Leaderboard

How do you know? There are people who would for sure do those jobs if they had the opportunity. Allowing illegals in creates big issues in the economy, solving absolutely nothing. Stop buying in to the lies that open borders people push.

We received a call the night before last notifying us of my wife's sister's intent to divorce her second husband. She came home from work ten days ago and was met by her husband in a terrible mood. They had gone to his mother's home, and he and his mother tried to coerce my SIL to try to go back to work at Walmart because he wants to retire. In doing so he would be without insurance and need someone else's insurance. At any rate, the MIL started in on Pat, and she asked them to stop trying to pressure her to leave her current employer where she has no insurance but can work the hours her physical conditions would allow. He stated he wouldn't accept that answer and got very angry and confrontational. He grabbed my SIL by the neck and threw her against the wall. My SIL asked the MIL if she was going to let him act that way, and she told Pat she deserved it. Pat left and went home. As soon as my BIL got home, he started in with the physical abuse again. He left for a short period during which she gathered some clothes and went to her youngest son's house to stay overnight. My BIL has now threatened her, her two sons and anyone who tries to make them separate. She's going to file for divorce on Friday after she gets paid. Please pray for her and my nephews. Also pray for my BIL...he's an alcoholic and claims to be a Christian. I don't know him though they've been married since August of 2009. I have no intention of meeting him because of his threats over the years. The situation is dire, so please pray.

My friend's mom is very sick. Her name is Mrs. Delano. Please be in prayer for her. And for her daughters. @Pastor Matt, it's Andy Teesdale's MIL.

I have to chuckle because this subject has come up in conversation the last couple of days for reasons I'll explain below. I will first state that we are very like Pastor Matt. IOW, hubs wears suit and tie, and those who teach/preach from the pulpit are so required. Ushers are required to wear a dress shirt/tie (or a sports shirt since many of them look like a dress shirt). Jacket not required for them. Hubs has not preached that men must dress thusly and women must dress thusly. Rather, his focus is on holiness. We have seen many changes - including dress - as the Holy Spirit has worked on folks in regards to holiness. (explanation:) That said, I found something interesting Sunday afternoon. Photos of William and Catherine (the British royals) and their oldest son and their daughter were taken as they arrived at different events (his in Germany, hers in England). William and his son (and all the men around them) were in suit and tie. Throughout the entire game. Catherine and her daughter were in dresses. I mentioned to my husband how interesting it is that they attended SPORTS events dressed like that - and were comfortable doing so, as pictures made obvious - and yet here in America, a broo-haw-haw is made about folks wearing what has always been termed "dress" or "church" clothes to church. (now, I understand that not everyone can afford fancy duds, and I am not advocating that...I'm sure William's suits cost more than my hubs' and I know Catherine's dresses cost more than mine lol) Now in our culture folks that WANT to dress nicely (you know, not in ripped jeans, tee shirts, mini-skirts, shorts, etc) are reviled. My husband was told by a gentleman who attended for a while that he needed to stop wearing suits because it would make people feel unwelcome...my hubs told him he dresses the way he believes God would have him do, and he doesn't tell anyone else how to dress (unless involved in ministry). Many folks I know like to throw around the words "pharisee" and "legalist" when talking about folks that wear traditional church clothing. Regardless of whether or not those folks try to force/guilt/manipulate others to dress the same. IOW, so many folks who stand against suits/ties and dresses are actually hypocritical. They want to wear whatever they want yet don't extend that grace to others. Could it be that seeing folks dressed "traditionally" brings conviction and instead of submitting to the Holy Spirit they attack to justify their own desires? Not saying it's always the case, but I do have to wonder. I know that a suit and tie do not make a man holy. Nor does a dress make a woman so. I think it's legitimate to bring to light that there are churches that teach (or at least SEEM to) that holiness only comes if you dress just so. That is a product of the 1970s, when churches began really pushing dresses on girls and short hair on guys. Don't get me wrong...long hair on guys is unbiblical for sure. But when the external became the basis for holiness, true holiness didn't happen. And I think we're seeing the fruit of that today. Ugh. Wrote more than I intended, and I'm tired, recuperating from several days of sickness. So I don't know if this even makes sense. Hope it does.

I'll be praying that you both seek God and that you both will follow His will.

Tithing existed before the Law of Moses. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20; Heb 7:6). Jacob tithed to the Lord at Bethel (Gen 28:22). This practice was later incorporated into the Law.

When I was a teenager, I worked in the cornfields, loaded hay and all that. I pulled the weeds, "turned" the vines, loaded watermelons on trailers and trucks, operated the forklift and tractors in a big local watermelon operation. While the melons were growing, we built a dock in the middle of this huge watermelon field. We loaded the melons in the field in big palletized boxes set on flatbed trailers and, when each trailer was loaded it was towed to the central location where the boxes were offloaded and loaded straight onto waiting semi trailers at the dock. All I remember seeing, out there, were mostly white guys and blacks. There were no Mexicans/central Americans or girls out there. My tan was nearly as dark as a Mexican's. We took those jobs because it was available, and because our parents taught us to work. We were farm boys. But it seems few young folks want to work like that anymore, or even work at all. It could be because our farms have gotten larger and fewer so, kids are not raised up that way anymore. But, in my present line of business, I'm seeing people move into the area, buying 20, 30, 40 acres of land or more. Some still have young children and, from me, they are purchasing farm implements. Those kids will be taught to work.

My income hasn't risen. In fact, I just lost my 2nd job (something my father never had to worry about), there's no more bonuses at my first job and my rent increased more than my father was paying on the mortgage of his house.

Thank you, Lord!

This comes as no surprise to me. Just wait to see what happens if Trump gets elected. I believe the left will become completely unhinged (they're barely hanging on to the one rusty hinge they have left). This is only the beginning.

Personally, I don't concern myself with how anyone tithes, blind or with eyes wide open. It's between them and God.

I've dealt with Alzheimer's/Dementia in my family and my wife's relatives. For me, it was my maternal grandmother, her daughter, my Aunt Janet, my maternal great grandmother, and my Aunt Florence. Many times, though they realize something isn't quite right, won't immediately face what is going head on. Instead they will implement certain coping mechanisms, many with great success. With my grandmother my wife and I moved from Augusta Georgia to Bloomington Indiana to help take care of her. My grandpa couldn't handle her, as she had become a danger to herself and others (she tried to kill my grandfather with a chef's knife, and Vivian and I with electricity), so the doctor suggested he commit her for observation. Taking care of her eventually became a source of contention between my grandfather and I, so we moved back home to Augusta. He had a stroke a year or so later. My great grandmother was in her early 90s when dementia presented itself. She passed away quickly. My two Aunts had always been active, but after being retired and on the move for 12 years, she started forgetting what to do, when to eat, etc. Aunt Florence was in her 80s when it became clear that she was in decline she was placed in the same nursing home that my GG and grandmother had been in. She died a year after taking residence there in a fall from her bed. In all of these cases it took some learning how to handle those afflicted. Vivian's twin uncles both had "Sundowners" dementia. That was hard leading one uncle to suicide, and the second one to a divorce and death from pneumonia. They both were in the process of going to a nursing home. They both had a good chance at living a decent life through their declining days. There are lots of resources available on the Internet on treating people with this affliction.

True I was just supporting giving, not correcting you.

Don’t forget, teach her how to swim first.

A friend of mine was saying tithing is an OT law practice and not required under the NT system. I thought the principle remained of giving a tenth to support your church. Giving to your church is obviously in the NT.. my friend said that was offerings, not tithes. It got me thinking about the Biblical base for tithing. My impression is although it was an OT practice, the standard remains in giving to your church..and the standard amount always having been a tenth or more.

I'm on my phone and boy that was a lot of scrolling!

Exodus 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. Oh well, there go the originals of God's commandments. We'll never get those back Jeremiah 36:22-23 Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. 23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. There goes another original...up in smoke. What are we to do without those originals? Now we'll never know what God wanted us to know from those writings. /sarc Fortunately, I have a God that is capable of overcoming the loss of the originals.

The Summit starts today at 6:30 PM! While my son is there, we could not make it. I hope you were able to go Pastor Matt. Maybe next year we can meet up. For those of you that can't make it you can watch it on Livestream at Northeast Vision | Strengthen, Support & Start Churches You won't be disappointed.

It's sad to see the conference end, but I'm refreshed and reenergized. @Napsterdad Lord willing willing we'll see you next year

Several problems here. First, it appears that your question to the AI is based on legal immigration. I don't think anyone here has a problem with LEGAL immigration. The problem is ILLEGAL immigration. Second: The problem with AI with regard to questions like this, however, is that it is slanted to the liberal woke crowd. Third: My statistics came straight from the US Governments Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. from January of this year. They show the lie of your AI answer when it is ILLEGAL immigration that is the focus of the discussion. ILLEGAL immigration is not good for America.

So having illegal aliens do these more menial jobs is worth the $68,000 per person fiscal drain. How about an alternative be work fare instead of welfare? If you are able (physically, mentally, etc.) in order to receive your welfare check you must work for it in one of the capacities you list above (or others). The farmers (etc.) would pay a smaller minimum wage (keeping food costs down for example) and that would be supplemented by a workfare check from the government. Perhaps that would motivate people to better themselves and get off the government dole.

That's all you ever seem to see... big problems. How refreshing it would be if every now and then you would offer up a positive solution.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (Jan. 11, 2024): Illegal immigrants are a net fiscal drain, meaning they receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. The fundamental reason that illegal immigrants are a net drain is that they have a low average education level, which results in low average earnings and tax payments. It also means a large share qualify for welfare programs, often receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Like their less-educated and low-income U.S.-born counterparts, the tax payments of illegal immigrants do not come close to covering the cost they create. Illegal immigrants make extensive use of welfare. Based on government data, we estimate that 59 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants use one or more major welfare programs. In addition to consuming welfare, illegal immigration makes significant use of public education. Based on average costs per student, the estimated 4 million children of illegal immigrants in public schools created $68.1 billion in costs in 2019. Use of emergency medical services is another area in which illegal immigrants create significant fiscal costs. The costs of providing care to them likely totals some $7 billion annually. Illegal immigrants do pay some taxes. We estimate that illegal immigrants in 2019 paid roughly $5.9 billion in federal income tax, $16.2 billion in Social Security tax and $3.8 billion in Medicaid taxes. However, as the net fiscal drain of $68,000 per person cited above indicates, these taxes are not nearly enough to cover the cost of the services they receive. Illegal immigrants do add perhaps $321 billion to the nation’s GDP, but this is not a measure of their tax contributions or the benefits they create for the U.S.-born. Almost all the increase in economic activity goes to the illegal immigrants themselves in the form of wages. You can find the entire study here: The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Taxpayers (house.gov) A net fiscal drain of $68,000 PER PERSON! Legal immigration can be beneficial as a large portion of those immigrants are better educated and quickly find employment as medical scientists, software developers. college professors, engineers, mathematicians, nurses, doctors and dentists. (G.W. Bush Institute 2016). These LEGAL immigrants provide near immediate social and fiscal benefits to their communities and the government, unlike their illegal counterparts.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/video-shows-donald-trumps-reaction-to-being-shot-on-stage/ar-BB1pW4MM

Now this is interesting. Can you expand on the "facts" you deal with? Do you personally survey the ground of news stories you hear to establish these facts? Do you personally interview eye-witnesses and examine physical evidence? If not then you get your "facts" from somewhere else. Where is this hidden treasure trove of indisputable "facts" located so we can all benefit? We need these "facts" sooner rather than in hindsight when the damage is already done if you don't mind. Also, could you specify which of your families "conspiracy theories" were proven false? Just a handful will suffice since you say "too often" proven wrong. Which ones?

Great start to the Summit with Pastor Charlie Clark Jr. and David Gibbs back-to-back. Definitely convicted. Of course there is always great music at Solid Rock. There is a Livestream @ 0900 today and tomorrow as well as the main services @ 1830 both days. Preachers are always a surprise, but I saw Pastor Shirley there in the crowd. Hopefully they'll have Kenny Baldwin back as well. Pastor Matt, If you are so inclined my son is there and it would be nice if you could meet him. While mostly focused on the Rochester, NY area because of familiarity, he does have a heart for all the Northeast and you two meeting could be good for your networks. I've already heard "I know a guy" from him on SO many occasions. And who knows, maybe he could be an asset to you some day in the future. He's on fire for the Lord and is great with kids. His name is Isaac. Last night he was singing in the front row of the choir a little left from center (not politically ) between two gold jackets. He is one of the few young men there with a beard. No pressure. I know it is crazy busy there. But if you happen to pass nearby perhaps you could give him a shout. You may recall that he knows your daughter from Vision last year, too. Regardless, enjoy your time at the conference. Should be a great time of focusing and recharging.

Dr. Robert Jeffress and the First Baptist Church of Dallas Texas have suffered a fire that destroyed their historic Old Sanctuary. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-we-know-fire-breaks-out-at-first-baptist-church-of-dallas/ar-BB1qj1hU?ocid=BingNewsVerp

AI doesn't kill people, people kill people

TGL, AI has nothing to do with this. There are far too many questionable things coming out for anyone with right-thinking to not realize this was so much more than a 20 year old goofball shooting at someone. I do fully believe this was an inside job and no amount of dum and dumer - ing (and it's dumb, dumber, btw ) changes that.

Who here needs to go back to basic training and why? Be specific. What are you doing that some of us are missing? Give some positive feedback, not just negative accusations.

Later in the same post you stated: "I am surprise to see this happening even here in this forum." You 'said it clearly above' "even here on this forum". This focuses the earlier "we" in your post on those of us in this forum. To that I took exception.

Vote your conscience or don't vote at all. It's simple as that. And refuse to get in an argument with anyone over your choice. Don't even bring it up.

