Grammatical interpretation of Philip Mauro's book

[monoergon]

Question 12.


(1) In what sense is "trial" being used here? In the sense of "judgment" or to be "tested"? There isn't a word in Portuguese for "trial", so I must find a synonym. So far, I thought of "judgment" and "tested" (as in when we face God given trials/tests in life).

(2) Also, does this sentence "they must cease from all self-efforts at salvation" mean that "they must cease from all self-efforts at [seeking to obtain] salvation"? If yes, I'll have to add that underlined part to make better sense of that sentence in Portuguese.

(3) To what noun or noun phrase is the first underlined “it” referring to? I believe it is either “law” or “hopelessly corrupt state”, but I’m not sure which of these is right.

(4) To what noun or noun phrase is “upon it” referring to? Is “it” referring to “law”?


One of the purposes of man's trial under the law was to make evident the
hopeless corruption of his heart, and to convince him of the absolute necessity
for a special work of God, whereby he might obtain the forgiveness of all his
sins, and also gain a new life and nature. That is what Jesus Christ came to
accomplish by His sacrificial death and by His resurrection from the dead; and
that is why "the fulness of the time" for God to send forth His Son came not
until after the trial of man under the law of Moses had made evident the
necessity therefor.

Hence the trial of man under the law was by no means a failure. On the
contrary, it accomplished just what God purposed thereby; and it was a most
necessary stage of the long process of man's recovery from the dominion of sin.
To be sure, it showed what a failure man himself is; and it made evident that
because of the hopelessly corrupt state of his being he cannot obey a righteous
and holy law, even though he recognizes it to be such (Rom. 7:12, 14, 15, 16),
and even though he understands that his prosperity now and his welfare in
eternity depend upon it. Those individuals who learned this while they were
under the law, realized that they must cease from all self-efforts at salvation,
and must cast themselves for that upon the mercy of God. All such, and the
total number was doubtless great, discovered, as did David, the blessedness of
the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered (Rom. 4:6,7;
Ps. 32:1, 2).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1. Trial = test. One could also use the idea of "exhibit," since the known purpose in the trial/test was to prove the flaw.

2. "they must cease from all self-efforts at salvation" = "they must abandon all attempts to save themselves."

3. "it" = the trial (under the law).

4. "upon it." I found this question a little hard to determine myself, but after re-reading several times, I think he's referring to obedience to God's law. In other words, one can know his present and future prosperity depends on it (obedience), and still not be capable of meeting that standard. Such knowledge must lead to despair... unless there is a better answer, looking to God to BE saved according to nothing but divine mercy.

 

[monoergon]

Question 13.

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, "... was pre-figured by that of Moses", what is "that" referring to? "...by that [WHAT] of Moses"? In Portuguese, I'll have to add something after "that" to make better sense.



Therefore there were two great parts to the work that lay before the Son of God
when He came into the world: First, He was to deliver the "many sons" from the
dominion of sin and death; and this He did when "through death He destroyed
him that had the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2:14); and second, He
was to give the law of God to those whom He should bring into the family of
God through the door of the new birth; and this He did in His several discourses
to His disciples, and chiefly in the Sermon on the Mount. And, like as Moses
and the prophets added from time to time to the main body of the law originally
given at Sinai, so Christ and the apostles added special revelations of the will of
God for His new covenant people to the main body of the law of the Kingdom
delivered by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

Remembering that Moses was a type of Christ, it is instructive to note how this
two-part work of Christ was pre-figured by that of Moses. For he not only
brought a people out from the dominion of Pharaoh, crossing the Red Sea
(typical of Christ's death and resurrection which makes a way for His people
through the waters of death), but also delivered to them the law of God, which
was to be for their life and welfare.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"...this two-part work of Christ was pre-figured by that [the work] of Moses."


