the world in subjection to his own divine order and rest; if it were not such a self-evident untruth, so even without the shadow of a foundation in fact, it would seem like the utterance or statement of the veriest trifler, making light not merely of the Word of God, but the tragedy of a world full of sin, shame, and sorrow" (p. 205).
In this fashion Dr. Haldeman examines severally the arguments against dispensational truth, subjecting then one by one to the unanswerable logic of the Word of God and demonstrating them to be absolutely unsound.
Mr. Mauro's position represents a system of Bible interpretation long followed by many commentators and expositors, that of sapping the literal meaning out of the promises made to Israel by applying them to the Church. According to this system, when God said "Israel" or "Jerusalem", He meant the Church; He was using figurative language! This is the method of the flat-interpretationists who, like Mr. Mauro, ignores dispensational distinction. Dr. Haldeman calls this "the unspeakably pernicious and thievish principle of robbing the promises and prophecies of the Bible, of their literalness and spiritualizing every statement until the Scriptures become a nose of wax to be twisted into any shape to suit the theory which an inventive mind may suggest."
Mr. Mauro deserves the treatment he receives in the volume. He claims that God has utterly finished with the Jewish nation. This implies that God's unconditional covenant promise of earthly blessing upon Abraham and his descendants must fail. And further, in view of the fact (most important Bible study fact which is ignored by Mr. Mauro) that the nation Israel is God's photograph of the individual believing soul, Mr. Mauro's claim logical amounts to the denial of the eternal security of the believer. Therefore Mr. Mauro deserves to be branded as Dr. Haldeman brands him, "a dangerous teacher, misapplying Scripture, misplacing truth, perverting it, and thus, dishonoring the Word of God."
Dr. Haldeman's review bristles with interest; using the keen edge of sarcasm with a skilled hand in a righted cause, in the defense of truth, he cuts clean through Mr. Mauro's blunders one by one in a thorough-going manner such as affords the reader the satisfaction of seeing Truth ably vindicated.
Mr. Mauro is given the thrashing of his life. Dr. Haldeman's logic is incontrovertible. His stand is soundly scriptural. His book is a classic; read it and be delighted.
"A REVIEW OF MR PHILIP MAURO'S 'THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM,'
by I. M Haldeman, D.D.
"Grace and Truth" 1932
Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 : 06:45
Syd said ...
Important for readers to take note of—some material on this website, like Mauro’s views on dispensationalism, departs from Scriptural truth. AJ Pollock also exposes the error of Mauro’s writings in his examination—https://www.brethrenarchive.org/people/aj-pollock/pamphlets/a-brief-examination-of-mr-philip-mauros-later-views-on-dispensational-truth/—and John Bloore in the preface of Pollock’s piece, says its “a useful exposure of Mr. Mauro's fallacious teaching.”
Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 : 20:17
Mark said ...

It should be understood that on this website is the availabilty of primary sources for research into the various aspects of the "Brethren Movement" so called. 

It does not mean that the one placing the various documents and manuscripts on it agrees with everything expressed in them any more than with the ones in the Christian Brethren Archive in the John Rylands Library at Manchester University. Those who turn to it ought to be aware of that. 

It needs to be kept in mind when studying the history of "brethren" that those in every section of it think they are in the right bit! Several companies claim to be the "original brethren" or the "primitive company" - and they cannot all be right on that, can they? Obviously not! 

The danger when looking into this matter is to accept the opinions found in secondary sources. Tertiary sources are even more unreliable. 

Hence the value of this website in being able to seek out information from those who were there at the time, evaluate from all sides, and importantly, to study the scriptures in the spirit of the Bereans.

Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 : 21:54
Jonathan said ...
Mark, I'm puzzled that you have a number of times claimed that many sections of brethren think they are the original or primitive company, but I don't see evidence for this statement. Most sections of brethren which I have come across would actively reject such a view.
Thursday, Feb 23, 2023 : 07:18
Tom said ...

Well it is common for the Exclusive groups to believe they are the inherent descendents of the 'primitive company', or the only ones on the 'ground of the One Body' etc. If you look at the circle chart in Noel which shows the 'primitive company' at the center, and every section, bar the one the author is in, as a schism, I would suggest that was, and is, common thinking. Certainly the TWs and the Taylor break-offs hold it. Indeed the Renton section of the Taylors holds that anyone who left before June 1970 was wrong. In theory the KLC's are not mean to hold it, but I've heard it taught by prominent teachers. One said to me 'how could God have two seperate comapnies gathered to His Name in the same place. Many of the conservative Gsopel Hall groups effectively believe the same thing, ie. that they are the only true Church, or they are the actual Assembly in any given place.

