Bringing together Palestinian and Messianic Leaders

Both critics and advocates alike acknowledge the unparalleled influence of the dispensational Scofield Reference Bible upon Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism during the first half of the twentieth century.

James Barr claims that in the 1950's half of all conservative Evangelical student groups were using the Scofield Reference Bible, and that it was,

Craig Blaising, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, and a dispensationalist, similarly acknowledges,

Ernest Sandeen the historian explains some of the reasons for its popularity,

In his Introduction, Scofield claimed that, over the previous fifty years there had been an 'unprecedented' degree of interest in Bible study, '...free from merely controversial motive' and that from this '...new and vast exegetical and expository...' body of literature which was '...inaccessible for bulk, cost, and time to the average reader', Scofield had taken, the '...winnowed and attested results...' of this fifty years of study and that they were now '...embodied in the notes, summaries, and definitions of this edition.'

He insisted that 'Expository novelties, and merely personal views and interpretations, have been rejected.' In distinguishing his own from previous bible reference systems, which he regarded as '...unscientific and often misleading...' Scofield insisted that in his new system,

For example, in Isaiah 11, entitled 'The Davidic kingdom set up' additional headings guide readers carefully through the chapter ensuring a dispensational reading,

Scofield's Reference Bible has undergone significant revision since it was first published in 1909. Scofield completed the first revision in 1917, apparently with the help of seven consulting editors - Henry G. Weston (President, Crozier Theological Seminary); James M. Gray (Dean, Moody Bible Institute); W. G. Moorehead (Professor, Xenia U.P.Theological Seminary); Elmore Harris (President, Toronto Bible Institute) William J. Erdman; Arno C. Garbelein & Arthur T. Pierson, several of whom were D.L. Moody's colleagues. Canfield argues that the addition of these names together with their academic qualifications was merely cosmetic, to give an air of respectability Sandeen goes further arguing,

The 1945 revision slips in an eighth consulting editor, William L. Pettingill, while The New Scofield Reference Bible published in 1967 was edited by Dr E. Schuyler English.

In his book 'Rightly Dividing the Word of God', Scofield explains the foundational dispensational presuppositions which have determined his theological framework, the notes of his later Scofield Reference Bible, and in particular, for our purposes, his views of the relationship between Israel and the Church.

Scofield's 'literalism' extended even to exact verbal phraseology. This led him to claim there to be seven dispensations, eight covenants (Heb. 8:8), and eleven great mysteries (Mt. 13:11).

Scofield defines his dispensations as periods of time, '...during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God...' In the Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, he explains, following mention of the 'remarkable results of the modern study of the Prophets, in recovering to the church...a clear and coherent harmony of the predictive portions...' how,

Whether Augustine understood 'ages' in terms of Scofield's dispensations is doubtful. Nevertheless, Scofield claimed that seven such dispensations were 'distinguished' in Scripture.

Scofield's rigid adherence to these dispensations requires him to make some novel assertions to ensure consistency. So for example, in describing the transition between his fourth dispensation of promise to his fifth dispensation of law, Scofield argues,

Similarly, in his introduction to the Gospels, Scofield imposes stark divisions before and after Calvary which lead him to the assertions that, 'The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews...The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace...the doctrines of Grace are to be sought in the Epistles not in the Gospels.' In introducing the sixth dispensation of grace, Scofield even teaches the possibility of salvation by works when he writes,

It is with the more precise prophetic speculations Scofield offers in his sixth and seventh dispensations concerning the relationship between Israel and the Church which have had such a profound effect on the rise of subsequent Dispensationalism. As has been noted, in 'Rightly Dividing the Word of God', Scofield laid out the dispensational presuppositions which determined his theological framework,

Such a pessimistic view of human history is no where more evident than in what Scofield teaches about his sixth dispensation, the church-age.