The following comment might come across as a bit critical of the author:

I hope in the book Mauro clarifies the precise mediatorial type-to-antitype correlation he offers his readers in light of Jn.1:17, "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

The Sermon on the Mount is not a program of Christian ethics, despite parallels found Mt.5-7 with Ex.20-24. The Law was definitely programmatic, and set up a system that continued (sometimes well, sometimes a wreck) for 1500yrs. The SotM describes a condition, what IS the case of the citizenry of the Kingdom.

Since--if anything--Christ's standard is only raised from where it was set at Sinai, we observe that the Teacher is the only Man who is entitled to citizenship on terms of obedience and righteousness. He alone has the righteousness that "exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees." In other words, he's really preaching Himself, and not so much the disciple the Christian. And if any of us who "come to him" (Mt.5:1) desire to remain with him and united to him, it must be because he as King freely accepts them despite their admitted manifold disqualifying imperfections. He is the rock (Mt.7:24) on which they stand secure.

 

[monoergon]

Question 14.

What does "as becometh" mean? Plus, "those" are used twice in the same sentence, which is making the second occurrence of the word hard for me to understand.


But there is no difficulty here; for the Sermon on the Mount was not spoken to
explain how a man gets the new birth and enters into the Kingdom of God, but
to teach those who had already entered into that Kingdom how to act as
becometh those who are saved by grace through faith and have the knowledge
of God the Father through the Son.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To the first part of the question, "as becomes" (-eth ending is an archaism) means: "fittingly as," or "befitting;" i.e. "worthy of," "proper to," or "suitable to the profession of."

The second "those" is part of a comparison. "Persons" who are now citizens should behave like redeemed "persons" ought.

 

[monoergon]

Question 15.

What does "on the footing of children" mean?

And, how can I rewrite that underlined portion in modern English?



The Lord Jesus Christ, as First-born over the entire family of God, shares
everything He has with the beloved children. And among the choicest of those
family possessions are the Father's "commandments." Speaking of these He
said: "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love" (John
15:10); and again, "That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the
Father gave Me commandment, even so I do" (id. 14:31). By these, and by
many other Scriptures, we learn that the Kingdom of heaven calls upon those
who are in it to keep the commandments of God willingly, and through love
alone. But, according to this new teaching, the doing of the Father's
commandments is "legality." If therefore our hearts respond at all to the grace
of God manifested to us in bringing us into His household on the footing of
children, then we shall not be looking for excuses to justify ourselves in not
keeping His commandments, but on the contrary we shall be rather eager to
keep them; we shall count it a privilege to have them; they will be our joy, our
treasure, our chief delight; and the law of His mouth will be better to us than
thousands of gold and silver.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Footing" calls to mind the idea of "fundament," "base/basis," "floor." "Equal footing" is a phrase that means parties stand on the same level. Children, being dependents, generally are not considered to carry all the rights of adults; they are on a "lower footing" compared to more mature people.

"at the level of children," as opposed to adults, presumably. He might even be thinking of a verse like this one: Mk.10:15, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." We should be docile in the house of our heavenly Father. The most seasoned, veteran Christian is childlike compared to God, and the angels too I think.

 

[monoergon]

"Footing" calls to mind the idea of "fundament," "base/basis," "floor." "Equal footing" is a phrase that means parties stand on the same level. Children, being dependents, generally are not considered to carry all the rights of adults; they are on a "lower footing" compared to more mature people.

"at the level of children," as opposed to adults, presumably. He might even be thinking of a verse like this one: Mk.10:15, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." We should be docile in the house of our heavenly Father. The most seasoned, veteran Christian is childlike compared to God, and the angels too I think.

Wonderful explanation! Thanks!

 

[monoergon]

Question 16.

What is the best alternative to "sets forth"? So far, I think it means "presents" or "establishes"?