By the way, without wantint to sound pedandic or disappoint anyone, another thing I often heard, was the phrase 'Brethren doesn't have a captial B'. In the context it is used in the last two comments, ie. a proper noun, i'm pretty sure it should do according to English gramatical rules!

Thursday, Feb 23, 2023 : 14:32
C Gribben said ...
The Oxford English Dictionary cites this title as the first usage of "dispensationalism." (I suspect there might be one or two earlier examples.) Compare Google ngram searches for "dispensation," "dispensational," "dispenationalist," and "dispensationalism." The first two terms have c19th origins, but not clear that the others do!
Saturday, Feb 25, 2023 : 02:55
Syd said ...
Dr Daniel Hummel, a very competent historian, during an interview on his recent book, “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism,” said that the term “dispensationalism” was first used by Philip Mauro. With good insight, he also said that JN Darby “would not respond to the term “dispensationalism”—meaning, as I understand him, that Darby would view the modern knowledge and use of it as a scripturally unintelligent attempt of men trying to systematise the ways and dealings of God. Darby never used the word “dispensationalism” and from what I have read, never reduced it to a system of theology, nor did he specify that there were a certain number of dispensations. But he clearly explained what a dispensation was, how God tested man and how he failed in every case of his stewardship during that period.
And by the way, Darby would have vehemently objected to the notion that he is regarded by some as "the father of dispensationalism." Perhaps others have better facts on any “system” of Darby’s on the dispensations.
Thursday, Sep 28, 2023 : 03:41
SeekingrealTruth said ...
Marty said, "This implies that God's unconditional covenant promise of earthly blessing upon Abraham and his descendants"

This is a common statement by those who refuse to believe Paul the Apostle to the Gentile.
Abraham is one generation removed from Israel, and he has descendants that are not Israelites. By claiming that the jews are the only people who are promised the land is to ignore Abrahams other descendants were recipients of the promise of the land.
But what did Paul focus on, which is taken OUT OF CONTEXT VERY OFTEN to say was a blessing God promised the jews? Gen 12:1-3 for context, "1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Now, did God say this to Jacob who became Israel and the father of it? Or did he say this to ABRAM before he became Abraham? And who is the SEED that will be the blessing to all the earth? "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Galatians 3:16.
NOW, what one group has CURSED Abraham's seed, Jesus more than any other, and has even in their SATANIC talmud that Jesus is the product of a roman soldier and his prostitute mother MARY, and that Jesus is boiling in excrement?
What group did Jesus say he would take the Kingdom of God FROM in explanation of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in Matthew 21:33–46?
Here is what he said TO THE JEWS, "41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (also see Mark 12:1–12 and Luke 20:9-19) And who was the Kingdom given to? To those who accept the Lord Jesus as their Savior, who said MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD. And what is said of Jerusalem in Revelation 11: 7 "And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that rises from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."
It is SPIRITUAL SODOM AND EGYPT. Which is why Jesus said he will not be back until the REAL Jews say, "Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord". He will not come back until that happens AND the AntiChrist is revealed in a FALSE temple made of hands sitting on the throne placed in it proclaiming himself as god. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
And what is the day that Paul is talking about?
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

This is just the opposite of what dispensationalism teaches, they teach that Jesus could appear at any moment, but PAUL the Apostle to the Gentiles teaches that that day of Christ IS NOT AT HAND, until you see the great falling away, and the man of sin sit in the fake temple in Jerusalem, and that day will not come until the Jews say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Dispensationalism is a FALSE doctrine by a FALSE teacher who put his words in a book called the BIBLE. A False teacher who cheated people out of their investments and left his first wife in an unbliblical way.
Monday, Jun 24, 2024 : 00:55
Mark Best said ...

I cannot let pass the above comment by “SeekingrealTruth” and not respond in some measure. 

That there is such an event as the Rapture is taught in the Bible, and that despite what some might say. 1 Thessalonians 4 verses 13 to 18 teach it quite clearly. 

Admittedly, it might be the case that the word “rapture” does not occur in our English Bibles, but what else does ‘the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air’ (verses 16 & 17) mean? This is the Rapture. It is a word used as describing the catching up of Christians, true believers in Christ. 

The fact of the Rapture cannot be denied, but the question is, “When?” Hence Paul’s next chapter and his second letter to the Christians in Thessalonica. In 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul describes a “them and us” situation, culminating with a distinguishing feature regarding "us" in these words: ‘For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.’ (verse 10.) 

This ‘wrath’ is not Hell, whether Hades or the Lake of Fire, but that which takes place on Earth, and is amply described, if symbolically, in Revelation 6 to 19, especially from chapter 15. See also particularly chapter 6 verse 17. 