Historic Christianity has traditionally seen some form of continuity between the Old and New Covenants, and in the relationship between Israel and the Church, national Israel being in an anti-type and precursor for the Church. Scofield concedes as much, although through his notes, he systematically attempts to prove such a view erroneous in favour of a 'failing' church syndrome. Indeed he insists that the Church has not replaced or succeeded Israel as the people of God. In his introduction to the Four Gospels, he argues,

Scofield has been criticised for applying an obscure, arbitrary and indeed excessive form of typology to reinforce the belief, no doubt influenced by Darby, that the Church age will ultimately end in failure and apostasy to be replaced by a revived national Israel who will enjoy the blessings of the final kingdom dispensation.

Given that four of his seven dispensations are based around events recorded in the first twelve chapters of Genesis, (and a fifth in Exodus), it is perhaps not surprising that Scofield finds in these texts the basis for his entire scheme. So for example, in a footnote to Genesis 2:23, Scofield asserts that Eve is a 'type of the Church as bride of Christ.' As with some of his other 'types' this one appears arbitrary and speculative. Scofield offers a list of New Testament cross references, presumably in the belief that they validate his teaching. These are John 3:28-29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25-32 and Rev. 19:7-8. In none of these, however, is there any justification for such an assertion. Eve is not even mentioned. There are only two references to Eve in the New Testament, and only once by way of comparison. In 2 Cor. 11:3 Paul warns the Corinthians that they are in danger of being deceived like Eve. Even this verse therefore does not teach that they, the Corinthians were deceived, still less that Eve could or should be regarded as a type for the universal Church.

From Genesis 3:14, Scofield further claims that the 'Adamic Covenant conditions the life of fallen man-conditions which must remain till, in the kingdom age, 'the creation also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God' (Rom. 8.21).' The verse quoted actually refers to creation not people. By such typology, in which Eve and the so-called Adamic Covenant represent the state of the Church, Scofield prepares the ground for his teaching that the dispensation of the Church is destined to end in apostasy and failure.

Then from Genesis 11:1, Scofield sees the Tower of Babel as yet another striking type for the professing Church.

The history of Babel (confusion) strikingly parallels that of the professing Church...ending in a man-made unity-the papacy...[and] ...the confusion of tongues-Protestantism with its innumerable sects.

Linking Isaiah 13 with Revelation 17, Scofield insists the latter reference predicts the destruction of 'apostate Christianity', which he also described as 'ecclesio-Babylon' In a speculative but rather confusing footnote to Revelation 17 and the identity of Babylon, Scofield insists that there are actually 'two' Babylons.

By such typology, Scofield intends his readers to concur that even the dispensation of the Church will end in 'judgment-marking...utter failure' This is at variance with New Testament teaching which assures of the permanence and ultimate victory of the Church over evil.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)

In other places Scofield's scheme appears to contradict the New Testament. So in Matthew 13, for example, in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, the Lord explains that the wicked will be removed first. Scofield however, insists the believers will be taken out first at the rapture. Likewise his footnote to Acts 1:11 ignores the fact that the Angel promises that all will see Jesus when He returns and not the few in some 'secret rapture.'

Clearly those who have subsequently accepted Scofield's scheme, especially since 1948 such as Hal Lindsey, who have been preconditioned to expect the return of Jews to Palestine, are generally pessimistic about the role of the Church, and see in the founding of the State of Israel, evidence not only of the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, but of an impending Jewish revival and imminent return of Christ.

Scofield applied his typology to the relationship between Israel and the Church. Starting with a cross-reference from Genesis 11:1 and the story of Babel, he guides his readers to Isaiah 13:1 and the 'burden of Babylon' where Scofield claims,

This notion that Gentiles are 'blessed in association with Israel', is the principle motivation for the International Christian Embassy who believe Christians are called to 'comfort Zion' rather than bear witness to Jesus as Messiah. Scofield provides Christian Zionists such as the ICEJ with justification when he takes the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 and applies it to Abraham's descendants,

(5) 'I will bless them that bless thee.' In fulfilment closely related to the next clause. (6) 'And curse him that curseth thee.' Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew-well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle. (Deut. 30. 7; Isa. 14. 1, 2; Joel 3. 1-8; Mic. 5. 7-9; Hag. 2. 22; Zech. 14. 1-3; Mt. 25. 40, 45).