We find then that the doctrine of Christ, as given in the concluding portion of
the Sermon on the Mount, so far from being in conflict with the truth of the
gospel, sets forth that truth in the clearest light. The gospel demands
obedience; and it is preached for the express purpose of producing obedience
among all nations, even "the obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 6:17; 15:18; 16:19,
26). Indeed "eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord" is to be the
portion of all who "obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Th. 1:7-9).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"presents," "proclaims," "preaches"

 

[monoergon]

Question 17.

Does "who has a thought for the honor" mean "who cares about the honor..."? If it does, I'll use the latter or a better paraphrase.



It will be seen that, in the last of the above quotations from the "Scofield Bible,"
not only is the teaching of Paul set in contrast with, and made to appear as a
superior to, that of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the latter is exhibited as that
which lays a foundation--not for a true Christian life and character as the Lord
Him-self declared, but--for a "really dangerous sect." Could anything be more
subversive of vital truth or fraught with greater possibilities for danger and loss
to the household of faith? Is it not therefore the urgent duty of every one who
has a thought for the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ and the welfare of His
people to cry out against this novel and destructive teaching, and against the
"Bible" which contains it?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"...who has a thought," or a care or a concern. The author's intent could be slightly hyperbolic, since he says the duty is urgent after one reflective moment.

"...who cares about," should serve just fine.

 

[monoergon]

Question 18.

(1) The "can do no more" grammatical construction doesn't make much sense when translated to Portuguese. Can I modify that sentence like this (or some other way you may suggest): "...that grace can only do this for sinful men: to bring them..."?


First. The quality of purest grace is seen in the Sermon on the Mount in that the
Son of God is therein bringing sinful men into the knowledge of the Father, and
into the conscious enjoyment of the relationship, the privileges and the
responsibilities of the children of God. Not only is this grace, but it may be said
without fear of contradiction that grace can do no more for sinful men than to
bring them into the family of God on the footing of children.


(2) To what Bible verse of the Sermon on the Mount is the author referring to when says that we should "submit to injury"? I have searched, but couldn't find the reference to that.

For what are the points of the doctrine of Christ contained in the Sermon on the
Mount? These are the principle ones:
To let our light shine before men for the glory of our Father in heaven.
To refrain from the angry thought and word, and from the impure desire and look.
To submit to injury.

 

[monoergon]

Question 19.

(1) Does "their all" mean "their whole being" ('being' such as in human being or existence) or "their whole lives"?


This is as plain as words can make it. It follows that
they who, for whatever motive and by whatever means, seek to deprive the
children of God of the Sermon on the Mount, are striking at the Foundation
upon which their all is to be built. Can anything be more serious?


(2) What does the underlined words "that of" mean, or to what is "that of" referring to? Can it be rewritten?

In view of all this clear truth, what possible reasons can the wit of man devise
for setting aside the Sermon on the Mount as "legal," and as having no proper
place or part in the dispensation of grace? Is it because it contains
commandments? So the editor seems to contend in the article from which I
have quoted above. But the Epistles of Paul are full of "the commandments of
the Lord," as everyone knows who has read them. And surely we should all be
astonished at any one who would dare assert that it is not in keeping with
"grace" for the Father to give commandments to His own children. Would it not
be a disgrace to any human father who should fail in that duty? And are we who
are, by grace alone, the children of God to refuse every message from Him
which demands obedience, and which puts before us the consequences of
disobedience? If so, then there are no Scriptures for us, and nothing for us to
do in this life but to please ourselves. It is almost unbelievable that anyone
would advance such a proposition; yet we have to take notice of the fact that Dr.
Scofield, in the article last referred to, argues that the Sermon on the Mount is
not for us because it is "couched in the language of authority, rather than in the
language of kindly counsel"; and because "nowhere is the phrasing that of good
advice, but always imperative requirement." This certainly implies that our
Father in heaven is not permitted to speak to His children in "the language of
authority" (though He bids earthly parents thus to command their children and
to enforce obedience with the rod), but only in the "language of kindly counsel"
and in the phrasing of "good advice." Surely there is no need to discuss such a
proposition.


