# Grammatical interpretation of Philip Mauro's book



## monoergon (Aug 2, 2016)

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Book source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1927_mauro_gospel-kingdom.html


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 2, 2016)

I think "it" is the "first *coming *of Christ," referred to in both previous sentences, the second instance as "the Lord's *coming*."

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 2, 2016)

Thank you Rev. Bruce. That did clarify the sentence for me.

If more grammatical issues come up, I'll post them in this thread.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 2, 2016)

Here is a new question. Is the last sentence of the last paragraph supposed to be a question?

WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS CONCERNING THE LAW

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

The apostle Paul also, whose words are cited as authority for the teaching we
are now examining, speaks clearly and forcefully to the same effect. He says
that "the righteousness of God," which is now manifested apart from the law
(i.e. by the gospel) was "witnessed by the law and the prophets" (Rom. 3:21).
Further he declares that "the commandment" was "ordained TO LIFE"; that "the
law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good"; and that "the law
is spiritual" (Rom. 7:10, 12, 14); which testimonies carry the more weight
because they are found in that very passage which is supposed to teach things
derogatory to the law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 2, 2016)

No, not an interrogative use of "which," but demonstrative.

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 2, 2016)

Thank you once more, Rev.

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

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

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


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 2, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> Thank you once more, Rev.
> 
> Here is a third one. In the second to last sentence, what word is "*it*" referring to?
> 
> ...



_It_ here refers to _law_ earlier in the sentence, or is put in place of _commandment_; note his earlier quotation of Paul: "the commandment was ordained unto life." Either way, the meaning is is identical.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 2, 2016)

Thank you Tyler.

Question 4.

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


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


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 2, 2016)

Hello Nathan,

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 2, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


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



Thank you Jerusalem Blade. Do you think, perhaps, "it" could be referring to "faith", since pronouns substitutes nouns? "justified" isn't a noun.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 2, 2016)

"So it was" is a colloquialism, otherwise put: "So it happened, or came to be." The language refers to the condition that was reality in the past. "So it is," is a present-tense way of conveying the same thought, as otherwise: "It is now the case that..."

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 3, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


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



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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 3, 2016)

*Question 5.*

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

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


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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2016)

No, _*introductory*_ not being used as a noun. The adjective is being used to modify the noun "purpose."

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 3, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


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



Perfect! I would never have figured that out. The more I read older texts such as this one, the more familiar I'm becoming with the grammar styles of those times. Thank you again!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 3, 2016)

Thanks for your clarification, Bruce. Nathan, re your post #10, "justification" is a noun. Instead of "it" it could be translated "faith that justifies", or "justification by faith", or "justifying faith"; I prefer the second. "It" refers to one concept comprised of the two elements. I must commend you for the precision and fidelity to the original you are seeking to attain--not an easy job!


----------



## monoergon (Aug 3, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks for your clarification, Bruce. Nathan, re your post #10, "justification" is a noun. Instead of "it" it could be translated "faith that justifies", or "justification by faith", or "justifying faith"; I prefer the second. "It" refers to one concept comprised of the two elements. I must commend you for the precision and fidelity to the original you are seeking to attain--not an easy job!



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

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 3, 2016)

*Question 6.*

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


How is it possible, I ask, for any who undertake to explain the Scriptures to
arrive at the conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" which actually was "at
hand," is not the "Kingdom of God" which the Lord said to be "at hand"; or, (to
state it the other way) that the "Kingdom of God" which the Lord publicly
declared at hand, proved to be not at hand at all; whereas, marvelous to relate!
another "Kingdom of God" whereof He made no mention, was at hand?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2016)

First, the clause: "marvelous to relate" is an aside, a parenthetical remark (without this punctuation).

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

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 4, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> First, the clause: "marvelous to relate" is an aside, a parenthetical remark (without this punctuation).
> 
> It appears, in this context, that this is a _sarcastic aside,_ in other words it is doubly ambiguous to a foreign reader.
> 
> So, he asks how such and such is possible to conclude; then offers a second way of putting the issue into a confusing pair of contrasts (with an exclamation between them).



Great! That was another tough one for me.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 4, 2016)

*Question 7.*


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


But the attempt is an impossibility. In fact the editor himself abandons it
completely after carrying it partly through the Gospel of Matthew. Anyone can
see this for himself who will take a little pains to examine the matter. For we
have to begin with the bold but unfounded assumption that the words
"Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" in our Lord's lips meant the earthly
kingdom of Israel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 4, 2016)

That's accurate. "Pains" is wordplay, a figure of speech (metonymy) in which an effect is put for the cause; in this case pain (ache, strain) in place of effort.