The New Testament consistently speaks of there being one true vine or one olive tree, symbols portraying the unity within the one elect people of God made up of both Jews and Gentiles, who by faith are thereby all declared to be children of Abraham. However, in his introduction to the Gospels, Scofield insists,

Following J.N. Darby, Scofield taught that God has two separate plans, one for Israel, another for the Church, each having a separate identity and eternal destiny, Israel's on earth while the Church's in heaven. So in commenting on Matthew 16,18, and Jesus' promise to 'build my church,' Scofield claims,

In a footnote to Acts 7:38, apparently attempting to explain away the term used by Stephen of Israel as 'the church in the wilderness' Scofield insists,

In commenting on Romans 11:1, Scofield insists on maintaining this distinction. To do so however, he has to distinguish between 'earthly' and 'heavenly' fulfilment of Biblical prophecy,

So, with reference to Romans 11:5, in which Paul insists a remnant of believing Jews existed in his day, Scofield extrapolates that,

To justify this continued distinction between Israel and the Church even under the New Covenant, Scofield claims Israel is the earthly wife of God and the Church the heavenly bride of Christ. Commenting on Hosea 2:2, Scofield writes,

In a footnote to the last reference, Revelation 19:7, Scofield insists,

Scofield reaches this conclusion, guided by his literalistic interpretation and thereby needing to avoid setting Scripture against Scripture, because, 'A forgiven and restored wife could not be called either a virgin (2 Cor. 11: 2,3), or a bride.'

Such novel teaching of an 'earthly wife' and 'heavenly bride' is in plain contradiction to passages such as John 10:16 and Romans 11:24, neither of which, interestingly, warrant any comment by Scofield.

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10,16)

nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! (Romans 11,24)

Here Paul is emphasising that Gentiles were and would be grafted into the faithful remnant of Jewish believers who constitute the olive tree. This is neither equated with national Israel, nor with a separate olive tree, but affirms that, at some future time believing Jews will also be grafted in once again. Paul is therefore teaching quite explicitly that there is one olive tree into which both Jews and Gentiles have and will be grafted. In the face of those who in his own day regarded Gentile believers as inferior and who wished to keep Jewish and Gentile believers separate, Paul insisted,

in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3,28-29)

Paul uses similar analogies of 'one new man' (Ephesians 2:13-16), and, 'fellow heirs, and of the same body' (Ephesians 3:4-6), to emphasise that God has taken two peoples and made them one in Christ. By insisting, however, on arbitrary divisions in biblical history marked off, '...by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind...' each ending '...in judgment' and '...utter failure in every dispensation,' Scofield through his literalist hermeneutic, sets in tension Old testament Scripture with New testament Scripture, divorces Israel from the Church, and thereby confuses the future with the past. This is made more apparent still by the way in which Scofield insists that unfulfilled prophecies concerning national Israel will be fulfilled in the future.

Like Darby, Scofield taught that it was God's intention to restore the nation of Israel to Palestine, rebuild the Temple, and re-institute the priesthood and sacrificial system. 'According to the prophets, Israel, regathered from all nations, restored to her own land, and converted, is yet to have her greatest earthly exaltation and glory.' In his note relating to Haggai 2:9, Scofield claims, for instance, that there will be a fourth and fifth temple built in Jerusalem.

Scofield finds evidence for this view in Leviticus 23:23-25 and an unusual typology related to the feast of Tabernacles.

This highly speculative scheme is simply imposed on a series of texts that teach nothing of the sort. For example, Leviticus 23:23-25 reads,

It is surprising that Scofield should begin to base his belief in the return of the Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple on the basis of passages such as this. In one of the cross references given, Joel 2, Scofield is forced to re-interpret later verses to avoid reversing the chronological order of the chapter. The earlier portion of the chapter, he claims, refers to the future restoration of Israel. However Peter, on the great Day of Pentecost, quotes from the latter part, Joel 2:28-32 to explain how the events predicted were occurring that day. To get round this, Scofield insists,

So Scofield teaches that a 'greater fulfilment' of this passage refers to a future blessing awaiting Israel rather than that which occurred on the Day of Pentecost at the birth of the Church. Once again national Israel is placed in a superior position to that of the Church. To perpetuate this artificial division, in the cross-reference to Acts 2:17, Scofield has to distinguish between the 'last days' of the Church and the 'last days' of Israel.