(3) This questions is like the one before, concerning "that of" to what it's referring to.

Whatever view may be taken of the words of Matthew 6:12-15, the main
question as to the "dispensational" place of the Sermon on the Mount remains
unaffected. For I have shown by the clearest proofs that the message is the
Father's message to His own children. Hence if we find anything "legal" in that
message we must conclude that it properly belongs there. For the children to
reject their Father's commandment because it contains a clause which they
choose to regard as "legal," would be a most presumptuous thing.

I maintain, however, that the words of the passage in question are not only
consistent with God's grace in making believing sinners His children, but that
they tend to emphasize strongly the fact that the Kingdom to which the Sermon
on the Mount pertains is that of grace.



(4) What did the author mean by "bound"?
Did he mean he felt "obliged, morever, to enter..."?


I feel bound, moreover, to enter the most serious objection to the statement that
"under the law of the kingdom no one may hope for forgiveness who has not
first forgiven."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 18.

(1) The "can do no more" grammatical construction doesn't make much sense when translated to Portuguese. Can I modify that sentence like this (or some other way you may suggest): "...that grace can only do this for sinful men: to bring them..."?


First. The quality of purest grace is seen in the Sermon on the Mount in that the
Son of God is therein bringing sinful men into the knowledge of the Father, and
into the conscious enjoyment of the relationship, the privileges and the
responsibilities of the children of God. Not only is this grace, but it may be said
without fear of contradiction that grace can do no more for sinful men than to
bring them into the family of God on the footing of children.

Your rendering is fine in one sense. But it misses the rhetorical force, which is litotes, "a figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by stating its opposite." Grace is performing the absolute maximum it (or anything else) could possibly do as favor to man.

(2) To what Bible verse of the Sermon on the Mount is the author referring to when says that we should "submit to injury"? I have searched, but couldn't find the reference to that.

For what are the points of the doctrine of Christ contained in the Sermon on the
Mount? These are the principle ones:
To let our light shine before men for the glory of our Father in heaven.
To refrain from the angry thought and word, and from the impure desire and look.
To submit to injury.

Mt.5:39-40.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 19.

(1) Does "their all" mean "their whole being" ('being' such as in human being or existence) or "their whole lives"?


This is as plain as words can make it. It follows that
they who, for whatever motive and by whatever means, seek to deprive the
children of God of the Sermon on the Mount, are striking at the Foundation
upon which their all is to be built. Can anything be more serious?

Basically, yes. You could also say, "the most significant thing," because this or that could be taken, and still what was left would be "all" to them. In any case, nothing permanent can be built that does not have a foundation.

(2) What does the underlined words "that of" mean, or to what is "that of" referring to? Can it be rewritten?

In view of all this clear truth, what possible reasons can the wit of man devise
for setting aside the Sermon on the Mount as "legal," and as having no proper
place or part in the dispensation of grace? Is it because it contains
commandments? So the editor seems to contend in the article from which I
have quoted above. But the Epistles of Paul are full of "the commandments of
the Lord," as everyone knows who has read them. And surely we should all be
astonished at any one who would dare assert that it is not in keeping with
"grace" for the Father to give commandments to His own children. Would it not
be a disgrace to any human father who should fail in that duty? And are we who
are, by grace alone, the children of God to refuse every message from Him
which demands obedience, and which puts before us the consequences of
disobedience? If so, then there are no Scriptures for us, and nothing for us to
do in this life but to please ourselves. It is almost unbelievable that anyone
would advance such a proposition; yet we have to take notice of the fact that Dr.
Scofield, in the article last referred to, argues that the Sermon on the Mount is
not for us because it is "couched in the language of authority, rather than in the
language of kindly counsel"; and because "nowhere is the phrasing that of good
advice, but always imperative requirement." This certainly implies that our
Father in heaven is not permitted to speak to His children in "the language of
authority" (though He bids earthly parents thus to command their children and
to enforce obedience with the rod), but only in the "language of kindly counsel"
and in the phrasing of "good advice." Surely there is no need to discuss such a
proposition.