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 4, 2016)

*Question 8.*

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


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

Here again is a Scripture which tells plainly what was the great topic of all the
prophets of God; and which also tells plainly that it was not the restoration of
the Jewish nation, but the sufferings of Christ and the eternal and spiritual
kingdom, "the Kingdom which cannot be shaken," that was to be founded
thereon.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 4, 2016)

Christ's "sufferings"--this was the "great topic" obsession of the prophets; and to the extent a kingdom was factored in, it was the one founded on it/them (the sufferings are here thought of as one thing). It was not a perpetuation of the Moses-theocracy capturing the prophetic imagination (though they spoke in just those terms that should resonate with the hearers). The old kingdom had another basis, an inferior basis compared with the latter foundation.

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 6, 2016)

*Question 9.*

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

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


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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 6, 2016)

*Question 10.*

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

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


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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 6, 2016)

*Question 11.*

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


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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 6, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> For what noun could I substitute the word "realm" in this context?



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



brjesusfreak said:


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



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

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


----------



## monoergon (Aug 6, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> brjesusfreak said:
> 
> 
> > For what noun could I substitute the word "realm" in this context?
> ...



Thank you Rev. Bruce, that was very helpful. 

Do you know how to solve Question 10 concerning the term "treasurers"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 6, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> Do you know how to solve Question 10 concerning the term "treasurers"?



Seems like a typo. So, yes, "treasures," I surmize.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 8, 2016)

*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 (Aug 8, 2016)

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 (Aug 9, 2016)

*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 (Aug 9, 2016)

"...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 (Aug 11, 2016)

*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 (Aug 11, 2016)

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 (Aug 11, 2016)

*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 (Aug 12, 2016)

"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 (Aug 12, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> "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 (Aug 12, 2016)

*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 (Aug 12, 2016)

"presents," "proclaims," "preaches"


----------



## monoergon (Aug 13, 2016)

*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 (Aug 13, 2016)

"...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 (Aug 13, 2016)

*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 (Aug 15, 2016)

*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 (Aug 15, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> *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..."?
> 
> ...



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.




brjesusfreak said:


> *(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:
> ...



Mt.5:39-40.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 15, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> *Question 19.*
> 
> *(1)* Does "their all" mean "their whole being" ('being' such as in human being or existence) or "their whole lives"?
> 
> ...



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.




brjesusfreak said:


> *(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
> ...



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.



brjesusfreak said:


> *(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
> ...



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.




brjesusfreak said:


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



Yes.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 16, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2016)

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 (Aug 16, 2016)

*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 (Aug 17, 2016)

*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 (Aug 17, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> 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 (Aug 17, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> 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?
> ...



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 (Aug 19, 2016)

*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 (Aug 19, 2016)

*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 (Aug 19, 2016)

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 (Aug 19, 2016)

*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 (Aug 19, 2016)

*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 (Aug 19, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> *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.




brjesusfreak said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> *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.




brjesusfreak said:


> 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.)_


----------



## monoergon (Aug 20, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> brjesusfreak said:
> 
> 
> > *Question 25.*
> ...





PM usually just refers to him as Scofield; I also think it is a typo or OCR mistake. 

I guess I'll make another thread when I'm close to finishing the whole translation to find out if someone here on the PuritanBoard owns a physical copy of this book, or if someone knows someone who owns a copy. This is the only way we can know for sure.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 20, 2016)

*Question 26.*

1. Does "account for" mean "how can we _explain_ it..."?

2. Does "it" refer to "teaching"?

3. Would the sentence still make sense if I substituted "that" for "since" (a conjunction meaning: in view of the fact that)?

Think what the teaching of the Scofield Bible does by implication to this simple,
plain and all-important word of Christ, which it passes by in silence! For, by that
teaching, this testimony of our Lord, given in open court when on trial for His
life, was not true. According to that teaching the Kingdom He had been
proclaiming both in person and also by the lips of His disciples throughout the
length and breadth of the land, was of this world; and its establishment would
necessarily have involved the overthrow of Caesar's dominion, and the
subjugation of the whole world to the Jewish nation. How then can we account
for it that this text is ignored in the notes of the Scofield Bible? And let it be
remembered in this connection that when the Pharisees had previously
attempted to entrap the Lord into some utterance which they could use against
Him as savoring of sedition again Caesar, He perceived their hypocrisy and
expressly commanded them to "Render unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's, and unto God, the things that are God's" (Mat. 22:17-21). For the
Kingdom of God is not in anywise antagonistic to the kingdoms and rulers of
this world. On the contrary, the law of Christ commands loyalty to them,
because "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13 :1) ; and it requires
of all the citizens of His Kingdom that they submit themselves "to every
ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (I Pet. 2:13).