To justify his dispensational scheme and a glorious future for Israel in the Kingdom age, Scofield concedes that the Scriptures speak of two occasions when national Israel returned to Palestine, but insists a third return is also predicted.

Scofield's argument for a third return is based on two important deductions that follows from his literalist hermeneutic. First, that Israel had never taken all the land promised to Abraham, and second, that Messianic promises had not been fulfilled during the first advent. In linking these two together, Scofield speculated that the return to the land would follow the return of the Lord, a chronology that is contradicted in the conflicting notes on Deuteronomy 30:3-5, written with hindsight in the New Scofield Reference Bible published in 1967. In a note on Deuteronomy 30:3, Scofield argues,

In the New Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield's extensive note on Deuteronomy 30:3 is omitted and readers are invited to refer to a new note attached to Deuteronomy 28:20, not originally present in Scofield's earlier versions.

Scofield and his later dispensational revisionists, ignore or minimise the seriousness of the injunctions contained in this very passage of Deuteronomy which plainly teaches that occupation of the land would always be conditional on obedience, a principle Moses was concerned to impress upon Israel before she entered the land, a principle subsequently demonstrated throughout Israel's history, and in particular under the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. The attempt by Scofield's revisers to make Deuteronomy 30:1-6 speak of a final restoration to the land is undermined just a few verses further on in Deuteronomy 30:11-20 where Moses reiterates the same warning.

But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. (Deuteronomy 30,17-19)

Scofield's dispensational hermeneutic nevertheless requires a futuristic interpretation of this passage on the grounds that Israel has never yet received all the land allegedly 'unconditionally' and literally promised under the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, Scofield insists, logically, she must do so one day. So, in a footnote to Isaiah 10, he writes,

The argument concerning God's possible future purposes for a revived national Israel therefore stands or falls on whether the promise made under the Abrahamic Covenant has or has not yet been fulfilled. In Genesis 15:18 we are told,

Then, in Deuteronomy 6, Moses says,

See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers--to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--and to their descendants after them. (Deuteronomy 1,8)

But he brought us out from there to bring us in and give us the land that he promised on oath to our forefathers. (Deuteronomy 6,23)

In these passages Moses reminds the Israelites that God had rescued them from Egypt in order to fulfil the promise made to Abraham that his seed would inherit the Promised Land. God reaffirms that same promise to Moses' successor, Joshua.

Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. (Joshua 1,6)

The question then arises, did Israel do so? While it is true that, the Jews have never exercised political sovereignty over all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, nevertheless the Book of Joshua makes clear that the covenant promise was indeed regarded as having been fulfilled in that generation.

So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (Joshua 11,23)

So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. Not one of all the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. (Joshua 21,43-45)

It is significant that we are told Joshua took 'the entire land' because the Lord had given 'Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers'. To the claim that certain promises have yet to be fulfilled, Joshua is emphatic, 'Not one of all the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.' Likewise, Nehemiah, writing after the second exile, looked back to the first exile and could testify in praise to God for the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham,

You gave them kingdoms and nations, allotting to them even the remotest frontiers... You made their sons as numerous as the stars in the sky, and you brought them into the land that you told their fathers to enter and possess. (Nehemiah 9,22-23)

These passages record the first re-gathering of the Israelites to the Promised Land and Nehemiah even refers to the metaphorical promise to make Abraham's descendants 'as numerous as the stars in the sky' (cf. Genesis 22:17). It is significant, however, that Scofield gives no footnotes to these passages, nor offers any cross-references to them. Instead he relies on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 15:18 that leads him to contradict these other passages of Scripture. This selective approach is not the only occasion in which Scofield, in his notes, mishandle Scripture in order to maintain his dispensational scheme. He does the same with the second exile. The Prophets, while warning of judgment and chastisement also offer, in varying degrees of explicitness, the promise of a second return. After 70 years this was fulfilled under Zerubbabel, and recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, Scofield insists they refer to a third return on the premise that certain Messianic promises have not yet been completely fulfilled literally. An example he gives is Jeremiah 23:5-8,

The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety....'So then, the days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land.