He's quoting CIS at that place. Apparently CIS believed that when Jesus or his apostles gave directions for NT saints, those were not commands (stern and harsh), but only kindly counsel and good advice; and because the SotM is law-like it must not be for Christians. Regarding the words of which you ask, the phrasing, he says, should be of a certain kind, namely "good advice," if it is to be for Christians; he thinks it is not.

(3) This questions is like the one before, concerning "that of" to what it's referring to.

Whatever view may be taken of the words of Matthew 6:12-15, the main
question as to the "dispensational" place of the Sermon on the Mount remains
unaffected. For I have shown by the clearest proofs that the message is the
Father's message to His own children. Hence if we find anything "legal" in that
message we must conclude that it properly belongs there. For the children to
reject their Father's commandment because it contains a clause which they
choose to regard as "legal," would be a most presumptuous thing.

I maintain, however, that the words of the passage in question are not only
consistent with God's grace in making believing sinners His children, but that
they tend to emphasize strongly the fact that the Kingdom to which the Sermon
on the Mount pertains is that of grace.

PM takes issue with CIS over his identification of the "tenor" of the language of the SotM as "legal" and thus graceless. Rather, the language of the SotM emphatically teaches a Kingdom of grace.

(4) What did the author mean by "bound"?
Did he mean he felt "obliged, morever, to enter..."?


I feel bound, moreover, to enter the most serious objection to the statement that
"under the law of the kingdom no one may hope for forgiveness who has not
first forgiven."

Yes.

 

[monoergon]

Your rendering is fine in one sense. But it misses the rhetorical force, which is litotes, "a figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by stating its opposite." Grace is performing the absolute maximum it (or anything else) could possibly do as favor to man.

Thank you Reverend. Now a new question comes to mind. In the sentence "can do no more," "can" could have different meanings. For example, it may mean that grace is capable/able of doing something, or that it has permission to do something.

In the author's context, is he saying that grace is unable to do more "for sinful men than to
bring them into the family of God on the footing of children"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In a strictly lexical sense, I suppose you might think capability the more apt. God is not permitting grace only so much power, and no further.

However, the author's point is *not* that grace has a limited power, but that it is the greatest power, able to do what nothing else could. Such is the nature of that figure of speech, litotes.

When the rest of the statement refers to "the level of children," PM's use of the term (so far as I can tell) is not to suggest that grace is limited by its own strength or divine permission from introducing sinful men to the family of God at some superior level to that of the sons of God. That men are raised no further is limited by human ontology.

 

[monoergon]

Question 20.

- Is "this" referring to something before or after it?
- Does "self same" mean "very same"?


Never was there from the lips or pen of that apostle a hint or suggestion to the
effect that the reign of Jesus Christ, which God had promised afore by His
prophets in the Holy Scriptures, had been postponed to another era. Indeed,
one cannot attentively study the elements of the gospel as preached and
taught by "the apostle of the Gentiles" (except under the blinding influence of
some doctrine of men) without perceiving that, apart from the word of the
Kingdom there is no gospel and no salvation for perishing men. And let it not be
forgotten in this connection, that it is through this same apostle, and with
reference to this self same heresy of one gospel for Jews and a different gospel
for Gentiles, that the curse of God is decreed upon those--be they apostles of
Christ or angels from heaven--who preach any other gospel. For there is but
one gospel" for all the world, and for all the ages of time; and whether it were
Paul or one of the twelve, they all preached the same gospel of the Kingdom (I
Cor. 15:11; Acts 20:24, 25).

 

[monoergon]

Question 21.


(1) What is "this" referring to? is it the whole idea of the close identification of the Kingdom of God with the Salvation of God?

(2) What is the meaning of "be not"? is it "belongs not in" or "is not"?