"We"? (You do realize when you use the word "we" you are including yourself?) You and who else here are opening the doors to many gods? Who here is "accepting" (not excepting) whatever comes our way? I and my wife are involved in various ministries that help educate others in solid biblical principles. I take a stand against those that would dilute or sidestep Christian conduct where it is in my power to do so. I raise my children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And I vote for the candidate that most closely associates himself to the Christian principles found in the Bible. What do you do TGL (aside from cast your negative commentary and aspersions on this forum)? You don't like Trump and Vance? Well, they certainly are not my ideal choice for a presidential ticket either. So, what are you going to do TGL. Vote for Biden (or whoever replaces him as the Democrat candidate)? That will do nothing but accelerate this nation's fall away from God. Are you not going to vote at all? Well by doing that you are still casting a vote because that is one less vote that the candidate that is most conservative would have received. He is one vote closer to losing. What do you propose TGL. Instead of just coming on this forum and spouting negativity, why don't you share with us what you are doing to move this country in the right direction. Why don't you offer us some positive solutions to the negative bile and accusations you keep spewing? Not once can I recall you doing either of these things. It seems all you can do is point your finger. Just remember, when you are pointing your finger at someone else there are three other fingers pointing back at you.

You need to point out where all of this is allegedly happening on this forum. Eddie, you're getting to be a hit-and-run poster here, constantly making vague accusations, NEVER posting proof of anything you post, and posting your warped opinions as truth. TBH, some of us here believe YOU are the one who needs to "go back to basic training," because it's clear many of your positions are lacking substance.

Okay TGL... You need to tell us when the last time was that America had a TRULY Christian ticket. Based on your insinuation made here we should have been doomed a LONG time ago.

I'm not thrilled with their individual religious beliefs - any more than I am Trump's. But Vance respects and supports the Constitution (I know he's not perfect) more than many Christians I know.

Yes, it is. Those lambasting Scofield for his notes are intentionally being obtuse and misleading others. Scofield took his personal observations of Scripture and compiled it like any other person does when putting their study Bibles out. Certainly, if you disagree with his observations that is fine. I don't see where he's being nefarious in his intent. He, like any other person has some things right and some others not so correct.

Even after his conversion, Scofield gave not even a penny for child support to the family he abandoned. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8 https://willyealsogoaway.substack.com/p/the-shocking-truth-about-ci-scofield The Shocking Truth About C.I. Scofield, by Dr. Texe Marrs Republished from: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/scofield.htm MAX WANG DEC 20, 2021 10 6 Share I am constantly amazed at the gross spiritual apathy and blasphemy of men and women, supposedly "Christians," who possess a woeful ignorance of the true meaning of the Kingdom of God. As shocking as it may seem, millions of people who consider themselves perfectly knowledgeable of the prophetic scriptures are today working earnestly in a misguided effort to help Satan and the Beast of Revelation establish their latter days global kingdom. Disgustingly, these millions of "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" Christians actually believe that in helping Satan and the Beast set up their bloody kingdom on earth, they are, in reality, serving God. Their callous disregard for scriptural integrity brings graphically to mind our Lord's dire warning that as the end of time draws near, the religious of this world will kill true Christians and think they do God service (John 16:2). A SATANIC EMBLEM FOR ISRAEL'S KINGDOM Some years ago, while attending a prophecy conference in Florida, I encountered a sincere but deluded woman proudly wearing a necklace bearing the so-called Jewish Star of David, the six-pointed star. She had no idea that this star secretly represents the number 666, that occultists universally call it the hexagram, and that Satanists regularly use the six-pointed star in their satanic rituals and invocations. This same woman gushingly told me she was a "lover of the nation-state of Israel." She bragged of giving large sums of money to a militant Jewish group in Jerusalem that has as its goal the blowing up of the Islamic mosque and the setting up of a new temple for the Jews atop its ruins. "But," I inquired of the woman, "are you not aware of II Thessalonians 2, which prophesies that the Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, shall show himself in such a temple, and blasphemously declare that he is above God?" "Well, yes," she offered. "But isn't that a good thing? That would hasten the coming of the Kingdom of the Jews, wouldn't it?" "The Kingdom of the Jews?," I repeated, almost incredulous. "Oh sure," she excitedly exclaimed. "That is what the Scofield Bible, which my husband and I love, says. The Jews shall reign over all the earth. They are God's Chosen. In helping them to rebuild their great temple, I am helping to usher in the Kingdom of the Jews." "My dear Sister," I confided, "You cannot serve God and the Devil at one and the same time. You cannot, on the one hand, help Jews, who despise our Saviour, Jesus Christ, rebuild their blasphemous temple in which they intend to carry out animal sacrifices. This would be mocking the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Do you really believe that in doing that, you are serving God?" But, she objected, "in helping the Jews rise to power, I am serving God!" "You cannot give money to help build Satan's kingdom," I explained, "and in doing so, please our Lord God. If the Zionist Jews are doggedly determined to mock and disrespect the truth, why should you, a Christian, help make that come to fruition?" "Moreover," I concluded, "Are you not aware that it was Jesus Himself who prophesied that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed, stone by stone. And it was destroyed, by the Romans in 70 AD. You, therefore, are working to undo what God has done. Are you more wise than God?" "But," she again protested, "God needs a place to live. He needs an earthly temple. And he needs a Holy City, Jerusalem, a capital for the Jewish Kingdom!" EARTHLY JERUSALEM VS. NEW JERUSALEM I had no more time to spare. If I did, I would have informed this poor creature that God has no need of a temple built with human hands. I would have patiently explained to her that, in any event, God considers the earthly Jerusalem, the intended world capital of the Jews, so wicked He compares it to "Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8). I would also liked to have brought to her attention the prophetic fact that earthly Jerusalem is a doomed city in bondage to Satan (Galatians 4:25-26). But, thank God, our Lord Jesus has prepared for His bride, the Christian Church, a fabulous New Jerusalem: However, I suspected that this unfortunate woman was not interested in the heavenly New Jerusalem of Scripture. She was far too enamored of the earthly city of Jerusalem, site of what she was sure was going to be a global empire to be presided over by the worldly leaders and rabbis of the Jewish race she so devoutly idealized. How sad and tragic. Like so many Christians, this pitiful lady had bought into the monstrous heresies first brought into the Church by Cyrus Scofield, a corrupt, crooked lawyer funded by Zionist Jews from New York City in the late 19th century. Scofield's heresies promoting a Jewish kingdom and an earthly Zionist New World Order to be ruled over by a god-like Jewish race, without any Christian gentiles around to mess things up, soon became fashionable among some apostate denominations, especially among the Southern Baptists and their heavily Masonic Lodge membership. Of course, the confused, but sincere woman wearing the hideous six-pointed star that day down in Florida had little knowledge of this Zionist plot by Scofield and his Jewish cohorts. She was a victim of some modern-day charlatan, perhaps a Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham, who had infused her with the Jewish fables against which the Apostle Paul long ago warned us to avoid (see Titus 1:14). MONEY FOR THE MASTER RACE For years, she and others have been taught that the Jews are the Master Race, that Christ-rejecting Jews, by virtue of their blood and fleshly race, are "God's Chosen" people. The deceived multitudes are, after all, constantly surrounded by the smooth words of Zionist fanatics like San Antonio's John Hagee and Left Behind's Tim LaHaye telling them that the Jews comprise a "holy nation," that if they give money to the Jews to go toward their worldly kingdom, God will prosper them and that someday, after Christian gentiles are raptured up, the ruling Jews can get on with building their long-sought earthly Kingdom. JESUS NOT OUR KING IN HEAVEN As one pro-Zionist "Christian" publication recently explained it, Jesus Christ is not our King in heaven, he's only the groom of the church. According to the Scofield-inspired crowd, Jesus has been demoted. He's up in Heaven today wandering around in a Jewish human body without a throne, waiting for a second opportunity to someday be King of the Jews. The Kingdom of God, say the Judaizers and Zionists, is not in heaven, nor is it in the hearts of men and women who have faith in Jesus their Lord. The Kingdom is the property exclusively of the Jews right here on earth! This, then, is the final landing point of the heretical, Satanic journey and amusement ride on which the Zionist schemers are enthusiastically jockeying the Christian masses. Jesus, who was killed by the Jews after he told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," is once again humiliated and degraded. Rejected almost two thousand years ago as King of the Jews, He is today rejected by Zionists and Judaizers as a heavenly Monarch as well. His heavenly crown is ripped from His brow. He is barred from the heavenly throne. While Jesus is demoted and shunted aside, a mere human race, the Jews, are spiritually and materially enthroned and exalted. Soon, we are told, the Jews shall have the kingdom for which they have lusted throughout the centuries since before the days of John the Baptist. Of course, to guarantee this earthly kingdom, the Gentile Christians are first to be raptured and out of the way. Only then, say the Judaizers, can the racially blessed and God-favored Jews rise to the pinnacle of universal power. It is supposedly the destiny of the Jews to be god-men and rulers of planet earth. THE KINGDOM RESERVED FOR THE OVERCOMERS Well, I have news for these Zionist and Judaizer schemers and plotters. Under the authority of God's majestic and incomparable Word, we can with assurance confidently proclaim that Zion is the destination and home only of born again Christian believers, people saved through faith in Jesus and not as a result of their flesh and blood or by accident of their national origins. The prophecies of God clearly tell us that it is not just Jews who shall inherit the Kingdom and have power over the nations, but whoseoever believeth on the name of Jesus, for He has overcome the world, and we are of Him: The Kingdom of our Lord Jesus is not a future Kingdom, and He is not interested in sitting on an earthly throne in Jerusalem. Indeed, God scathingly identifies wicked, earthly Jerusalem as the "Great City, Babylon" (Revelation 18). He also brands this filthy city of earthly Jerusalem as "Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8). No, Jesus' Kingdom is not future. It is not limited to earthly habitation. It is alive. It is eternal. It exists now. Our Father in Heaven has declared His Majesty, and who is able to deny Jesus His deserved crown and Kingdom? The Apostle Paul told us that all who trust in Jesus as Lord are already entered into His Kingdom. We are even now "situated in heavenly places" (see Col. 1:13; I Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:22). Friends, would you then trade in your heavenly and joyous abode for a man-made residence here on this tumultuous, depraved planet earth? Well, count me out! My calling, destiny and hope is to reside in glory with Christ Jesus, not to remain here, on this doomed, miserable pile of dirt and rocks called planet earth. If the Jews and their Judaizer associates want it that bad, let them have this planet. NO ZION WITHOUT KING JESUS The true Kingdom of Zion is, in fact, the New Jerusalem, a heavenly city and habitat built by God without human hands. What's more, citizenship in Zion is based not on race and blood. A person must be chosen by the King of Zion and must be born again into this Kingdom (John 3:3). Citizenship in this marvelous Kingdom is the privilege of believers. The wonderful thing is that there can be no Zion without a King. And the Word of God trumpets the indisputable Truth: There is No King but King Jesus! ~ by Dr. Texe Marrs