In a footnote to this passage, Scofield asserts,

Another passage Scofield insists supports his belief in a 'third' return is Ezekiel 37 and the vision of the valley of dry bones.

It is difficult to conceive how such an entirely futuristic interpretation would have brought comfort to the Jewish exiles in Babylon to whom Ezekiel was sent to minister. Acts 15:15-17 is given as a cross-reference both here and also to Jeremiah 23. For Scofield, Acts 15 was, 'Dispensationally...the most important passage in the N.T.' since it contains James' summary of the decision reached by the Apostles and elders that Gentile believers were not required to undergo circumcision or be commanded to keep the law of Moses as some of the Pharisees had insisted (Acts 15:5-6). James appeals to Amos 9:11 as proof that what they had been witnessing since Pentecost, in seeing Gentiles come to faith, had been predicted long ago and was therefore consistent with God's will.

'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' (Acts 15,16-17)

Scofield reads considerably more into this passage however. So much so that he obscures its most obvious and direct meaning. The reason Scofield believes 'dispensationally', it to be '...the most important passage in the N.T.' is because,

Scofield has interpreted the 'After this..' as meaning that 'after James' or 'after Pentecost', in fact at least 1,900 years 'after', God would some day 'rebuild the tabernacle of David'. In doing so Scofield ignores the fact that James is actually quoting Amos and a chronology seen from Amos' perspective, to explain what had happened since the time of Amos and the amazing conversion of Cornelius and other Gentiles which had caused such a stir (Acts 15:2-4) and necessitated this potentially divisive meeting between Paul and Barnabas, the Apostles and Elders.

James appeals to the prophets to vindicate the universality of the Gospel and the Gentile mission in particular. If dispensationalists see this as 'spiritualising' the Old Testament text, then they should acknowledge that it is James under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who does so. The 'remnant' Amos refers to were Israel's enemies, the Edomites not Jews, who would, he predicted, come under Messiah's rule. By using the passage to teach some predetermined chronological and futuristic plan for national Israel, Scofield takes away the heart of the passage which implicitly focuses on the wonder of Christ's work at Calvary as the reason Gentiles were turning to God (Acts 15:26). It is a simple fact that nowhere is a third re-gathering 'to the land' mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Each passage quoted by Scofield refers either to the first or second re-gathering to the land, or as in the case of Amos 9, to the first advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is significant that following the rebuilding of Solomon's temple in 516 B.C. there are no biblical references in either the Old or the New Testament to any return to the Land. From the perspective of the New Testament, the 'Land' has ceased to have any significance in the future purposes of God. So for example, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus reinterprets and universalises the promises made in Psalm 37.

But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace....those the Lord blesses will inherit the land, but those he curses will be cut off... the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever. (Psalm 37,11, 22, 29)

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. (Matthew 5,5)

Similarly, when Paul is listing the present benefits that still pertain to Israel in Romans 9, significantly, he does not mention the land as one of them.

Unperturbed by such omissions Scofield constructs a detailed 'end-times' scenario which forms the basis of much contemporary 'Armageddon' theology.

In the 1890's during Scofield's pastorate in Dallas he was also head of the Southwestern School of the Bible, the 'forerunner' to Dallas Theological Seminary. In 1890 Scofield also began his Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course through which tens of thousands of students around the world were introduced to dispensationalist teaching about a failing Church and a future Israel. Scofield directed the Course until 1914 when it was taken over by the Moody Bible Institute. It is perhaps therefore not surprising then that these two institutions, the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary have continued to be the foremost apologists for Scofield's dispensational views, and of Christian Zionism in particular, since then.