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


4. What is meant by "a parting"?
- A different point of view?


The last verses of Acts give a parting view of the apostle Paul. They tell us that
he dwelt two whole years in his own hired house (in Rome), where he "received
all that came in unto him, preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those
things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 28:30, 31). Evidently Paul
had not heard that the preaching of the Kingdom of God did not belong to this
"dispensation." For in those days there was no "Scofield Bible" to enlighten
him. On the other hand, we are not informed as to how this passage can be
reconciled with modern dispensationalism, for the Scofield Bible ignores it.


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

5. What is meant by "do flow"? I just can't seem to figure that out.

The Kingdom is here defined both negatively and positively. We are told first
what it is not, and then what it is; and hence the text is the more enlightening
for our present purpose. For a contrast is here presented between the Kingdom
of God and the historical Kingdom of David, which the rabbinists supposed (as
the dispensationalists do flow) were one and the same. Concerning the
kingdom of David it is recorded that they who came to make him king "were with
David three days, eating and drinking", and that those who lived in the territory
of the other Tribes, even unto Issachar, and Zebulon and Naphthali, brought
bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen; also meat, meal,
cakes of figs, and bunches of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen and sheep
abundantly; for there was joy in Israel" (I Chr. 12:39, 40). Also it is written that
David in those days "dealt to every one of Israel, both man and woman, to every
one a loaf of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine." (Id. 16:3).

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

6. Does "setting forth of..." mean "establishment of" or "advancement of" or something else?

It is a cause for profound astonishment that, in what purports to be a complete
setting forth of the teaching of Scripture as to the Kingdom of God, this
particular text (Rom. 14:17) should have been ignored; since it has the unique
distinction of giving the Holy Spirit's own definition of that Kingdom.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 25, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> *Question 26.*
> 
> 1. Does "account for" mean "how can we _explain_ it..."?
> 
> ...



- I was able to solve 1 and 2. On the 3rd question, I risked substituting "that" for "since". I think it makes better since when translated.

- On the 4th, I translated it as a "good-bye view", since translating it literally to Portuguese doesn't express the meaning too clearly.

-- I couldn't figure out the meaning of "do flow" on the 5th question; I don't understand the relationship of `flowing` with the rabbinist's beliefs of kingdom. So far, I consider it to be a typo or OCR error. 
Eventually, if I can't figure it out, I might have to translate "do flow" as "do too", which isn't the same as "do flow", but I guess it doesn't contradict anything either. 
I can't translate `flow` literally because it means water flowing and such doesn't make sense in the context of that paragraph, when translated literally, in Portuguese.

- Concerning the 6th, I don`t think the author meant `advancement` or `to continue`, so I translated it as `to establish`.


----------



## monoergon (Aug 29, 2016)

*Question 27.*

1. Does "they one and all" mean "each one of them"? ('them' = declarations).
Or, perhaps, did the author mean "they, one and all, reveal purposes..."?

- I have never read that expression before.

[...] In not one of these declarations concerning the object of His
coming is there the slightest hint of an earthly kingdom; but on the contrary
they one and all reveal purposes utterly inconsistent with it. Nevertheless, in the
interest of dispensationalism all these clear declarations are swept aside, while
other passages of Scripture are forced and wrested in order to make them yield
to it a semblance of support.


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


2. What is meant by "do flow"? 
This is a hard one. It also might be a typo or OCR error.

The Kingdom is here defined both negatively and positively. We are told first
what it is not, and then what it is; and hence the text is the more enlightening
for our present purpose. For a contrast is here presented between the Kingdom
of God and the historical Kingdom of David, which the rabbinists supposed (as
the dispensationalists do flow) were one and the same. Concerning the
kingdom of David it is recorded that they who came to make him king "were with
David three days, eating and drinking", and that those who lived in the territory
of the other Tribes, even unto Issachar, and Zebulon and Naphthali, brought
bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen; also meat, meal,
cakes of figs, and bunches of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen and sheep
abundantly; for there was joy in Israel" (I Chr. 12:39, 40). Also it is written that
David in those days "dealt to every one of Israel, both man and woman, to every
one a loaf of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine." (Id. 16:3).


----------