https://stephensizer.com/2021/06/cyrus-ingerson-scofield-charlatan-and-heretic/ Cyrus Ingerson Scofield: Charlatan and Heretic 1. Scofield: The Christian Leader with Feet of Clay 2. The Link between Darby and Scofield in the Rise of Dispensationalism 3. Scofield’s Dispensational Hermeneutic: ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth’ 4. Scofield, the Brethren and the Bible Prophecy Conference Movement 5. The Significance of the Scofield Reference Bible 6. Scofield’s Seven Dispensations 7. The Denigration of the Church within the Purposes of God 8. The Elevation of National Israel to a Superior Role over the Church 9. Prophetic Promises of a New Covenant with a Restored National Israel 10. Speculations on Armageddon and the Day of the Lord 11. Conclusions: The Legacy of Scofieldism on Christian Zionism 1. Scofield: The Christian Leader with Feet of Clay While Cyrus Ingerson Scofield may justifiably be regarded as the father of American dispensationalism and its most popular exponent through the various editions and variants of the Scofield Reference Bible1, his personal life is shrouded in mystery, one of American Fundamentalism’s best kept and perhaps most embarrassing secrets. Ernest Sandeen insists, “…in the calendar of Fundamentalist saints no name is better known or more revered.”2 Yet while writings abound on the early Brethren such as J. N. Darby and other contemporary American dispensationalists such as D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield remains an illusive and enigmatic figure. Only two biographies have been published, one by a fellow dispensationalist, eulogises Scofield3, the other, from a Reformed perspective, exposes him as morally unfit for Christian ministry.4 Reconciliation of these two perspectives is difficult if not impossible. George Trumbull, Scofield’s biographer, writing in 1920, claims, Dr. Scofield loves all nature-not only men and women and children, but the whole created world, still so beautiful in spite of what Satan and sinners have done to mar God’s work.5 Similarly, George W. Truett, speaking at a memorial service for Scofield, held in Dallas, Texas on 27 November 1921, included this tribute, Every one felt that he was a prince of true men. And what a friend he was. A man who would have friends must show himself friendly. Along with these qualities he was kindly, full of good will and cheer which radiated from him as the light from the sun. When with him you knew you were in the presence of one who knew what he believed. Christ was real to him… a wonderful preacher and a world preacher. He would have been at ease in any congregation where he could have preached. There was about him a positiveness, a definitiveness, a certainty…6 Canfield’s detailed investigation of Scofield’s past portrays a very different person. Discrepancies exist between Scofield’s own reminiscences, Trumbull’s biography, family correspondence and actual public records regarding many aspects of Scofield’s life and ministry both before and after his alleged conversion, ordination and association with D. L. Moody. These range from the trivial to the reprehensible. 1. His claim to have fought with General Lee is disputed as is his alleged decoration for service in the Confederate army in 1861.7 2. His ‘rank perjury’ in swearing the oath of office to become District Attorney for Kansas in June 1873, denying he had served in the Confederate Army8, a post he then had to resign just six months later following well publicised charges of extortion and blackmail.9 3. The desertion of his first wife Leontine, and daughters Abigail and Marie-Helene from 1877 and failure to provide for them.10 4. The unsubstantiated claim that he was admitted to the Bar of St. Louis and practised law.11 5. The discrepancies surrounding his alleged conversion in 1879 in jail and also while practising law.12 6. The criminal charges of fraud and embezzlement brought against him between 1877-1879, some following his alleged conversion13 resulting in at least one jail sentence.14 7. His persistent refusal, even as a Christian minister, to make restitution to those he had defrauded.15 8. The embarrassment of having divorce proceedings initiated against him by his wife Leontine in 1881 while he was pastor of Hyde Park Congregational Church, St. Louis . Her divorce papers charged Scofield with, ‘…gross neglect of duty…’ having, ‘failed to support this plaintiff or her said children, or to contribute thereto, and has made no provision for them for food, clothing or a home…’ 16 The court decided in favour of Leontine after some delay in 1883 and issued a decree of divorce in December of that year, describing Scofield as, ‘…not a fit person to have custody of the children.’17 9. His nomination as pastor to the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882, by James H. Brookes was apparently without reference to or acknowledgement of any Christian obligation to provide for his family.18 10. Discrepancies exist in the accounts of his alleged theological training prior to ordination.19 11. Discrepancies exist in the conflicting length of his courtship and the date of his second marriage to Hettie Van Wark in March 1884, only three months after her arrival in Dallas and his divorce becoming final.20 12. Doubts have been raised as to claims made that Scofield made several visits to London prior to 1903,21and claims that he studied and lectured in Rome, Paris, Geneva and Berlin between 1906-1907.22 13. Scofield apparently conferred a doctorate on himself in 1892.23 The 1897 Northfield Bible Conference, for example, lists Scofield’s name with a D.D. yet there is no evidence of this award being conferred by a university or college. ‘We are not aware of any degree-awarding institution which in the 1890’s would recognize dispensational accomplishments.’24 14. In 1904, addressing a gathering of Confederate veterans in Dallas, Scofield made pejorative and racist remarks concerning blacks and whites.25 15. Major discrepancies exist in his Who’s Who in America 1912 entry both in terms of misstatements, factual inaccuracies and omissions, including the dates of his marriages, the names of his three children, and subsequent divorce.26 16. In 1909 and 1921, despite significant royalties from the Scofield Reference Bible, he wrote to his daughters Helene and Abbie, explaining his inability to help them financially as he was suffering from chronic ‘Scofielditis’, his euphemism for ‘a purse which has grown dismally empty.’27 Given Scofield’s notoriety in Kansas, following his well publicised conversion and association with D.L. Moody, several newspaper articles attempted to piece together something of his already then chequered career. An article originally in the Atchison Patriot was picked up by the Topeka paper, The Daily Capital on 27 August 1881. It included the following, Cyrus I. Scofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past… Within the past year… Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months. Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious… A representative of the Patriot met Mrs Schofield (sic) today… As to supporting herself and the children, he has done nothing, said the little woman… I will gladly give him the matrimonial liberty he desires. I care not who he marries, or when, but I do want him to aid me in giving our little daughters the support and education they should have.28 Following the death of D. L. Moody in 1899, when it became known that Scofield had officiated at the funeral, the interest of the secular press was once again aroused and more stories about Scofield were brought to the surface. The following is taken from the Kansas City Journal of 28 December 1899. The pastor who delivered the sermon and presided at the funeral of Dwight L. Moody, the famous evangelist, was rev. C. I. Scofield… Scofield landed in Nemaha County in 1872, just in time to be nominated on the Republican ticket for member of the legislature. He was elected, and, though ostensibly a supporter of Senator Pomeroy, he became largely instrumental in causing the election of Ingalls… in reward for his services he was made United States district attorney for the state. But he did not hold this office long. He was ousted in disgrace on account of some shady financial transactions which left him indebted in a number of thousands to a score of prominent Republicans… then followed an explosion which compelled Scofield to resign his federal office and leave the state… While in jail he had been visited by a band of Christian women who prayed with him and worked his conversion, and upon his release he entered the Congregational ministry. His first pastorate was at Dallas, Tex., where he built up one of the wealthiest and most aristocratic church organisations in the state… When approached by his Kansas creditors Parson Scofield declares that he is poor and unable to pay, but has never failed to do the right and easy thing by renewing his notes. So far as those who know him best are able to judge, his conversion is of an enduring nature, and, as once remarked by his old friend and supporter, the sarcastic Mr. Ingalls, ‘No man can doubt the efficacy of the scheme of Christian salvation with the record of Scofield in view’.29 Cranfield makes this assessment of these still uncontested contemporary secular reports, If Scofield had defrauded the leading Republican politicians of Kansas, obviously ‘he had to go.’ But these same Republican leaders could not afford to have it known publicly that they had been involved. This being so, the only course was to have Scofield ‘disappear,’ allowing the scandal to blow over… The story of Scofield’s rather casual extension of notes, which had ostensibly been made to repay funds embezzled, does not surprise. It is entirely congruent with the antinomian nature of Dispensationalism which Scofield inherited from J. N. Darby. Instead of allowing the legal obligation to expire with the statute of limitations, Scofield tolled the statute with the notes even though he could not have any intention of repayment.30 These unsavoury facts regarding Scofield’s life and character have never been adequately answered or explained by his followers. The reason for his sudden acceptance and subsequent integration within a group of wealthy and influential Christian fundamentalists seems inexplicable given their supposed rigid adherence to biblical standards of morality and exacting criteria for Christian leadership. As Canfield rightly insists, …genuineness in conversion and the accompanying change of heart include restitution. Such was an absolute condition in the Old Dispensation.31 Scofield’s behaviour both before and after his alleged conversion are nevertheless consistent with, and illustrative of, the antinomianism inherent in Darby’s rigid dispensationalism which Scofield popularised.32 In a message published in 1893 entitled, “The Purpose of God in This Age”, Scofield seems to come close to describing his own pessimistic, predetermined experience as much as that of dispensationalism generally. Speaking of his seven dispensations, Scofield concludes of each, As you are aware, they are marked, as to their beginning, by some new probation for man, as to their ending by some act of judgment-for man always fails at last.33 2. The Link between Darby and Scofield in the Rise of Dispensationalism As a young and largely ‘illiterate’ Christian, Scofield was profoundly influenced and indeed schooled by the Rev. James H. Brookes, the minister of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, and known as ‘The Father of American Dispensationalism’34. Brookes introduced Scofield, and probably also Darby to D. L. Moody. Brookes sympathised with J. N. Darby’s dispensational views of a failing Church, corrupt and beyond hope, but it is known they met during five visits Darby made to St Louis between 1864-186535 and again between 1872-1877.36 Canfield observes, When convert Scofield in 1879 moved from forgery to Christian work, he found a niche in Christendom off the mainstream of recognized denominations… in the one city in North America which had been singled out by John Nelson Darby for concentrated ‘planting’ of Darby’s special brand of Bible teaching.37 Scofield, serving as Brookes’ disciple, probably did more than anyone else to popularise Darby’s distinctive theological perspective, basing his reference notes on Darby’s own idiosyncratic translation of the Bible. Clarence Bass notes, The parallel between Scofield’s notes and Darby’s works only too clearly reveals that Scofield was not only a student of Darby’s works, but that he copiously borrowed ideas, words and phrases.38 According to even one of Darby’s own biographers, ‘His perceptions of Scriptural truths are the source from which Scofield Reference Bibles get their characteristic notes.’39 Gerstner says the resemblance between Scofield and Darby ‘is deep and systematic.’40 It is significant, however, that neither in the Introduction to his Reference Bible, nor in the accompanying notes does Scofield acknowledge his indebtedness to Darby. In this regard Scofield was merely following the example of his mentor, Brookes. Scofield claimed his ideas to be the fruit of fifty years of Bible study, something which, even by 1917, the date of the second edition of the Scofield Reference Bible published, is hard to explain if he was only converted in 1879 as alleged. One must assume Scofield meant other people’s study.41 Privately at least, Scofield did acknowledge the influence of Arno C. Gaebelein who is probably responsible for the prophetic writings contained in the Scofield Reference Bible. Like Scofield, Gaebelein was discipled by James Brookes who, he admitted, ‘took me literally under his wings.’42 Scofield wrote the foreword to Gaebelein’s, ‘The Harmony of the Prophetic Word’ which he devoured. In a letter to Gaebelein, written on the 2nd September 1905, Scofield acknowledged, My beloved brother: By all means follow your own views of prophetic analysis. I sit at your feet when it comes to prophecy, and congratulate in advance the future readers of my Bible on having in their hands a safe, clear, sane guide through what to most is a labyrinth. Yours lovingly in Christ, Scofield43 There is also the likely possibility that another unattributed writer influenced Scofield, one much nearer to home, although somewhat more controversial. J. R. Graves, a Southern Baptist minister from Arcadia near Memphis published a work entitled, ‘The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations’ in 1883.44 It features a dispensational scheme quite similar to one which was later used in the Scofield Reference Bible. For some strange reason, Graves is almost never mentioned by Dispensational writers who are not committed Baptists… Since Graves’ work had its primary circulation in the area Scofield was using as a base, the possibility of an unacknowledged debt to Graves must be considered. With Scofield’s lack of formal training and a need to learn fast, no reasonable source of help would have been overlooked.45 It is probable that Graves was not acceptable to dispensationalists since he emphasised the importance of the visible church in the purposes of God, something strongly denied by Brethren with their ‘failing church’ doctrine. 3. Scofield’s Dispensational Hermeneutic: ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth’. In 1888 Scofield published his first work called Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. In it Scofield presented the hermeneutic principles of dispensationalism he had allegedly been teaching his Bible classes and which would become the theological presuppositions behind which the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible. Not surprisingly, it was the Plymouth Brethren ‘house’ publishers, Loizeaux Brothers of New York, who printed the first edition,46 and continue to do so, a century later.47 Scofield began his work quoting from Paul’s second letter to Timothy, part of which was used as the book’s title, Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)48 The Word of Truth, then, has right divisions, and it must be evident that, as one cannot be ‘a workman that needeth not to be ashamed’ without observing them, so any study of that Word which ignores these divisions must be in large measure profitless and confusing. The purpose of this pamphlet is to indicate the more important divisions of the Word of Truth…49 The Table of Contents lists the lessons as: The Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God The Seven Dispensations The Two Advents The Two Resurrections The Five Judgments Law and Grace The Believer’s Two Natures The Believer’s Standing and State Salvation and Rewards50 The first lesson sets the tone for all future Dispensational teaching offering a novel interpretation of the verse ‘Give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.’ (1 Corinthians 10:32). Scofield attempts to justify the division of the world into three classes of people, Jews, Gentiles and the church, an idea that is the ‘warp and woof of Dispensational teaching,’51 yet one that lacks any biblical basis. There are only two classes of people consistently mentioned in the New Testament, those who believe in Jesus Christ and those who do not, irrespective of whether they be Jews or Gentiles.52 Paul is simply urging the Corinthians to respect the differing traditions of Jews and Gentiles in their witness for Christ. There is no basis in the New Testament for the idea that the Jews remain special to God outside, or apart from, their membership of the Body of Christ.53 In the second lesson Scofield unfolds the emerging dispensational belief that biblical history should be divided into seven ‘dispensations.’ These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, in respect of two questions, of sin, and of man’s responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment – marking his utter failure in every dispensation.54 His third lesson, another typical Brethren and Dispensational touchstone, makes a person’s view of the return of Christ and the ‘secret rapture’, the test of orthodoxy. No alternative eschatological schemes are acknowledged. The implication is clear. If a person does not accept a dispensational eschatology they do not believe in the Lord’s return and are not submitting to the authority of scripture.55 By the ‘authority of scripture’ Scofield meant his own rigid literalist hermeneutical approach to scripture. So, for example, he insists that, Not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfilment of prophecy… Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion… Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal.56 Scofield’s ‘literalism’ extended even to exact verbal phraseology. This led him to claim there to be seven dispensations, eight covenants, and eleven great mysteries.57 James Barr, in his critique of fundamentalism, reserves some of his strongest language for Scofield’s literalist hermeneutic which he describes rather sarcastically as, ‘Mythopoeic fantasy’ comparable with the ‘apocalyptic poems of Blake’.58 With the favour and respectability bestowed by the Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary, Scofield’s little book has subsequently gone through numerous editions and been reprinted by several publishers. The Bible Publishers of Dallas, for instance, printed 35,000 copies during the nine year period 1945-1954.59 4. Scofield, the Brethren and the Bible Prophecy Conference Movement In many ways Scofield was merely representative of, but at the same time became a focus for, a growing prophetic and millennial movement in North America influenced by the Plymouth Brethren. The views later popularised by Scofield, were ‘hammered into presentable form ‘60 by a series of Bible and Prophetic Conferences held across North America beginning in 1868 which followed the pattern established by Darby and Irving at Albury and Powerscourt from the 1830’s. Both the method of ‘Bible readings’ and the topics of the conferences strongly suggest that the gatherings were a result of J. N. Darby’s travels in the United States and the influence of the Plymouth Brethren.61 For example, one of the resolutions adopted by the 1878 Niagara Conference gives clear evidence of the Darbyite dispensationalism, and Christian Zionism into which Scofield was becoming an eager proselyte. We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking: Luke 12:35-40; 17:26-30; 18:8; Acts 15:14-17; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Tit. 2:11-15.62 Scofield first attended the Niagara Conference in 1887, completing his book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, during the 1888 conference. Apparently, the manuscript was delivered direct to the Plymouth Brethren ‘house’ publishers, Loizeaux Brothers in New York from the conference. Trumbull, referring to the book commented, The work of making the little book was a time-consuming and laborious task for him then and “spoiled” his vacation entirely one summer at Niagara. But what a blessing it has been to multitudes of others.63 5. The Significance of the Scofield Reference Bible According to Oswald Allis, by 1945 more than 2 million copies of the Scofield Reference Bible had been published in the United States alone.64 Between 1967 and 1979 a further 1 million copies of the New Scofield Reference Bible had been published.65 In a move to make Scofield’s work more accessible, in 1984 a new edition based on the New International Version was published.66 Arno C. Gaebelein tells the story of how the Scofield Reference Bible came about from a discussion held with Scofield in 1901. One night, about the middle of that week, Dr. Scofield suggested, after the evening service, that we take a stroll along the shore. It was a beautiful night. Our walk along the shore of the sound lasted until midnight. For the first time he mentioned the plan of producing a reference Bible, and outlined the method he had in mind. He said he had thought of it for many years and had spoken to others about it, but had not received much encouragement. The scheme came to him in the early days of his ministry in Dallas, and later, during the balmy days of the Niagara Conferences he had submitted his desire to a number of brethren, who all approved of it, but nothing came of it. He expressed the hope that the new beginning and this new testimony in Sea Cliff might open the way to bring about the publication of such a Bible with references and copious footnotes.67 Those discussions led eventually to the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. The combination of an attractive format, illustrative notes, and cross references has led both critics and advocates to acknowledge the Scofield’s Reference Bible to have been the most influential book among evangelicals during the first half of the twentieth century. The various millennial currents were most effectively solidified in The Scofield Reference Bible. The significance of the Scofield Reference Bible cannot be overestimated.68 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, The most important single document of all fundamentalism… which has been the normal religious diet of many millions of readers. Its name itself makes clear what it is, A private interpretation… Both serious biblical scholarship and the established traditions of the major churches were alike ignored.69 Craig Blaising, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, and a dispensationalist, similarly acknowledges, The Scofield Reference Bible became the Bible of fundamentalism, and the theology of the notes approached confessional status in many Bible schools, institutes and seminaries established in the early decades of this century.70 Ernest Sandeen explains some of the reasons for its popularity, The Scofield Reference Bible combined an attractive format of typography, paraphrasing, notes, and cross references with the theology of Darbyite dispensationalism. The book has thus been subtly but powerfully influential in spreading those views among hundreds of thousands who have regularly read that Bible and who often have been unaware of the distinction between the ancient text and the Scofield interpretation.71 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.’72 In distinguishing his own from previous bible reference systems, which he regarded as ‘…unscientific and often misleading…’ Scofield insisted that in his new system, …all the greater truths of the divine revelation are so traced through the entire Bible, from the place of first mention to the last, that the reader may himself follow the gradual unfolding of these, by many inspired writers through many ages, to their culmination in Jesus Christ and the New Testament Scriptures. This method imparts to Bible study and interest and vital reality which are wholly lacking in fragmented and disconnected study.73 The footnotes which appear in the Scofield Reference Bible are actually very selective, appearing on less than half of the pages of Scripture. 