This is how it looks like when I specify what I think the meaning of "this" is:
- ...that if this identification belongs not in the era of the former, then this identification belongs not (or is not) in the era of the latter.
- ...that if this identification is not the era of the former, then this identification is not in the era of the latter.


And whatever the reader's convictions as to the doctrine that the Kingdom
which Christ announced as at hand has been postponed, the truth involved is
so vital, and the postponement doctrine is so startlingly novel, that it is the duty
of all who belong to Christ to examine, and to re-examine, the whole subject
with the utmost care; and to give an attentive hearing to anyone who asks their
consideration of evidence from the word of God. That is what I am now asking.
And as a reason why a fair hearing should be given me, I solemnly declare my
deep conviction that so closely is the Kingdom of God identified with the
Salvation of God, that if this be not the era of the former, then it is not the era of
the latter. Proof of this I present in this chapter.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 20.

- Is "this" referring to something before or after it?
- Does "self same" mean "very same"?

To the first part, both in a way; because he clarifies in the following words of summary (THIS heresy = one gospel for Jews and a different gospel for Gentiles) what he appears to be refuting right before by tying Paul's and Jesus' preaching together.

To the second part, yes--self same = exact copy, reduplicate.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 21.


(1) What is "this" referring to? is it the whole idea of the close identification of the Kingdom of God with the Salvation of God?

(2) What is the meaning of "be not"? is it "belongs not in" or "is not"?

To the first part, I think he's referring to "the here-and-now," to the present, our present moment. The reasoning goes: the two descriptions of eras or times are supposed by disp. to be separate; and the present age is "salvation of God" and NOT "kingdom of God. PM objects, saying that if the current time is not the "kingdom of God era" then neither is the current time the "salvation of God era."

To the second part, be not = is not

 

[monoergon]

Question 22.

Is "which is" referring to the "139 texts", or to "the prophecy"?
Since he uses the singular verb "is", I think he is referring to "the prophecy".

And not only so, but I challenge anyone to deny, that when the 139 texts of the
N.T. that mention the Kingdom of God (or of heaven) are taken in their natural
sense, which is the sense in which they have been understood by every Bible
teacher and Bible reader for nineteen centuries, they are all found to be in
perfect harmony with the prophecy we are now considering, and which is
quoted and applied by Paul. Whereas, on the other hand, it is utterly
impossible (as I propose now to show) by any torturing and twisting of the
language employed, to make a number of the plainest of those 139 texts do
anything but conflict palpably with the teachings of modern dispensationalism.

 

[monoergon]

Question 23.

What is "it" referring to in the second paragraph below?
- According to Scofield's words in the first paragraph below, the "truths" (plural) are what is being "traced through the entire Bible from the first mention to the last".
- However, according to the second paragraph below, it seems to me that "it" could be referring to the "references" to the Kingdom. I think "truths" is more likely to be the answer, but I'm not sure.



In the introductory pages of the "Scofield Bible" the promise is given that by
"A new system of topical references all the greater truths of the divine revelation
are traced through the entire Bible from the first mention to the last"; and also
that its "summaries" are analytic of "the whole teaching of Scripture."
[...]
It would be quite in order, doubtless, to ask if this is dealing fairly and keeping
faith with the thousands who have purchased this new "Bible." But without
pressing that inquiry, I hasten to direct the reader's attention to a few of the 118
references to the Kingdom that are found in God's Bible, but which are passed
over in silence by the "Scofield Bible," despite the promise that it would be
"traced through the entire Bible, from the first mention to the last." And I leave it
to the intelligent reader to say whether under the circumstances of the case,
those particular texts could have been ignored by editor and co-editors for any
other reason than that they manifestly cannot be made to agree with, or do
anything but flatly to contradict, the new postponement theory.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 22: true (ref. the prophecy)

Question 23: "it" appears to refer to the single truth in special view concerning the Kingdom, which truth is ONE of "ALL the greater truths" plural that CIS promised to trace through the whole Bible with unparalleled thoroughness. Mauro accuses CIS of ignoring 85% of the relevant data.