It is true that in the world we shall have tribulation (Jn. 16.33), but there is to come on earth the great tribulation – ē thlipsis ē megalē – literally, "the tribulation, the great one" – the emphasis being on "great" (Rev. 7.14). However, these in Revelation 7 are taken from the twelve tribes of Israel, not from the Gentiles. They are not Christians, therefore, certainly are not of the Church, the one [spiritual] body of Christ. 

And this is where the problem lies. Is the Church simply Israel in another guise? Are we to pass through ‘Jacob’s trouble’ (Jer. 30. 7 – see, for connection, verses 3 and 4), the Great Tribulation? Is that something for us to look forward to first, and our hope deferred, our expectation before the Lord comes. 

The Lord’s Second coming is one whole, but it involves His coming into the air for His Church and His coming down onto the earth for Israel. The former gathers the Church into its heavenly inheritance; the latter Israel, all twelve tribes, into their earthly inheritance. 

In fairness, “SeekingrealTruth” appears to appreciate some distinction between Israel and the Church, but, even so, seems to think that Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 2 is teaching that the Church also will go through the Great Tribulation. Rather, it will not. See, for example, Revelation 3 verse 10. The Day of the Lord was not present as the Thessalonians thought. All Scripture is for us but not all is about us. 

Mark Best 

Incidentally, I do not use a pseudonym, being responsible and accountable for what I have written.

Tuesday, Jun 25, 2024 : 18:46
Syd said ...
SeekingrealTruth, sorry to say, confounds many things, but this is not the place to address them. But perhaps this; he says—“By claiming that the jews are the only people who are promised the land is to ignore Abrahams other descendants were recipients of the promise of the land.”

In Gen 15:18 God promises to Abram, to his seed, the land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. This promise is to Israel. We know this because going back to Israel, under Moses, God promises the land, “from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river.“ (Ex 23:31). The “sea of the Philistines” is the Mediterranean, the “desert” is the border of Egypt, and the “river” is the Euphrates as in Gen 15:18.

This land is also described in Joshua, but ultimately king Solomon reigned over this land promised by God to Israel: “And he reigned over all the kings from the river [Euphrates] even unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt” (2 Chr 9:26). Here we see the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, about 900 years later.
Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 : 03:28
Mark Best said ...

Points also raised here lie behind the present “Middle East Problem” now much in the News. 

Israel regards the Tanach – the Hebrew Bible [1] – as being their title deeds to the Land. The verses referred to above are therefore relevant. 

However, since there are nowadays other claimants, the whole of Genesis 15, and not just verse 18, needs to be considered, particularly verses 13 and 14, the fulfilment of which is described in the early chapters of Exodus, thus making clear who the “seed” mentioned in these verses is. Similarly, Genesis 21 verse 12. 

In addition, Genesis 22, in particular verses 15 to 18, must be taken account of, as also chapter 28, particularly verse 13. 

Another point. In bold letters is a Bible quotation, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Notice that there is no mention of “the land” in Matthew 21 verse 43. 

The Church has no promised land on earth. Christians are ‘blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ’ (Eph. 1.3). 

Mark Best 

[1] Though known to Christians as the Old Testament, the Jews do not call it such since that implies there is a New, the which they do not accept.

Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 : 15:50
Syd said ...
Thanks, Mark. Your references and remarks are pertinent and valid.

But in light of this little interchange concerning Israel, the land, the kingdom, etc, there is another important point for visitors and readers of this excellent website, and that is its vast resource of material that can be searched and studied.

In those early years of the 19th century, those “Brethren” searched the Scriptures, “praying out the truth on their knees in persevering prayer,” and this website contains much of those writings. Now when a prayerful, searching, scriptural light is cast upon such writings, the reader should be able to judge whether they contain the truth, or not.

Now take Philip Mauro as an example. He was a remarkable Bible scholar, and it would be simply wrong to reject everything he wrote. But to the mind of many recognised and esteemed Bible teachers, some fallacious teachings emerged from his pen. Mr A.J. Pollock wrote a pamphlet, “A Brief Examination of Mr. Philip Mauro's Later Views on Dispensational Truth.” (available on this website; I remarked on this earlier).

In his introductory remarks to this pamphlet, Mr John Bloore wrote—“One's amazement increases when those long in the fellowship of so-called "Brethren" are carried away with such drivel, and one wonders why, when there is such an abundant supply of sound literature published on these subjects which the best advocates of the historical theory have never been able to prove unscriptural. Mr. Mauro's views are not only destructive of a true understanding of prophecy, but they involve erroneous views as to the Church, the Kingdom, the Gospel, and the Law, as Mr. Pollock has pointed out.” A careful reading of Mr Pollock’s piece should expose the error of Philip Mauro concerning the dispensations.