781 pages lack any comment out of a total of 1,353 so it hardly rates as a comprehensive commentary such as provided by Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry.74 Trumball observes that Scofield was convinced people wanted to study the Bible but didn’t know how and, …saw that if his Bible studies were to be of the widest usefulness they would need to be attached to the Word itself-and in a form not too bulky.75 Scofield goes much further than either Barnes or Henry in providing comprehensive headings embedded in the Scriptural text. These not only include chapter and paragraph titles but in many cases, verse by verse headings in chapters deemed significant to dispensationalists that would otherwise prove obscure were it not for such ‘helps’. For example, in Isaiah 11, entitled ‘The Davidic kingdom set up’ additional headings guide readers carefully through the chapter ensuring a dispensational gloss, (1) The King’s ancestry (11,1); (2) The source of the King’s power, the sevenfold Spirit (11,2); (3) The character of his reign (11,3-5); (4) The quality of the kingdom (11,6-8); (5) The extent of the Kingdom (11,9); (6) How the kingdom will be set up (11,10-16) 76 Had Scofield’s notes been published as a commentary separately they would have, in time, probably been forgotten or superceded. The difference is, ‘neither Henry not Barnes had the temerity, guile or gall to get their notes accepted as Scripture itself.’77 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 Theological Seminary); Elmore Harris (President, Toronto Bible Institute) William J. Erdman; Arno C. Gaebelein & Arthur T. Pierson, several of whom were D.L. Moody’s colleagues.78 Canfield argues that the addition of these names together with their academic qualifications was merely cosmetic, to give an air of respectability79 Sandeen goes further arguing, Just what role these consulting editors played in the project has been the subject of some confusion. Apparently Scofield only meant to gain support for his publication from both sides of the millenarian movement with this device.80 In 1945 when a minor revision was published, an eighth consulting editor, William L. Pettingill, was added. However, so wedded to the 1917 edition were some ultra-dispensationalists that strong representations were made to the revision committee to ‘hold the line.’ Cornelius Stam asked, Would revision neutralize the dispensational distinctions which Dr. Scofield had brought to light? Would it represent a retreat rather than an advance for dispensational truth? Would it impair the Reference Bible which had brougyht so much blessing to so many thousands of people?81 Despite such reservations, revisions continued to adapt, modify and elaborate Scofield’s dispensational package. The New Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1967 edited by Dr E. Schuyler English. In 1984 a further revision based on the New International Version of the Bible was undertaken by three of the faculty from Philadelphia College of Bible, Clarence Mason, Sherrill Babb and Paul Karleen, and published by the Oxford University Press as The New Scofield Study Bible.82 Charles Ryrie, perhaps seeking to emulate Scofield’s success, also published in his own name a more refined dispensational guide, the Ryrie Study Bible.83 6. Scofield’s Seven Dispensations 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…’84 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, The Dispensations are distinguished, exhibiting the majestic, progressive order of the divine dealings of God with humanity, the ‘increasing purpose’ which runs through and links together the ages, from the beginning of the life of man to the end in eternity. Augustine said: ‘Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.’85 Whether Augustine understood ‘ages’ in terms of Scofield’s dispensations is extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, Scofield claimes that seven such dispensations were ‘distinguished’ in Scripture. He believed that his scheme was natural and self evident in Scripture, there is a beautiful system in this gradualness of unfolding. The past is seen to fall into periods, marked off by distinct limits, and distinguishable period from period by something peculiar to each. Thus it comes to be understood that there is a doctrine of Ages or Dispensations in the Bible.86 It is interesting to compare how these ‘distinct limits’ were moved as well as renamed in subsequent editions of the Scofield Reference Bible, as others, especially Schuyler English, sought to refine his scheme. Scofield Reference Bible (1917)87 The New Scofield Study Bible (1984)88 1. Innocency (Gen. 1:28) 1. Innocence (Gen. 1.28) 2. Conscience (Gen. 3.23) 2. Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3.7) 3. Human Government (Gen. 8.20) 3. Human Government (Gen.8.15) 4. Promise (Gen. 12.1) 4. Promise (Gen. 12.1) 5. Law (Ex. 19.8) 5. Law (Ex. 19.1) 6. Grace (John 1.17) 6. Church (Acts 2.1) 7. Kingdom or Fulness of Times (Eph. 1.10)89 7. Kingdom (Rev. 20.4) Scofield’s rigid adherence to these dispensations required 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, The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing… The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19. 8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Ex. 19. 4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.90 Similarly, in his introduction to the Gospels, Scofield artificially imposes stark divisions before and after Calvary which lead him to the amazing 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.91 Strangely, Scofield ignores the one division that is self evident between the Old and New Covenants. Mark 1:1 categorically states, ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’, And Matthew 11:13 further informs us, ‘For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Yet Scofield places the life and ministry of Jesus within the dispensation of Law along with John the Baptist and the Old Testament Prophets, arguing that the sixth dispensation of grace only ‘begins with the death and resurrection of Christ’.92 So, for example, the Lord’s Prayer, and in particular the petition, ‘Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.’ (Matthew 6:12) is not applicable to the church, since it is ‘legal ground’.93 He even suggests the possibility of salvation by works, As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ… The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church…94 Scofield believed the Gospels were essentially for the Jews and therefore not relevant for the Church. In the note attached to Ephesians 3, he boldly states, ‘In his (Paul’s) writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the Church.’95 Unfortunately, Scofield seems to impose divisions that do not exist in Scripture and ignores those that do. This research, however, is not primarily concerned with an evaluation of Scofield’s theological framework, nor even with how he has influenced the rise of dispensationalism. Others have already done sp as on the relationship between law and grace.96 It is with Scofield’s more specific prophetic speculations concerning the relationship between Israel and the Church which this research will concentrate on since they have had such a profound effect on much contemporary Christian Zionism. As has been noted, in ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of God’, Scofield laid out the dispensational presuppositions which determined his theological framework, These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, in respect of two questions, of sin, and of man’s responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment – marking his utter failure in every dispensation.97 Such a pessimistic view of human history is no where more evident than in what Scofield teaches about his sixth dispensation, the church-age. 7. The Denigration of the Church within the Purposes of God 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, …in approaching the study of the Gospels, the mind should be freed, so far as possible, from mere theological concepts and presuppositions. Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion-a legacy in Protestant thought from post-apostolic and Roman Catholic theology-that the Church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the Church.98 Apparently blind to the ‘theological concepts and presuppositions’ of his own dispensational framework, for all his claims to ‘literalism’, Scofield applied 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.99 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.’100 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).101 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. 102 Linking Isaiah 13 with Revelation 17, Scofield insists the latter reference predicts the destruction of ‘apostate Christianity’, which he also described as ‘ecclesio-Babylon’103 In a speculative but rather confusing footnote to Revelation 17 and the identity of Babylon, Scofield insists that there are actually ‘two’ Babylons. Two ‘Babylons’ are to be distinguished in the Revelation, ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political Babylon, which is the Beast’s confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is ‘the great whore’ (Rev. 17. 1), and is destroyed by political Babylon (Rev. 17. 15-18)…104 But the language of Rev. 18. (e.g. vs. 10, 16, 18) seem beyond question to identify ‘Babylon,’ the ‘city’ of luxury and traffic, with ‘Babylon’ the ecclesiastical centre, viz. Rome.105 By such typology, Scofield intends his readers to concur that even the dispensation of the Church will end in ‘judgment-marking… utter failure’106 This is at variance with New Testament teaching which assures of the permanence and ultimate victory of the Church over evil.107 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 flatly contradicts 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.108 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 therefore, those who have subsequently accepted Scofield’s scheme, especially since 1948, such as Hal Lindsey, have been preconditioned to expect the return of Jews to Palestine. They are also 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 the imminent return of Christ. 8. The Elevation of National Israel to a Superior Role over the Church This process begins for Scofield with his footnote to Genesis 12:1 and the supposed Fourth Dispensation of Promise. For Abraham and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15.18, note) made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing.109 Schuyler English, anxious to expurgate Scofield’s unorthodox views that, ‘The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19.8)’ 110, makes considerable changes to this footnote and goes much further in the dispensational claims made for Israel. God’s promises to Abram and his seed certainly did not terminate at Sinai with the giving of the law (Gal 3:17). Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession (e.g. Exo 32:13; 33:1 – 3; Lev 23:10; 25:2; 26:6; Deu 6:1 – 23; 8:1 – 18; Josh 1:2,11; 24:13; Acts 7:17; Rom 9:4). But as a specific test of Israel’s stewardship of divine truth, the dispensation of Promise was superseded, though not annulled, by the law that was given at Sinai (Exo 19:3ff.).111 Scofield also applied his distinctive 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, Isa. 3.14 gives the divine view of the welter of warring Gentile powers. The divine order is given in Isa. 11. Israel in her own land, the centre of divine government of the world and channel of divine blessing; and the Gentiles blessed in association with Israel. Anything else is, politically, mere ‘Babel’112 This notion that Gentiles are ‘blessed in association with Israel’, is the principle motivation for the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) who believe Christians are called to ‘comfort Zion’ rather than bear witness to Jesus as Messiah.113 Scofield provided Christian Zionists such as the ICEJ with justification when he took the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 and applied 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).114 To Scofield’s notes on Genesis 12:1 & 3 Schuyler English adds, There was a promise of blessing upon those individuals and nations who bless Abram’s descendants, and a curse laid upon those who persecute the Jews (Gen 12:3; Mat 25:31 – 46)… For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgment. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.115 The promise given to Abraham actually states, I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3) There is no indication in the text that this warning of cursing was ever intended to extend beyond Abraham. The promise, when referring to Abraham’s descendants speaks of God’s blessing them, not other nations blessing the Jews. Ironically, Scofield makes no comment on the passage in Galatians 3:16 and 3:28-29, where the Apostle Paul understands Christ to be the “seed” of Abraham, and that the promise of blessing to the Gentiles comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not on the basis of how well they treat the Jews. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. (Galatians 3:14-16) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28-29) Nevertheless Schuyler English boldly insists, Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession (e.g. Exo 32:13; 33:1 – 3; Lev 23:10; 25:2; 26:6; Deu 6:1 – 23; 8:1 – 18; Josh 1:2,11; 24:13; Acts 7:17; Rom 9:4) Just two New Testament cross references are offered. Neither corroborates what he claims. As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt greatly increased. (Acts 7:17) For Luke, the “fulfilment” of the promise made to Abraham was seen to have already been fulfilled through Moses, “as the time drew near…” Over against Scofield’s distinction between Israel and the Church, 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, Do not, therefore, assume interpretations to be true because familiar. Do not assume that ‘the throne of David’ (Lk. 1.32) is synonymous with ‘My Father’s throne’ (Rev. 3. 21), or that ‘the house of Jacob’ (Lk. 1.33) is the Church composed both of Jew and Gentile. 116 Following 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, Israel was the true ‘church’ but not in any sense the N.T. church-the only point of similarity being that both were ‘called out’ and by the same God. All else is contrast.117 In a footnote to Acts 7:38, Scofield explains away the term used by Stephen of Israel as ‘the church in the wilderness’. Israel in the land is never called a church. In the wilderness Israel was a true church (Gr. ecclesia = called-out assembly), but in striking contrast with the N. T. ecclesia (Mt. 16. 18, note).118 In commenting on Romans 11:1, Scofield insists on maintaining this distinction between the Church and Israel. To do so however, he has to distinguish between the ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture. The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham (Gen. 15. 5, 6; Gal. 3. 29), and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15. 8, note); but Israel as a nation always has its own place, and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God.119 So, with reference to Romans 11:5, in which Paul insists a remnant of believing Jews existed in his day, Scofield extrapolates that, During the church-age the remnant is composed of believing Jews… During the great tribulation a remnant out of all Israel will turn to Jesus as Messiah and will become His witnesses after the removal of the church (Rev. 7.3-8). The purpose of God during this so called, ‘church age’ then is, not the conversion of the world, but to, ‘gather out of the Gentiles a people for his name’ After this he ‘will return’ and then, and not before, will the world be converted.120 What should the attitude of the Church be to Israel? Scofield uses the description of the final judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 to teach implicitly that Gentiles should bless Israel. Schuyler English in his revision makes this point much more explicitly. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:32) In their footnotes to this verse in the 1917 and 1984 editions, it is significant to observe how more overtly Dispensational the latter has become. Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984) This judgment is to be distinguished from the judgment of the great white throne. Here there is no resurrection; the persons judged are living nations; no books are opened; three classes are present, sheep, goats, brethren; the time is at the return of Christ (v. 31); and the scene is on earth. All these particulars are in contrast with rev. 20. 11-15. The test in this judgment is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ here calls “my brethren.” These “brethren” are the Jewish Remnant who will have preached the Gospel of the kingdom to all nations during the tribulation.121 This judgment of individual Gentiles is to be distinguished from other judgments in Scripture, such as the judgment of the Church (2 Cor 5:10 – 11), the judgment of Israel (Ezek 20:33 – 38), and the judgment of the wicked after the millennium (Rev 20:11 – 15). The time of this judgment is “when the Son of man comes in his glory,” i.e. at the second coming of Christ after the tribulation. The subjects of this judgment are “all nations,” i.e. all Gentiles… then living on earth. Three classes of individuals are mentioned: (1) sheep, saved Gentiles; (2) goats, unsaved Gentiles; and (3) brothers, the people of Israel. The scene is on earth; no books are opened; it deals with the living rather than with those translated or raised from the dead. The test of this judgment is the treatment by individual Gentiles of those whom Christ calls “brothers of mine” living in the preceding tribulation period when Israel is fearfully persecuted (cp. Gen. 12:3). The sheep are Gentiles saved on earth during the period between the rapture and Christ’s second coming to the earth.122 To justify this perpetual distinction between Israel and the Church, even under the New Covenant, Scofield insists that Israel is the earthly wife of God and the Church is actually the heavenly bride of Christ. Commenting on Hosea 2:2, Scofield writes, That Israel is the wife of Jehovah (see vs. 16-23), now disowned but yet to be restored, is the clear teaching of the passages. This relationship is not to be confounded with that of the Church to Christ (John 3.29, refs.). In the mystery of the Divine tri-unity both are true. The N.T. speaks of the Church as a virgin espoused to one husband (2 Cor. 11.1,2); which could never be said of an adulterous wife, restored in grace. Israel is, then, to be the restored and forgiven wife of Jehovah, the Church the virgin wife of the Lamb (John 3.29; Rev. 19. 6-8); Israel Jehovah’s earthly wife (Hos. 2, 23); the Church the Lamb’s heavenly bride (Rev. 19.7)123 In a footnote to the last reference, Revelation 19:7, Scofield insists, The ‘Lamb’s wife’ here is the ‘bride’ (Rev. 21. 9), the Church, identified with the ‘heavenly Jerusalem’ (Heb. 12. 22, 23), and to be distinguished from Israel, the adulterous and repudiated ‘wife’ of Jehovah, yet to be restored (Isa. 54. 1-10; Hos. 2. 1-17), who is identified with the earth (Hos. 2. 23). 124 Scofield reaches this conclusion guided by his literalistic hermeneutic and presupposition that Israel and the Church are separate bodies, therefore, ‘A forgiven and restored wife could not be called either a virgin (2 Cor. 11: 2,3), or a bride.’125 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) After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to 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) Paul is here emphasising how Gentiles share the same privileges as the faithful remnant of Jewish believers. This is neither equated with national Israel, nor with a separate olive tree. At some future time Paul predicts 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 on the same basis – belief in Jesus Christ. In reply to those who, in Paul’s own day, regarded Gentile believers as inferior and who wished to keep Jewish and Gentile believers separate, he insisted, There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one 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,’126 Scofield 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. 9. Prophetic Promises of a New Covenant with a Restored National Israel 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.’127 In a note attached to Hebrews 7:22, Scofield insists the New Covenant contains separate promises for both Israel and the church, The New Covenant secures the personal revelation of the Lord to every believer (v.11)… And secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel (Jer. 31.31-40).128 Similarly, in the context of the return of Christ, Scofield asserts, To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion and establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant (Acts 15. 14-17 with Zech. 14. 1-9)129 So, in his note on Haggai 2:9, Scofield claims, therefore, that there will actually be a fourth and fifth temple built in Jerusalem. In a sense all the temples (i.e. Solomon’s; Ezra’s; Herod’s; that which will be used by the unbelieving Jews under the covenant with the Beast [Dan. 9.27; Mt. 24. 15; 2 Thes. 2. 3,4]; and Ezekiel’s future kingdom temple [Ezk. 40-47.]), are treated as one ‘house’-the ‘house of the Lord,’ 130 Scofield finds evidence for this view in Leviticus 23:23-25 and an unusual typology related to the feast of Tabernacles. This feast is a prophetical type and refers to the future re-gathering of long-dispersed Israel. A long interval elapses between Pentecost and Trumpets, answering the long period occupied in the Pentecostal work of the Holy Spirit in the present dispensation. Study carefully Isa. 18. 3; 27. 13 (with contexts); 58. (entire chapter), and Joel 2. 1 to 3. 21 in connection with the ‘trumpets,’ and it will be seen that these trumpets, always symbols of testimony, are connected with the re-gathering and repentance of Israel after the church, or Pentecostal, period is ended. 131 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, The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites, ‘On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts. Do no regular work, but present an offering made to the LORD by fire.’ 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 reinterpret 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, Acts 2.17, which gives a specific interpretation of ‘afterward’ (Heb. acherith = ‘latter,’ ‘last’). ‘Afterward’ in Joel 2. 28 means ‘in the last days’ (Gr. eschatos), and has a partial and continuous fulfilment during the ‘last days’ which began with the first advent of Christ (Heb. 1. 2); but the greater fulfilment awaits the ‘last days’ as applied to Israel.132 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 bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Church. Once again national Israel is placed in a superior position to that of the Body of Christ, 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. A distinction must be observed between ‘the last days’ when the prediction relates to Israel , and the ‘last days’ when the prediction relates to the church (1 Tim. 4. 1-3; 2 Tim. 3. 1-8; Heb. 1.1,2; 1 Pet. 1. 4,5; 2 Pet. 3. 1-9; 1 John 2. 18, 19; Jude 17-19). Also distinguish the expression the ‘last days’ (plural) from the ‘last day’ (singular); the latter expression referring to the resurrections and the judgment (John 6. 39, 40, 44, 54; 11. 24; 12. 48). The ‘last days’ as related to the church began with the advent of Christ (Heb. 1. 2), but have especial reference to the time of declension and apostasy at the end of this age (2 Tim. 3. 1; 4. 4). The ‘last days’ as related to Israel are the days of Israel’s exaltation and blessing, and are synonymous with the kingdom-age (Isa. 2. 2-4; Mic. 4. 1-7). They are ‘last’ not with reference to this dispensation, but with reference to the whole of Israel’s history.133 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. The gift of the land is modified by prophecies of three dispossessions and restorations (Gen. 15. 13, 14, 16; Jer. 25. 11, 12; Deut. 28. 62-65; 30. 1-3). Two dispossessions and restorations have been accomplished. Israel is now in the third dispersion, from which she will be restored at the return of the Lord as King under the Davidic Covenant (Deut. 30. 3; Jer. 23. 5-8; Ezk. 37. 21-25; Lk. 1. 30-33; Acts 15. 14-17).134 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,135 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 1967,136 yet reiterated again, without comment in the New Scofield Study Bible of 1984.137 In a note on Deuteronomy 30:3, Scofield argues, The Palestinian Covenant gives the conditions under which Israel entered the land of promise. It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land (cf. Gen. 15. 18 with Num. 34. 1-12). The Palestinian Covenant is in seven parts, (1) Dispersion for disobedience, v. 1 (Deut. 28. 63-68. See Gen. 15. 18. note). (2) The future repentance of Israel while in the dispersion, v.2. (3) The return of the Lord, v. 3 (Amos 9. 9-14; Acts 15. 14-17). (4) Restoration to the land, v. 5 (Isa. 11. 11, 12; Jer. 23. 3-8; Ezk. 37. 21-25). (5) National conversion, v. 6 (Rom. 11. 26, 27; Hos. 2. 14-16). (6) The judgment of Israel’s oppressors, v. 7 (Isa. 14. 1, 2; Joel 3. 1-8; Mt. 25. 31-46). (7) National prosperity, v. 9 (Amos 9. 11-14)138 Far from the Abrahamic covenant being ‘unconditional’, 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 adherence to her covenantal obligations, 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. Schuyler English, in his 1967 revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, consistently adds to Scofield’s original notes to give a more explicit dispensational reading of key texts. In many cases references to contemporary Israel are appended to verses on which Scofield originally made no comment at all. So, to Genesis 12:7, Schuyler English adds, (12:7) The verb ‘give’ appears over 1000 times in the Bible, with greatest frequency in relation to God giving the land of Palestine to his people Israel, a truth here announced for the first time but repeated in nearly 150 passages in the O.T…139 One may legitimately ask for evidence of the same promise being made in the New Testament. Again, on Deuteronomy 30:5, Schuyler English adds the following innovation, No passage of Scripture has found fuller confirmation in the events of history than Dt. 28 – 30. In A.D. 70 the Jewish nation was scattered throughout the world because of disobedience and rejection of Christ. In world-wide dispersion they experienced exactly the punishments foretold by Moses. On the other hand, when the nation walked in conformity with the will of God, it enjoyed the blessing and protection of God. In the twentieth century the exiled people were restored to their homeland.140 No attempt is made to explain the apparent contradiction in Israel’s continued ‘disobedience and rejection of Christ’ and their restoration, ‘to their homeland,’ other than to insist the promises made to Israel have been ‘postponed’ during this church age. Ironically, the attempt by Scofield’s revisers to make Deuteronomy 30:1-6 speak of a final restoration to the land is actually 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) Not surprisingly, no notes are included in any version of Scofield for this passage. 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 paragraph headings to Isaiah 11, he adds the bold assertion that these verses speak of, ‘The vision of the Jewish remnant in the great tribulation’ for vv. 20-27 and, ‘The approach of the Gentile hosts to the battle of Armageddon.’ for vv. 28-34. Then in a footnote to Isaiah 11 Scofield writes, The order of events in Isa. 10., 11., is noteworthy. Isa. 10. gives the distress of the Remnant in Palestine in the great tribulation (Psa. 2. 5; Rev. 7. 14), and the approach and destruction of the Gentile hosts under the Beast (Dan. 7. 8; Rev. 19. 20). Isa. 11. immediately follows with its glorious picture of the kingdom-age. Precisely the same order is found in Rev. 19., 20… That nothing of this occurred at the first coming of Christ is evident from the comparison of the history of the times of Christ with this and all the other parallel prophecies. So far from re-gathering dispersed Israel and establishing peace in the earth, His crucifixion was soon followed (A.D. 70) by the destruction of Jerusalem, and the utter scattering of the Palestinian Jews amongst the nations141 Significantly, this dogmatic footnote denying any link with the incarnation of Jesus Christ, is omitted in the New Scofield Study Bible. The argument concerning God’s possible future purposes for a revived national Israel therefore in part 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, On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates… 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, looking back, the writer of the book of Joshua regarded the covenant promise as having already 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)142 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 on which Scofield mishandles Scripture in order to maintain his dispensational scheme. He does the same with the second exile. The Prophets, while warning of judgement 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, This final restoration is shown to be accomplished after a period of unexampled tribulation (Jer 30. 3-10), and in connection with the manifestation of David’s righteous Branch (v. 5), who is also Jehovah-tsidkenu (v. 6). The restoration here foretold is not to be confounded with the return of a feeble remnant of Judah under Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel at the end of the 70 years (Jer. 29. 10). At His first advent Christ, David’s righteous Branch (Lk. 1. 31-33), did not ‘execute justice and judgment in the earth’ but was crowned with thorns and crucified. Neither was Israel the nation restored, nor did the Jewish people say, ‘The Lord our righteousness.’ Cf. Rom. 10. 3. The prophecy is yet to be fulfilled (Acts 15. 14-17).143 Another passage which Scofield insists supports his belief in a ‘third’ return is Ezekiel 37 and the vision of the valley of dry bones. Having announced (Ezk. 36. 24-38) the restoration of the nation, Jehovah now gives in vision and symbol the method of its accomplishment. Verse 11 gives the clue. The ‘bones’ are the whole house of Israel who shall then be living. The ‘graves’ are the nations where they dwell. The order of the procedure is, (1) the bringing of the people out (v. 12); (2) the bringing of them in (v. 12); (3) their conversion (v. 13); (4) the filling with the Spirit (v.14). The symbol follows. The two sticks are Judah and the ten tribes; united, they are one nation (vs. 19-21). Then follows (vs. 21-27) the plain declaration as to Jehovah’s purpose, and verse 28 implies that then Jehovah will become known to the Gentiles in a marked way. This is also the order of Acts 15. 16, 17, and the two passages strongly indicate the time of full Gentile conversion.144 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. In the footnote to Genesis 15, Scofield offers just two New Testament references to vindicate his claim that there would be a third return to the Land. Luke 1:30-33 and Acts 15:13-17. Significantly there is in fact no reference to “land” in either of these passages. Luke 1:33 states, “and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” Without further comment or footnote to the actual text, Scofield takes Luke 1:30-33 to be an implicit prediction of the return of Israel, a third time, to the Land in which Jesus will therefore “reign” as king for ever. He clearly sees this as specific to Israel rather than as a universal reference to earthly or heavenly rule as other commentators have done. The second New Testament passage which Scofield claims speaks of a third return is Acts 15:13-17. This contains the quote by James taken from Amos 9:11-12. 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’ that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-18) For Scofield, ‘Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T. It gives the divine purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next.’145 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. 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’, this to be ‘…the most important passage in the N.T.’ is because, It gives the divine purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next. (1) The taking out from among the Gentiles of a people for His name, the distinctive work of the present, or church-age… Precisely this has been in progress since Pentecost. The Gospel has never anywhere converted all, but everywhere has called out some. (‘After this [viz. the out-calling] I will return.’ James quotes from Amos 9. 11, 12. The verses which follow in Amos describe the final re-gathering of Israel… (3) ‘And will build again the tabernacle of David,’ i.e. re-establish the Davidic rule over Israel (2 Sam. 7. 8-17; Lk. 1. 31-33). (4) ‘That the residue of man [Israelites] may seek after the Lord’ (cf. Zech. 12. 7, 8; 13. 1,2). (5) ‘And all the Gentiles,’ etc. (cf. Mic. 4. 2; Zech. 8. 21, 22). This is also the order of Rom. 11. 24-27.146 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. Schuyler English in his revision of Scofield attempts to reinforce this dispensational reading. With the exception of the first five words, vv. 16 – 18 are quoted from Amos 9:11 – 12. James quoted from the LXX, which here preserved the original text (see Amos 9:12, note). Amos 9:11 begins with the words “in that day.” James introduced his quotation in such a way as to show what day Amos was talking about, namely, the time after the present world-wide witness (Acts 1:8), when Christ will return. James showed that there will be Gentile believers at that time as well as Jewish believers; hence he concluded that Gentiles are not required to become Jewish proselytes by circumcision.”147 Here Schuyler English presumably believes the promise to “restore David’s fallen tent” refers to the physical return of Israel to the Land rather than the spiritual return of Israel to their Lord. The quotation is taken from Amos 9:11. In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name, ” declares the LORD, who will do these things. “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the LORD your God. (Amos 9:11-15) “Amos’ single prophecy of future blessing (9:11 – 15) details (1) the restoration of the Davidic dynasty (v. 11); (2) the conversion of the nations (v. 12); (3) the fruitfulness of the land (v. 13); (4) Israel’s return from captivity (v. 14); (5) the rebuilding of the waste cities (v. 14); and (6) Israel’s permanent settlement in the holy land (v. 15).”148 Whereas Scofield and Schuyler English take James’ quote of Amos as promising a future literal and permanent return to the Land, James, does not actually quote Amos 9:13-15, stopping at, and paraphrasing, verse 12. Instead James dwells on the purpose – the bringing of people to faith in the Messiah, and specifically the explanation of why Gentiles were turning to the Lord. James is simply appealing 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.149 By using the passage to teach some predetermined chronological and superior futuristic plan for national Israel, however, Scofield and Schuyler English take 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). Furthermore, on the basis of Scofield’s logic, and as others have insisted subsequently, the ‘return’ of Israel to the Land could precede her return to the Lord, since this Jewish revival will occur on His ‘return’ thus negating the need for evangelism among the Jews. 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, as much as the nation of Israel, 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 to Israel in Psalm 37. Psalm 37: 11, 22, 29But 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. Matthew 5:5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Similarly, when Paul is listing the present benefits that still pertain to Israel in Romans 9, significantly, apart from the indirect reference by way of to ‘the covenants’ he does not explicitly mention the land or kingdom as one of them.150 …the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9,4-5) Probably most conclusive of all, Jesus himself rules out any notion that Israel will enjoy any discrete national identity, as a ‘kingdom’ in the future. Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. (Matthew 21:43) Gerstner interprets this as signalling, …the end of the nation of Israel as the chosen people of God. They have been tried and found wanting. God’s patience has been exausted. If there were any doubts about that being the obvious meaning of the words, the parable on which they are based would utterly eliminate any lingering procrastination.151 Gerstner points out that the Greek word used in verse 43 for nation (ethnos) is invariably used to describe the Gentile peoples, and in context, the parable of the tenants clearly relates to and contrasts with the disobedience of the Jewish nation.152 Instead of attempting to explain how Jesus might be describing a ‘temporary’ rejection of the Jews, Ryrie reverses the plain intention of the text to fit a dispensational framework, asserting, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (leaders of Israel), and given to a nation (Israel) bringing forth the fruits thereof.153 Gerstner also notes that Chafer, Walvoord and Gaebelein remain ‘curiously silent’ on this verse.154 Allis summarises the traditional interpretation that Jesus is here signalling the end of any national identity for Israel within the purposes of God. Jesus declared to the Jews that the kingdom should ‘be taken from’ them (Matt. xxi. 41f.). The children of the kingdom (the natural and lawful heirs) are to be ‘cast out’ (viii. 11f.). None of those ‘bidden’ are to taste of the marriage supper (Lk. xiv. 24). The vineyard is to be given to ‘other husbandmen’; to ‘a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’; men are to come from the ‘highways,’ from ‘the east and west and north and south,’ to partake with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of the marriage supper.155 Unperturbed by such discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions Scofield constructs a detailed ‘end-times’ scenario which forms the basis of much contemporary apocalyptic dispensationalism. 10. Speculations on Armageddon and the Day of the Lord In 1897 when Scofield spoke at the Niagara Prophetic Conference, his commitment to Darby’s doctrine of a ‘failing church’ and imminent rapture were well formulated. His message was entitled, ‘The Return of the Lord.’ The signs and portents of the end-time are now so many and so ominous than men of vision everywhere, and in every walk of life, are taking note of them; and this quite apart from the interpretation of them which prophecy gives. Men like Gladstone and Bismark have said that the catastrophe of present day civilisation is near and cannot be averted; that the destructive agencies are more and mightier than the forces of conservatism, and that no man may predict what form the reconstructed social order will assume after the inevitable cataclysm… We have risen from our study of the Word of God to come up here year by year to utter this warning-that the age ends in disaster, in ruin, in the great, final, world-catastrophe and for this we have been branded pessimists.156 Scofield followed Darby in describing in detail the events preceding the Great Tribulation and battle of Armageddon. It is interesting to compare the categorical footnotes to Ezekiel 38 found in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible with the more circumspect notes of the 1984 New Scofield Study Bible. Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984) That the primary reference is to the northern (European) powers, headed up by Russia, all agree. The whole passage should be read in connection with Zech. 12. 1-4; 14. 1-9; Mat. 24. 14-30; rev. 14. 14-20; 19. 17-21. ‘Gog’ is the prince, ‘Magog.’ his land. The reference to Meshech and Tubal (Moscow and Tobolsk) is a clear mark of identification. Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel, and it is congruous both with divine justice and with the covenants (e.g. Gen. 15. 18, note; Deut. 30. 3, note) that destruction should fall at the climax of the last mad attempt to exterminate the remnant of Israel in Jerusalem. The whole prophecy belongs to the yet future ‘day of Jehovah’ (Isa. 2. 10-22; rev. 19. 11-21), and to the battle of Armageddon (rev. 16. 14; 19. 19, note), but includes also the final revolt of the nations at the close of the kingdom-age (rev. 20. 7-9).157 The reference is to the powers in the north of Europe, headed by Russia. The whole passage should be read in connection with Zech. 12. 1-4; 14. 1-9; Mat. 24. 14-30; rev. 14. 14-20; 19. 17-21. Gog is probably the prince; Magog, his land. Russia and the northern powers have long been the persecutors of dispersed Israel, and it is congruous both with divine justice and the covenants of God that destruction shall fall in connection with the attempt to exterminate the remnant of Israel in Jerusalem. The entire prophecy belongs to the yet future day of the Lord (see notes at Joel 1:15; Revelation 19:19).158 A similar comparison of the footnotes to Revelation 19:19 in both editions shows how dispensationalist speculations concerning Armageddon have been modified to take account of recent history. So for example where Scofield, writing at the height of the colonial era, could speculate about “…the coming of the Lord in glory (Rev. 19. 1, 21), until which time Jerusalem is politically subject to Gentile rule (Luke 21. 24).”159 E. Schuyler English, writing in 1967 takes account of the events of 1948 and revises the note to read somewhat more enigmatically, “Until then Jerusalem will be, as Christ said, “trampled on by the Gentiles.” (Luke 21:24)”160 Similarly, Scofield sees the purpose of the Lord’s visible return to earth, subsequent to the secret rapture and removal of the saints to heaven, specifically in order to ‘deliver the Jewish remnant besieged by the Gentile world-powers under the Beast and False Prophet’.161 This scheme is not apparently shared by E. Schuyler English who, with the benefit of 20th Century hindsight, sees more significance in the invading chinese army than in the deliverance of Israel. Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984) Armageddon (the ancient hill and valley of Megiddo, west of Jordan in the plain of Jezreel) is the appointed place for the beginning of the great battle in which the Lord, at his coming in glory, will deliver the Jewish remnant besieged by the Gentile world-powers under the Beast and False Prophet (rev. 16.13-16; Zech. 12.1-9). Apparently the besieging hosts, whose approach to Jerusalem is described in Isa. 10.28-32, alarmed by the signs which precede the Lord’s coming (Mt. 24.29,30), have fallen back to Megiddo, after the events of Zech. 14.2, where their destruction begins; a destruction consummated in Moab and the plains of Idumea (Isa. 63.1-6). This battle is the first event in “the day of Jehovah” (Isa. 2.12, refs.), and the fulfilment of the smiting-stone prophecy of Dan. 2.35.162 Armageddon (the name itself is to be found only in 16:16) is the ancient hill and valley of Megiddo, west of the Jordan in the plain of Jezreel between Samaria and Galilee. It is the appointed place where the armies of the beast and false prophet will be destroyed by Christ’s descending to earth in glory (vv. 11,15,19,21), as well as any other forces which will come against the beast in their attack on Palestine (e.g. the remainder of the Far Eastern army of 200 million men), and others (9:13 – 18; 16:12 -14,16; cp. Joel 3:9 – 16; Zech 12:1 – 9; 14:1 – 4; Mat 24:27 – 30). The battle is a fulfillment of the striking-stone prophecy of Dan 2:35… See also Isa 2:12, refs.163 As has been shown Scofield divided the world into three classes of people, Jews, Gentiles and the visible church.164 Consequently he sees the return of Jesus Christ as having a ‘threefold relation: to the church, to Israel, to the nations.’165 In a most unorthodox manner, Scofield even claims that after the judgment there will be forgiveness and blessing for both Jews and Gentiles long after the church has been raised to heaven. (a) To the church the descent of the Lord into the air to raise the sleeping and change the living saints is set forth as a constant expectation and hope… (b) To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion and establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant (Acts 15. 14-17 with Zech. 14. 1-9) (c) To the Gentile nations the return of Christ is predicted to bring the destruction of the present political world-system (Dan. 2.34, 35; Rev. 19. 11, note); the judgment of Mt. 25. 31-46, followed by world-wide Gentile conversion and participation in the blessings of the kingdom (Isa. 2. 2-4; 11. 10; 60. 3; Zech. 8. 3, 20, 23; 14. 16-21).166 It is interesting to observe how Scofield used passages such as Matthew 24 to make prophetic interpretations fit contemporary events, a pattern developed by subsequent dispensationalists. So, in referring to Allenby’s capture of Jerusalem in December 1917, Scofield wrote to Charles Trumball, his biographer, ‘Now for the first time, we have a real prophetic Sign.’ 167 A year later, in 1918 Scofield published, What Do The Prophets Say?, a series of studies that had previously appeared in the Sunday School Times in 1916. This included a chapter entitled, ‘Does the Bible Throw Light on This War?’ Scofield speculated, So far as the prophetic Word has spoken there is not the least warrant for the expectation that the nations engaged in the present gigantic struggle will or can make a permanent peace. It is fondly dreamed that out of all the duffering and carnage and destruction of this war will be born such a hatred of war as will bring to pass a federation of the nations-The United States of the World-in which will exist but one army, and that an international peace, rather than an army. For once there is some correspondence between a popular dream and the prophetic Word. For that Word certainly points to a federated world-empire in the end-time of the age… It is, of course, possible, nay, probable that some temporary truce may end, or suspend for a time, the present world-war, for ten kingdoms will exist at the end-time in the territory once ruled over by Rome.168 There are remarkable similarities between Scofield’s views and those written 60 years later by Hal Lindsey who equally dogmatically asserts, We are the generation the prophets were talking about. We have witnessed biblical prophecies come true. The birth of Israel. The decline in American power and morality. The rise of Russian and Chinese might. The threat of war in the Middle East. The increase of earthquakes, volcanoes, famine and drought. The Bible foretells the signs that precede Armageddon… We are the generation that will see the end times …and the return of Jesus.169 Dwight Wilson observes, The premillinarian’s history is strewn with a mass of erroneous speculations which have undermined their credibility… The supposed restoration of Israel has confused the problem of whether the Jews are to be restored before or after the coming of the Messiah. The restoration… Has been pinpointed to have begun in 1897, 1917, and 1948… It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.170 11. Conclusions: The Legacy of Scofieldism on Christian Zionism William E. Cox, a former dispensationalist and subsequently a critic of Scofieldism offers this appraisal of his abiding influence. Scofield’s footnotes and his systematized schemes of hermeneutics have been memorized by many as religiously as have verses of the Bible. It is not at all uncommon to hear devout men recite these footnotes prefaced by the words, ‘The Bible says…’ Many a pastor has lost all influence with members of his congregation and has been branded a liberal for no other reason than failure to concur with all the footnotes of Dr. Scofield. Even many ministers use the teachings of Scofield as tests of orthodoxy! Charles G. Trumball, late editor of the Sunday School Times, spoke of the Scofield Bible in the following terms, in his book, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield: ‘God-planned, God-guided, God-energized work.(p. 114).’171 In 1890 Scofield began his Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course through which tens of thousands of students around the world were introduced to his dispensational teaching about a failing Church and a future Israel. Scofield directed the Course until 1914 when it was taken over by the Moody Press, associated with the Moody Bible Institute. 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, founded in 1924 by another of his disciples, Lewis Sperry Chafer, who became probably Scofield’s most influential exponent. Chafer has, in the history of American Dispensationalism, a double distinction. First, he established and led Dispensationalism’s most scholarly institution through the formative years of its existence. Second, he produced the first full and definitive systematic theology of Dispensationalism. This massive eight-volume work is a full articulation of the standard Scofieldian variety of dispensational thought, constantly related to the Biblical texts and data on which it claims to rest. Its influence appears to have been great on all dispensationalist teachers since its first publication, though it is fading today. All of Chafer’s work and career was openly and obviously in the Scofieldian tradition. A few years before his death, Chafer, faithful to his mentor to the last, was to say of his greatest academic achievement, ‘It goes on record that the Dallas Theological Seminary uses, recommends, and defends the Scofield Bible.’ The major line of dispensational orthodoxy is clear and unbroken from Darby to Scofield to Chafer to Dallas.172 For example, Chafer repeatedly defended both Scofield’s and Darby’s foundational assumption that the Bible reveals God is working through two different channels, Israel and the church. …with the call of Abraham and the giving of the Law and all that followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into favour with God… These systems [of law and grace] do set up conflicting and opposing principles. But since these difficulties appear only when an attempt is made to coalesce systems, elements, and principles which God has separated, the conflicts really do not exist at all outside these unwarranted unifying efforts… The true unity of the Scriptures is not discovered when one blindly seeks to fuse these opposing principles into one system… Though dispensationalism does… Departmentalize the message of the Word of God according to its obvious divisions, [it] does also discover the true unity of the Bible. The outstanding characteristic of the dispensationalist is… That he believes every statement of the Bible and gives to it the plain, natural meaning its words imply. [Dispensationalism] has changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which purposes reach on into eternity to come.173 It is perhaps therefore not surprising that these two institutions, the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary have since then continued to be the foremost apologists for Scofield’s dispensational views, and Christian Zionism in particular. 1 For example, The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967); The Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute, 1994); The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984); Scofield Study Notes (Quickverse for Windows, Parsons Technology, 1994) 2 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 222. 3 Charles G. Trumball, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (Oxford University Press, New York, 1920) 4 Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and his Book (Vallecito, California, Ross House Books, 1988). Canfield refers to a third source by William A. BeVier, A Biographical Sketch of C.I. Scofield: A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Southern Methodist University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Master of Arts with a Major in History. May 1960. See also Albertus Pieters, A Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible (Grand Rapids, Douma Publications) 5 Trumball, Scofield., p. 125. 6 cited by Canfield, Incredible., p. 1. as reported in The Dallas Morning News, Monday Nov. 28, 1921, p. 7. 7 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 15, 108. 8 Canfield, Incredible., p. 48. 9 Canfield, Incredible., p. 52. 10 Canfield, Incredible., p. 54. 11 Canfield, Incredible., p. 55. 12 Canfield, Incredible., p. 66. 13 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 57, 67. 14 Canfield, Incredible., p. 79. 15 Canfield, Incredible., p. 80. 16 From the papers in case No. 2161, supplied by the Atchison County Court, cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 89. 17 From the papers in case No. 2161, supplied by the Atchison County Court, cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 89. 18 Canfield, Incredible., p. 95. 19 Canfield, Incredible., p. 98. 20 Canfield, Incredible., p. 100. 21 Canfield, Incredible., p. 115. 22 Canfield, Incredible., p. 196. 23 Canfield, Incredible., p. 135. 24 Canfield, Incredible., p. 148. 25 Canfield, Incredible., p. 181. 26 Canfield, Incredible., p. 231. 27 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 222, 277, 291. 28 From the files of the Kansas State Historical Society, as cited by Canfield, Incredible., pp. 79-80. 29 Newspaper from the files of the Kansas City Public Library, as cited by Canfield, Incredible., pp. 82-83. 30 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 83-84. 31 Canfield, Incredible., p. 151 32 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 76, 84. 33 C.I. Scofield, The Purpose of God in This Age, a sermon preached at First Congregational, Dallas, October 15, 1893, p. 19. Cited by Canfield, Incredible., p. 137. 34 John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), p. 38. 35 Ernest Reisinger, ‘A History of Dispensationalism in America’ (http://www.founders.org/FJ09/article1.html) 36 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 74-75. 37 Canfield, Incredible., p. 74. 38 Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1960), p. 18. See also Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1958), p. 369f. 39 W. G. Turner, John Nelson Darby (London, Chapter Two, [1901], 1986), back cover. 40 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 43. 41 C. I. Scofield, ‘Introduction,’ The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 1909. 42 Arno C. Gaebelein, Half A Century (New York, Publication Office of Our Hope, 1930), p. 20. Cited in Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 44. 43 Arno C. Gaebelein, The History of the Scofield Reference Bible (Spokane, WA, Living Words Foundation, 1991), p. 33. 44 J. R. Graves, The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations (Texarkana, Baptist Sunday School Board of Texarkana, 1883) 45 Canfield, Incredible., p. 112. 46 C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York, Loizeaux Brothers, 1888) 47 Canfield, Incredible., p. 122. 48 The Authorised Version translates this verses as ‘rightly dividing the Word of Truth.’ Canfield wrongly attributes this to Paul’s first letter to Timothy, Canfield, Incredible., p. 166. 49 Scofield, Rightly., p. 3. 50 Scofield, Rightly., p. 2. 51 Canfield, Incredible., p. 166. 52 (John 3:16, 18) 53 (1 Corinthians 12:13) 54 Scofield, Rightly., p. 18. 55 Canfield, Incredible., p. 167. 56 C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute), pp. 45-46. 57 Scofield, Scofield., Index. 58 Barr, Fundamentalism., p. 196. 59 Canfield, Incredible., p. 112. 60 Canfield, Incredible., p. 122. 61 Bruce L. Shelly, ‘Niagara Conferences’, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. J. D. Douglas. rev. edn. (Exeter, Paternoster Press, 1978), p. 706. 62 Resolution included as Appendix A in Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970). 63 Charles G. Trumball, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (Oxford University Press, New York, 1920), pp. 61-62. 64 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), p. 267. 65 Fuller, Gospel., p. 1. 66 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) 67 Arno C. Gaebelein, Moody Monthly 43 (1943) p. 278. 68 Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1977), p. 15. 69 James Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1984), p. 6. 70 Craig A. Blaising ‘Dispensationalism, The Search for Definition’ in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, The Search for Definition ed. Craig A. Blaising & Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1992) p. 21. 71 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970), p. 222. 72 C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1917), Introduction, p. iii. 73 Scofield, Scofield., p. iii. 74 Canfield, Incredible., p. 209. Canfield calculates that comments appear on only 327 out of a total of 970 pages of the Old Testament, and on only 214 out of 352 pages in the New Testament. 75 Trumball, Scofield., p. 76. 76 Scofield, Scofield., p. 725. 77 Canfield, Incredible., p. 209. 78 James M. Gray, President of Moody Bible Institute, and William J. Erdman. 79 Canfield, Incredible., p. 204. 80 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970), p. 224. 81 Cornelius R. Stam, The New Scofield Reference Bible, An Appraisal, (Chicago, Berean Bible Society), p. 12. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 218. 82 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) 83 Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute, 1994) 84 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 5. 85 Scofield, Scofield., Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, p. iii. 86 C. I. Scofield, Addresses on Prophecy (New York, Chas. C. Cook, 1914), p. 13. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., pp. 216-217. 87 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 5. 88 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 3. 89 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 3, p. 1250. 90 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20. 91 Scofield, Scofield., p. 989 92 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 1115. 93 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1002. Many other dispensationalists take the same view. See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, (Dallas, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), vol. 4. p. 221. 94 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1115. This footnote is substantially modified in the New Scofield Study Bible, to stress that salvation is always through faith. p. 1094. 95 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1252. Here Scofield contradicts Paul himself in 2 Timothy 3:16. 96 Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum. The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 1980); Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, reprinted 1964); William Cox, Why I Left Scofieldism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.); An Examination of Dispensationalism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963) 97 C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Oakland, Western Book and Tract Co. n.d.), p. 18. 98 Scofield, Scofield.,. p. 989. 99 William E. Cox, Why I Left Scofieldism (Phillipsberg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d.) p. 8. 100 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 8. 101 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 9. 102 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 18. 103 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 725. 104 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1346. 105 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1347. 106 Scofield, Rightly., p. 13. 107 see Ephesians 1:22-23; Matthew 16:18. 108 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1629. 109 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20. 110 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20. 111 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 18. 112 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, pp. 724-725. This is another unpalatable footnote omitted in the New Scofield Study Bible (1984). 113 International Christian Zionist Congress Proclamation, International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem. 25-29 February 1996; and Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land? (Oxford, Lion, 1992), p. 280. 114 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 3, p. 25. 115 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 18. 116 Scofield, Scofield., p. 989. 117 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2. p. 1021. 118 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1158. 119 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1204. 120 Cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 169. 121 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. p. 1036. 122 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 1012. 123 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 922. 124 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1348. 125 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1348. 126 Scofield, Rightly., p. 18. 127 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1206. 128 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1297. 129 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1148. 130 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 963. 131 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 157. 132 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 932. 133 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1151. 134 Scofield, Scofield., note, p. 25. 135 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 250. 136 The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967) 137 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 217. 138 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. p. 250. 139 The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 19. 140 The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 217. 141 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. p. 723. 142 emphasis added. 143 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 795. 144 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 881. 145 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, pp. 1169-1170 146 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. pp. 1169-1170 147 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 1152. 148 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 916. 149 Fuller, Gospel., p. 180. Also James Barr, Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1977), p. 355. 150 W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, Los Angeles, University of California), 1974, pp. 166-167, 366ff. [n.b. a subject to be pursued in more detail later] 151 Gerstner, Wrongly., pp. 190-191. 152 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 191. 153 Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, (Neptune, New Jersey, Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), p. 72. 154 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 192. 155 Oswald Allis, Prophecy and the Church, An Examination of the Claim of Dispensationalists that the Christian Church is a Mystery (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), p. 78. 156 Truth (periodical), No. 19 (1897), p. 385. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., p.125. 157 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 883. 158 E. Schuyler English, The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p. 857. 159 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1345. 160 E. Schuyler English, The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p. 1331. 161 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 1348. 162 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, pp. 1348-1349. 163 E. Schuyler English, The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p. 1334. 164 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1221. 165 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1148 166 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1148 167 Charles G. Trumball, Prophecy’s Light on Today, (New York, Revell, 1937), p. 67, cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 271. 168 C. I. Scofield, What Do The Prophets Say? (Philadelphia, The Sunday School Times Co., 1918), pp. 18-19. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., pp. 274-275. 169 Hal Lindsey, The 1980’s, Countdown to Armageddon, (New York, Bantam, 1981), back cover. 170 Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1977), pp. 216-218. 171 William E. Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), p. 55-56. 172 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 46 173 L. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447. Quoted in Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutic of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapdis, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 24-25. This entry was posted in Bible, Christian Zionism, Dispensationalism, Israel, Palestine, Scofield, Theology and tagged Christian Zionism, Dispensationalism, Scofield on June 30, 2021.

https://bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. A conservative, bible believing perspective! God's providence gave us the 27 book New Testament Canon, not the church. God, not men decided the canon. This providence does not mean that church leaders were inspired in their selecting the canon, only that God had his eye on the scriptures the whole time and brought about His will to form the Bible we see today! A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. Go to: "Canon of the Bible" Home Page A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. Introduction: The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. This does not mean they are not inspired. And Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. List of Old Testament texts quoted in the New Testament: Gen 1:27 Matt 19:4 Gen 5:2 Mark 10:6 Gen 2:2 Heb 4:4 Gen 2:7 1 Cor 15:45 Gen 2:24 Matt 19:5, Mark 10:7-8,1 Cor 6:17, Eph 5:31 Gen 5:24 Heb 11:5 Gen 12:1 Acts 7:3 Gen 12:3 Gal 3:8 Gen 12:7 Acts 7:5 Gen 13:15 Gal 3:16 Gen 14:17-20 Heb 7:1-2 Gen 15:5 Rom 4:18 Gen 15:6 Rom 4:3,9,22, Gal 3:6, Jas 2:23 Gen 15:13-14 Acts 7:6-7 Gen 17:5 Rom 4:17 Gen 17:7 Gal 3:16 Gen 17:8 Acts 7:5 Gen 18:10 Rom 9:9 Gen 18:14 Rom 9:9 Gen 21:10 Gal 4:30 Gen 21:22 Rom 9:7, Heb 11:18 Gen 22:16-17 Heb 6:13-14 Gen 22:18 Acts 3:15 Gen 25:23 Rom 9:12 Gen 25:23 Rom 9:12 Gen 38:8 Luke 20:28 Gen 47:31 Heb 11:21 Ex 1:8 Acts 7:18 Ex 2:14 Acts 7:27-28,38 Ex 5:2 Acts 7:30 Ex 3:5-10 Acts 7:33-34 Ex 3:6 Matt 22:32 Ex 3:15 Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 Ex 4:16 Rom 9:17 Ex 5:18 Jam 2:11 Ex 12:46 John 19:36 Ex 13:2 Luke 2:23 Ex 16:18 2 Cor 8:15 Ex 19:6 1 Pet 2:9 Ex 19:12-13 Heb 12:20 Ex 20:12-16 Matt 19:18-19 Ex 20:13 Matt 5:21 Ex 20:13-17 Rom 13:2 9 Ex 20:12 Matt 15:4 Ex 20:14 Matt 5:27 Ex 20:17 Rom 7:7 Ex 21:17 Matt 15:4, Mark 7:10 Ex 21:24 Matt 5:38 Ex 22:27 Acts 23:5 Ex 24:8 Heb 9:20 Ex 25:40 Heb 8:5 Ex 32:1 Acts 7:40 Ex 32:6 1 Co 10:17 Ex 33:19 Rom 9:15 Lev 10:9 Luke 1:15 Lev 12:8 Luke 2:24 Lev 18:5 Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12 Lev 19:2 1 Pet 1:16 Lev 19:12, Num 30:2 Matt 5:33 Lev 19:18 Mark 12:33 Lev 19:18 Matt 5:43,19:19,22:39 Lev 19:18 Mark 12:31, Gal 5:14,Jam 2: Lev 23:29 Acts 3:23 Lev 24:20 Matt 5:38 Lev 26:12 2 Co 6:16 Num 16: 2 Tim 2:19 Num 27:17 Matt 9:36 Deut 5:16-20 Mark 10:1, Luke 18:20 Deut 24:14 Mark 10:19 Deut 5:16 Mark 7:10, Eph 6:2-3 Deut 5:17 Jas 2:11 Deut 4:24 Heb 12:29 Deut 4:3 Mark 12:32 Deut 6:5 Luke 10:27 Deut 6:4-5 Mark 12:29-30 Deut 6:5 Matt 22:37 Deut 6:13 Matt 4:10, Luke 4:8 Deut 6:16 Matt 4:7, Luke 4:12 Deut 8:3 Matt 4:4, Luke 4:4 Deut 9:4 Rom 10:6 Deut 30:12-14 Rom 10:6-8 Deut 9:19 Heb 12:21 Deut 17:7 1 Co 5:13 Deut 18:15-16 Acts 7:37, 3:12 Deut 19:15 Matt 18:16,2 Co 13:1 Deut 21:23 Gal 3:13 Deut 24:1,3 Matt 5:31, Matt 19:7, Mark 10:4 Deut 25:4 1 Co 9:9,1 Tim 5:18 Deut 25:5,7 Matt 22:24, Mark 12:19 Deut 27:26, Gal 3:10 Deut 29:3 Rom 11:8 Deut 30:12-14 Heb 13:5 Deut 32:21 Rom 10:19 Deut 32:35-36 Rom 12:19 Deut 32:43 Rom 15:10 1 Sam 12:22 Rom 11:2 1 Sam 13:14 Acts 13:22 2 Sam 7:8 2 Co 6:18 2 Sam 7:14 Heb 1:5 2 Sam 22:50 Rom 15:9 1 Ki 19:10,12 Rom 11:3 1 Ki 19:`8 Rom 11:4 2 Ki 1:10,11 Luke 9:54, Rev 20:9 1 Chr 17:13 Rev 21:7 2 Ch 18:16, 30:2 Mark 6:34 Job 5:13 1 Co 3:19 Job 16:19 Mark 11:10 Job 41:3 Rom 11:35 Ps 2:7 Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5,5:5 Ps 2:9 Rev 2:26-27 Ps 4:5 Eph 4:26 Ps 5:10 Rom 3:13 Ps 6:9 Matt 7:23 Ps 8:2 Matt 21:16 Ps 8:5-7 Heb 2:6-8, 1 Co 15:27 Ps 10:7 Rom 3:14 Ps 14:1-3 Rom 3:10-12 Ps 16:8-11 Acts 2:25-28, 2:31,13:35 Ps 19:5 Rom 10:18 Ps 22:1 Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34 Ps 22:18 John 19:24, Matt 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:24 Ps 22:23 Heb 2:12 Ps 24:1 1 Co 10:26 Ps 31:6 Luke 23:46 Ps 32:1-2 Rom 4:7-8 Ps 34:9 1 Pet 2:3 Ps 34:13-17 1 Pet 3:10-12 Ps 34:21 Joh 15:25 Ps 36:2 Rom 3:18 Ps 40:10 Heb 10:5-7 Ps 41:10 Joh 13:18 Psa 42:5,11 Matt 26:38 Ps 43:5 Mark 14:34 Ps 44:23 Rom 8:36 Ps 45:7-8 Heb 1:8-9 Ps 51:6 Rom 3:4 Ps 62:12 Matt 16:27 Pro, 24:12 Rom 2:6 Ps 68:19 Eph 4:8 Ps 69:10 Joh 2:17 Ps 69:23-24 Rom 11:9-10 Ps 69:26 Acts 1:20 Ps 78:2 Matt 13:35 Ps 78:24 Joh 6:31 Ps 82:6 Joh 10:34 Ps 86:9 Rev 15:4 Ps 91:11-12 Matt 4:6, Luke 4:10-11 Ps 94:11 1 Co 3:20 Ps 95:7-11 Heb 3:7-11, 3:15,4:3,5,7 Ps 102:26-28 Heb 1:10-12 Ps 104:4 Heb 1:7 Ps 104:12 Matt 13:32, Mark 4:32, Luke 13:19 Ps 110:1 Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42-43, Acts 2:34-35, Heb 1:13 Ps 110:4 Heb 5:6,-10, Heb 7:17,21 Ps 111:2 Rev 15:3-4 Ps 112:9 2 Co 9:9 Ps 116:10 2 Co 4:13 Ps 117:2 Rom 15:11 Ps 118:6 Heb 13:6 Ps 118:22-23 Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10-11, Luke 20:17 Ps 118:22 Acts 4:11, 1 Pet 2:7 Ps 118:25-26 Matt 21:9,Mark 11:9-10, Joh 12:13, Matt 23:39 Ps 118:26 Luke 13:35, Luke 19:38 Ps 132:11 Acts 2:30 Pro 3:11-12 Heb 12:5-6 Pro 3:34 Jam 4:6, 1 Pet 5:5 Pro 11:31 1 Pet 4:18 Pro 25:21-22 Rom 12:20 Pro 26:11 2 Pet 2:22 Isa 1:9 Rom 9:29 Isa 6:9-10 Matt 13:14-15, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26-27 Isa 6:9 Luke 8:10 Isa 6:10 Joh 12:40 Isa 7:14 Matt, 1:23 Isa 8:12-13 1 Pet 3:14-15 Isa 8:17-18 Heb 2:13 Isa 9:1-2 Matt 4:15-16 Isa 11:10 Rom 15:12 Isa 13:10 Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24-25 Isa 34:4 Luke 21:26 Isa 22:13 1 Co 15:32 Isa 25:8 1 Co 15:54, Rev 7:17 Isa 26:19 Matt 11:5 Isa 35:5-6 Luke 7:22 Isa 26:20 Heb 10:37-38 Isa 28:11-12 1 Co 14:21 Isa 29:13 Matt 15:8-9, Mark 1:3, Joh 1:23 Isa 40:6-8 1 Pet 1:24-25 Isa 40:13 Rom 11:34, 1 Co 2:16 Isa 42:1-4 Matt 12:18-21 Isa 45:23 Rom 14:11 Isa 49:6 Acts 13:47 Isa 49:8 2 Co 6:2 Isa 52:5 Rom 2:24 Isa 52:7 Rom 10:15 Isa 52:11 2 Co 6:17 Isa 52:15 Rom 15:21 Isa 53:1 Joh 12:38, Rom 8:17 Isa 53:7-8 Acts 8:32-33 Isa 53:9 1 Pet 2:23 Isa 53:12 Luke 22:37 Isa 54:1 Gal 4:27 Isa 54:13 Joh 6:45 Isa 55:3 Acts 13:34 Isa 55:10 2 Co 9:10 Isa 56:7 Matt 21:13 Jer 7:11 Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 Isa 59:7-8 Rom 3:15-17 Isa 59:20-21 Rom 11:26-27 Isa 61:1-2 Luke 4:18-19 Isa 62:11 Matt 21:5 Isa 64:3 1 Co 2:9 Isa 65:1-2 Rom10:10-21 Isa 65:17 2 Pet 3:13 Isa 66:1-2 Acts 7:49-50 Jer 5:21 Mark 8:18 Jer 9:23 1 Co 1:31, 2 Co 10:17 Jer31:15 Matt 2:18 Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:8-12 Ezk 11:20 Rev 21:7 Ezk 37:5, 10 Rev 11:11 Dan 3:6 Matt13:42, 50 Dan 7:13 Matt 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26,14:62, Luke 21:27,22:69 Dan 9:27 Matt 24:15 Dan 11:31 Mark 13:14 Hos 2:1, 3 Rom 9:25-28 Hos 6:6 Matt 9:13, Matt 12:7 Hos 10:8 Luke 23:30, Rev 6:16 Hos 11:1 Matt 2:15 Hos 13:14 1 Co 15:55 Joel 3:1-5 Acts 2:17-21, Rom 10:13 Amos 5:25-27 Acts 7:42-43 Amos 9:11-12 Acts 15:16-17 Jonah 2:17 Matt 12:40 Mic 5:2 Matt 2:6 Mic 7:6 Matt 10:35-36 Hab 2:3-4 Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11 Hab 1:5 Acts 13:41 Hag 2:6, 21 Heb 12:26 Zac 8:16 Eph 4:25 Zech 9:9 Joh 12:15 Zac 11:12-13 Matt 27:9-10 Zac 12:10 Joh 19:37 Zac 13:7 Matt 26:31, Mark 14:27 Mal 1:2-3 Rom 9:13 Mal 3:1 Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2,Luke 7:27 Mal 4:5-6 Matt 17:10-11

Even knowing how horrible of a man Joe Biden has been I still pity him. Alzheimer's is a terrible affliction.

Of course Jesus did. If you go back and reread my post you can see that I was talking about before the law, not after. Context is key my friend.

Reminds me of a billboard we have here in Ct on I95

This isn't what you put forth in your OP. You really need to be clear what you are looking for. And again, those "churches" are entitled to do whatever they want as a church. Does what these people do in their own church affect you directly? No. They will answer to the Lord. Now, we have had two high profile ministers leave the ministry in the past month. They're both wealthy. I liked SOME of what these men put forward, but, because they weren't my pastor I NEVER gave them a dime. My money is given to my local church.

We do not have the originals. We have copies of them. God preserved them. The present thinking of many modern scholars is that yes, God preserved His ideas, but not the words. There are no verses that state this, but plenty that say, for example, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). The "copious amounts" of copies for the modern versions come from manuscripts and fragments that are other than the Textus Receptus (TR), which are about 10% of the TR's 5,000 manuscripts and fragments. https://www.preservedword.com/content/antioch-or-alexandria/ Antioch or AlexandriaHow did God preserve His Bible? Luke Mounsey June 1, 2004 Manuscript Evidence Print I have previously established that God has preserved His Word, listing many Scriptures affirming this. But exactly which Bible is the perfect Word of God? If God preserved His Word, then it must be around here somewhere. In order to find the perfect Bible, it is necessary to determine which manuscript text-type is the preserved line. (A text-type is a group of manuscripts that generally agree with each other.) There are two major text-types, the Byzantine/Antiochian/Majority/Universal text-type and the Alexandrian text-type. The Byzantine text-type had it’s origin in Antioch, Syria, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). The Alexandrian text originated in Alexandria, Egypt, which was probably the first place that the pure doctrine of Christ was perverted with false teaching. 95% of ALL known New Testament manuscripts fall into the Byzantine text-type. (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.) Only a very few manuscripts fall into the Alexandrian text-type, and these manuscripts are known to have many serious problems. Of the two most popular Alexandrian manuscripts, one (Vaticanus) is owned by the http://www.mag-net.com/%7Emaranath/OLDBEST.HTM for more information. There are those who prefer the Antiochan/Byzantine text and those who prefer the Alexandrian. Each group has different beliefs about how God preserved His word. Here is a brief overview. Antiochan Alexandrian God inspired the original manuscripts using holy men as His pens. They wrote what He inspired them to.These manuscripts were faithfully copied and translated by other holy men. But some evil men started producing their own modified version of the scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church arose, making the perverted Scripture the official Bible of Catholicism. All copies of Scripture were banned, pure or perverted, and only church leaders were allowed to possess a copy. True Christians prevailed dispute horrible persecutions, refusing to join the idolatrous Catholic Church, and being used by God to preserve the pure Bible for all generations. The Protestant Reformation ended the Dark Ages as multitudes fled from Rome to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible was translated into many languages from the preserved text, making God’s pure Word available to the masses. Revivals continued for centuries as people used God’s Word. In the 19th century, a push was made by the Vatican and some apostate Protestant scholars to declare that the perverted Roman Catholic manuscripts were superior to the God-honored preserved text. New versions of the Bible were produced, which were not accepted at first, but slowly grew into acceptance. Most Protestants did not realize that these new “Bibles” came from the corrupt line of manuscripts, not the preserved line. But some did realize it, and when they attempted to warn others, were ostracized and declared divisive. God inspired His word using men, who were not necessary holy (see below). About 300 A.D, the Christian church revised God’s Word to make it better and “more orthodox.” Thus the true Word of God was lost at this point. The Catholic Church united Europe in Christian unity, but then the Protestants destroyed that unity by braking with Rome. The Protestants ignorantly made their Bible translations from the revised manuscripts. In the mid 1800’s, a glorious discovery was made. Two ancient manuscripts were found that predated the revised text the Protestants were using. These differed significantly with the traditional text, and therefore were considered to be pre-revision. After being lost for 1600 years, God’s word had finally been found!! So they began cranking out Bibles translated from the new manuscripts. As for the pure, preserved, inerrant Word of God, it of course was nowhere to be found, since it was perfect only in the “original manuscripts” which are long vanished. The “Byzantines” believe God used holy men to inspire His word and holy men to preserve His word. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet 1:21). On the other hand, Alexandrians believe that you don’t necessarily have to be holy to be used by God to preserve His word. You don’t have to be holy to help with a Bible translation. Maybe this is why there are so many liberals, heathens, and homosexuals on these Bible translation committees! You’ve got to be kidding, you say. They certainly wouldn’t allow anyone on their translation if they were living in sin! Surely they would demand that they must be holy. Well, their own new Bible versions have stripped being holy as a requirement for helping to inspire AND preserve the Word of God. The word “holy” is clean gone from 2 Peter 1:21 in these new Bibles! So the Alexandrians believe that you don’t have to be holy in order to work on a Bible translation! Is it then no wonder that many of the modern translators are either apostate liberals or flat out heathens!!! Is it no surprise that the fruit of their “Bibles” is not great revival but great apathy and apostasy!!! But this will be covered in more detail in a future article. So we see that the Byzantine/ Majority Text proponents believe that God inspired His word using holy men, and preserved it using holy men to make it available for all generations. The Alexandrian proponents, however, believe that God inspired His word, then lost it!! After not having the word of God for centuries, they finally found it again in the “oldest and best” Alexandrian manuscripts. What kind of preservation is this? This is NOT preservation! If you believe that the oldest manuscripts are the best, then you do not believe that God has preserved His word. IF you believe that the scriptures were inerrant only in the “original manuscripts” then you do not believe that God has preserved His Word. If you don’t believe that God preserved His word, you disbelieve the Bible and are calling God a liar!! Therefore, you must make a choice. You must chose between the Antiochan or the Alexandrian text. For the Bible-believer, this choice should be an obvious one. (Views: 15429) Updated: February 24, 2015 — 2:07 AM

Jesus is the Rock upon which the church is built - and the verse very clearly states the gates of hell will not prevail against it (not prevail against the rock - though obviously that is a given). On another note, the gates of hell and the Antichrist will prevail against the believers who are on the earth after the church is called out at the rapture. (Just an interesting contrast I noticed not that long ago.) Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

When God places people in countries where they are privileged to vote for those who will lead the country, then they should vote. Those who do not are not being good stewards of the country God has given them. I do believe that if one has the opportunity to vote and neglects it from that stance that "nobody is good enough," they are sinning (because at least here in America a voter can at least write in someone they can support) Lesser of two evils? Yes, that is always a good debate. But here's the thing (and has been mentioned before): ALL people are sinners, therefore there is the truth that nobody for whom one votes will be perfect. Every single person who runs for whatever office will have something that is not good about them. It is the responsibility of the voter to examine the stance of the one(s) who desire to be chosen as public servants and to vote for the one who is closest to correct. There are biblical guidelines, and in this country we have the addition of constitutional guidelines. There is no excuse for us allowing into office those who flout either/both.

I do not have any dress requirements for people in our church, except for those who are singing or preaching. Some people have left our church because they felt they had to dress a certain way, even though they admitted that nothing was ever said or preached about it. Years later, they confessed that it was something they had made up in their minds to justify leaving. It got them thinking because when they visited another church with a suit on, they were told that they didn't have to wear that here. They realized that some of the come as you are church is only come as they are. lol I have personal convictions on this, and they are just that. Also, nice dress is defined differently in different cultures.

Seals are finding the water too hot? I thought Navy seals were tough!!