 

[monoergon]

Question 24.


1. What is the best meaning of "pit" in this context? In Portuguese, I can translate "pit" as (a) a whole on the ground; (b) a whole on the ground the context of a cemetery (which I could translate as 'grave', 'sepulcher', or 'tomb'); (c) abyss or hell.

2. What is meant by "affair"? I might have to find a synonym of it.

But why were the Jewish leaders refusing to go in themselves? and how were
they hindering others from entering? By their doctrine. For the corner stone of
their creed was the very same doctrine that has lately been dug up out of the
pit of false Judaism and has been made the cornerstone of modern
dispensationalism. They were not going in themselves, and they were
preventing others from entering, because they held and taught that the
Kingdom of heaven, the reign of Messiah which the prophets of Israel had
foretold, was a Jewish and an earthly affair, not a spiritual and a heavenly
kingdom.

 

[monoergon]

Question 25.


1. I never seen "to editor" as a verb. Did the author actually mean to use it as a verb meaning "to edit Scofield's theory"?

Matthew 23:13 is a specially illuminating scripture, one that is decisive as to
whether the Kingdom of God had been withdrawn and postponed or not. It is
fatal to editor Scofield's theory, and it is ignored in his treatment of the subject.

-- Here is another paragraph with a similar usage:

2. What is meant by "by editor Scofield"?

So here is another text that is sufficient in itself to prove that the Kingdom had
not at that time been postponed. Is it not a significant fact then that this
particularly illuminating Scripture also was ignored by editor Scofield in the
process of tracing the subject of the Kingdom of God "through the entire Bible,
from the first mention to the last?"

------------------------

2. What did the author mean by the verb "harbor"?
to shelter something, or to own something, or something else?


And how does it work now? If to be saved is to be in the Kingdom of God, as we
have just shown by our Lord's own teaching, and as Paul also plainly taught
(Col. 1:13), and if there be now no Kingdom of God for men to enter, how shall
they be saved? Is there anything in "modernism" that is worse than this? And
can the "Fundamentalists" of our time expect to prevail in their conflict with the
"Modernists," so long as they harbor, and are even zealous for, a brand of
modernism that certainly is more modern, and in some respects more
pernicious, than that they are com-batting? Hearken, my Fundamentalist
brethren; you must do some thorough house-cleaning on your own premises
before you can undertake, with any prospect of success, to put the large
Christian household in order.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 24.


1. What is the best meaning of "pit" in this context? In Portuguese, I can translate "pit" as (a) a whole on the ground; (b) a whole on the ground the context of a cemetery (which I could translate as 'grave', 'sepulcher', or 'tomb'); (c) abyss or hell.

Why not go with (b) hole --not "whole" meaning "entire"-- for a crypt or a deadly trap, e.g. Gen.37:24; 2Sam.18:17; Ps.57:6.

2. What is meant by "affair"? I might have to find a synonym of it.

an occasion, interest, business, concern, obsession, etc. The point is, they thought the kingdom was of this world, earthly.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Question 25.

1. I never seen "to editor" as a verb. Did the author actually mean to use it as a verb meaning "to edit Scofield's theory"?

It's clearly a typo. The problem is: what was intended? That is not clear at all. Has PM here or there referred to Scofield as "C.I. Scofield?" Because, I can conceive of a misprint of "C.I." possibly rendered by a scanner and OCR software as "editor." This is my best guess, absent other data.

While the idea "the editor of" may fit the context a little, once there are two such instances, the likelihood of the same words skipped out becomes less likely. And such a person not being consistently referred to or remembered, this possibility becomes even more remote.

2. What did the author mean by the verb "harbor"?
to shelter something, or to own something, or something else?

It is a derived sense, from shelter/give home to, meaning: "to entertain or nourish a thought or feeling." (American Heritage College Dict.)