The attack on what is called “dispensationalism”—to my mind a misplaced, emerging construct that seeks to systematise Scripture in opposition to “covenantism,” “a-millennialism,” and other “isms”—is growing, and its proponents try to prove its supremacy historically and as a system, instead of doing it exegetically as those early “Brethren” did. I commented on this before (see above).
Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 : 17:48
Mark Best said ...

Syd. If I might add. 

Looking at the state of the World today and comparing with the Holy Scriptures, the conflict that commenced on 7th October 2023, the way protests have spread to the UK and elsewhere, and how the nations are being drawn into this, indeed that there exists a state of Israel already, it makes we wonder how there are those who refuse to accept that God has a future for Israel as He had promised to their fathers (Rom. 11.25-29), and, of course, for the nations when Christ returns to Earth. 

World leaders and politicians of various persuasions are getting themselves involved, but the world that has rejected God and His Christ is becoming unstable and descends into choas. Hence looms the Great Tribulation. 

The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the only Saviour of the World (Jn. 4.42) – and I do not mean simply in terms of those believing in Him now going to Heaven when they die, or, rather, of those of us still alive when He returns to the air for us to be taken there. 

Yet despite what we can see with our very eyes, "Replacement Theology" is on the rise. 

I have heard Darby blamed for America’s support of Israel, but that is like blaming the weather forecaster for forcing a wet day on us when we wanted sunshine! 

It is all there in the Bible, but it needs to be steadily read through from beginning to end. Then all becomes clear. 

Mark Best 

Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 : 18:44
Steve H said ...
Mark,

[1] Though known to Christians as the Old Testament, the Jews do not call it such since that implies there is a New, the which they do not accept.

We need to be very careful about assuming what ALL Jews do or do not accept / believe, as there are quite a number of Messianic Jews and The Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society was formed in 2008.

They produced their own version of the Bible in 2014, which contains both the books of the TA-NA-KH - The Testament of our Forefathers (Old Testament) and the books of the NEW COVENANT - The Testament of our Messiah, Yeshua (New Testament). It is called the Tree of Life Version.

Several of the Old Testament books appear in a different order from what we are used to, and the book of James is called Jacob, and Jude is called Judah, but in both cases the more familiar name of the book is in brackets.

Perhaps some of these Messianic Jews have a much greater understanding of parts of the Bible than any of us!

Regards,

Steve H

Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 : 23:40
Mark Best said ...

Steve, 

I was making a general statement regarding Jews, most of whom will not have it that Jesus of Nazareth was / is the Messiah. Yes, thankfully, there are those of them who indeed do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

As to the Tanach, or Tanakh, the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible from which that word is derived, and the order of the books in many places, is very different than in our Old Testament. The Lord refers to this as recorded by Luke in chapter 24 verse 44. 

The order of the books in the Old Testament in our Bible comes from the Septuagint, though those books known as the Apocrypha are omitted. 

Thank you for the additional information. 

Best regards 

Mark 

Thursday, Jun 27, 2024 : 01:44
Syd said ...
Mark, if I may say something on “The order of the books in the Old Testament in our Bible comes from the Septuagint.” This may appear to some to give much credence to this very poor and unreliable Greek translation. The order of the first six minor prophets in the LXX is not the same. Our English Bibles follow the Hebrew. There are many other discrepancies.

I don’t intend to show the many interpolations and omissions of portions from prophecies such as Jeremiah 33:14-26 which are not found in the LXX. The Hebrew gives the moral and clearly divine order of Jeremiah’s prophecies, whilst in the Septuagint they are arranged chronologically. In fact, just before posting this comment I saw E.H. Broadbent’s notes on Jeremiah featured on the site (28 June). He writes: “Jeremiah's prophecies are not arranged chronologically, but according to subjects. (The Septuagint has a different arrangement.)”
Sunday, Jun 30, 2024 : 21:08
Mark Best said ...

Syd, 

I think this is now departing from the original subject. However, it is obvious that the New Testament writers often quoted from the Septuagint, and hence the reason for the seeming disparity between an Old Testament verse and its citation as in the New. An example of this is the quotation of Psalm 40 verse 6 found in Hebrews 10 verse 5. In the King James Version, the former says, ‘Mine ears hast thou opened’, but the latter, ‘A body hast thou prepared me’

Also, several expressions are based on the Septuagint even though the translation in the OT of the KJV and subsequent ones is from the Hebrew. For example, in Leviticus 1, that described there is known as “the burnt offering”, yet it does not translate the Hebrew word ‘olah’, but is from the Greek word ‘holocautōma’

I do not base my doctrine on the Septuagint exactly, but I do not discount it entirely. 

Mark Best

Monday, Jul 1, 2024 : 15:57


Add Comment: