Table of Contents | Next Chapter

2
CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCOFIELD
DISPENSATIONALISM

What happened to dispensational teaching after Darby's time? Dispensationalism came to the United States partly through a number of trips by John Darby to the United States, partly through literature written by Darby and other Plymouth Brethren. Dispensationalism spread through the influence of prophetic conferences in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Fuller (1957, 92-93) argues that dispensationalism took root in the United States more on the basis of its eschatological teaching than on the basis of Darby's concept of Israel and the church as two peoples of God:

It appears, then, that America was attracted more by Darby's idea of an any-moment Coming than they [sic] were by his foundational concept of the two peoples of God.... Postmillennialism made the event of the millennium the great object of hope; but Darby, by his insistence on the possibility of Christ's coming at any moment, made Christ Himself, totally apart from any event, the great object of hope. Darby was accepted [in America] because, as is so often the case, those revolting from one extreme took the alternative presented by the other extreme.

Note that, once again, Christology was the deep ground for the attractiveness of dispensationalism.

Within this movement the Scofield Reference Bible, in particular, contributed more than any other single work to the spread of dispensationalism in the United States. Because of its widespread use, it has now in effect become a standard. Hence we need first to come to grips with its teachings. Afterwards we can talk about ways in which these teachings are modified by other dispensationalists. Dispensationalism is now a diverse movement, so that not everything characteristic of the Scofield approach ought to be attributed to all dispensationalists.

4. General doctrines of C. I. Scofield

Cyrus I. Scofield (1843-1921) was indebted to James Brookes and Brethren writings for many of the views that he held in common with John Darby. What views does Scofield offer us in the notes of his Reference Bible? First of all, Scofield's teachings and notes are evangelical. They are mildly Calvinistic in that they maintain a high view of God's sovereignty. Scofield affirms the eternal security of believers, and the existence of unconditional promises. Moreover, his emphasis on the divine plan for all of history would naturally harmonize with a high view of God's sovereignty.

What elements distinguish Scofield from other evangelicals? There are four main foci of differences. First, Scofield practices a "literal" approach to interpreting the Bible. This area is complicated enough to warrant a separate section for discussion (section 5).

Second, Scofield sharply distinguishes Israel and the church as two peoples of God, each with its own purpose and destiny. One is earthly, the other heavenly. For example, the Scofield Reference Bible note on Gen 15:18 says:

(1) "I will make of thee a great nation." Fulfilled in a threefold way: (a) In a natural posterity--"as the dust of the earth" (Gen. 13.16; John 8.37), viz. the Hebrew people. (b) In a spiritual posterity--"look now toward heaven ... so shall thy seed be" (John 8.39; Rom. 4.16,17; 9.7,8; Gal. 3.6,7,29), viz. all men of faith, whether Jew or Gentile. (c) Fulfilled also through Ishmael (Gen. 17,18-20) [sic; Gen 17:18-20 is intended].

The note on Rom 11:1 reads:

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. 15.18, 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.

Chafer, a writer representing a view close to Scofield's, states the idea of two parallel destinies in uncompromising form (1936, 448):

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved. Why should this belief be deemed so incredible in the light of the facts that there is a present distinction between earth and heaven which is preserved even after both are made new; when the Scriptures so designate an earthly people who go on as such into eternity; and an heavenly people who also abide in their heavenly calling forever? Over against this, the partial dispensationalist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely the general separation of the good from the bad, and, in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people; ....

A third point of distinctiveness is the precise scheme for dividing the history of the world into epochs or "dispensations." The Scofield note on Eph 1:10 speaks of dispensations as "the ordered ages which condition human life on the earth." In Scofield's notes there are seven in all:

Innocency (Eden; Gen 1:28),
Conscience (fall to flood; Gen 3:23),
Human Government (Noah to Babel; Gen 8:21),
Promise (Abraham to Egypt; Gen 12:1),
Law (Moses to John the Baptist; Exod 19:8),
Grace (church age; John 1:17),
Kingdom (millennium; Eph 1:10).

Of course, people who are nondispensationalists might well accept that these were seven distinct ages, and might even say that the labels were appropriate for singling out a prominent feature of God's dealings with men during each age. As already noted (section 1), the mere belief in dispensations does not distinguish dispensationalism from many other views. Scofield's distinctiveness comes into view only if we ask what Scofield believes in detail about God's ways with men during each of these dispensations. At this point, some of the distinctiveness is a matter of degree. Scofield may emphasize more sharply the discontinuities between dispensations. But the most outstanding point of difference lies in Scofield's views concerning the church age in relation to the millennium. During the church age God's program for earthly Israel is put to one side. It is then taken up again when the church is raptured. The time of the church is a "parenthesis" with respect to earthly Israel, a parenthesis about which prophecy is silent (because prophecy speaks concerning Israel's future). One can see, then, that Scofield's view concerning the kind of distinctiveness the dispensations possess is a reflection of his view concerning Israel and the church.

A fourth and final point of distinctiveness is the belief in a pretribulational rapture. According to Scofield, the second coming of Christ has two phases. In the first phase, the "rapture," Christ comes to remove the church from the earth. But he does not appear visibly to all people. After this follows a seven year period of tribulation. At the end of seven years Christ appears visibly to judge the nations, and the earth is renewed (see diagram 2.1, taken from Jensen 1981, 134).

Though this is one of the best-known aspects of popular dispensationalism, it is not as foundational as the other distinctives. It is simply a product of the other distinctives. Nevertheless, it is an important product. Scofield maintains that the church and Israel have distinct, parallel destinies. Prophecy concerns Israel, not the church. So the church must be removed from the scene at the rapture before OT prophecy can begin to be fulfilled again. At that time Israel will be restored and Dan 9:24-27 can run to completion. If the church is not removed, the destinies of the church and Israel threaten to mix. Thus the theory of parallel destinies virtually requires a two-phase second coming, but the two-phase second coming does not, in itself, necessarily imply the theory of parallel destinies.

5. Scofield's hermeneutics

Dispensationalists are often characterized as having a "literal" hermeneutics. But, in the case of Scofield, this is only a half truth. The more fundamental element in Scofield's approach is his distinction between Israel and the church. In a manner reminiscent of Darby, Scofield derives from this bifurcation of two peoples of God a bifurcation in hermeneutics. Israel is earthly, the church heavenly. One is natural, the other spiritual. What pertains to Israel is to be interpreted in literalistic fashion. But what pertains to the church need not be so interpreted. And some passages of Scripture--perhaps a good many--are to be interpreted on both levels simultaneously. In the Scofield Bible Correspondence School (1907, 45-46) Scofield himself says:

These [historical Scriptures] are (1) literally true. The events recorded occurred. And yet (2) they have (perhaps more often than we suspect) an allegorical or spiritual significance. Example, the history of Isaac and Ishmael. Gal. iv. 23-31....

It is then permitted--while holding firmly the historical verity--reverently to spiritualize the historical Scriptures....

[In prophetic Scriptures] ... we reach the ground of absolute literalness. Figures are often found in the prophecies, but the figure invariably has a literal fulfillment. Not one instance exists of a "spiritual" or figurative fulfillment of prophecy....

... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel always Israel, Zion always Zion....

Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.

Scofield is not a pure literalist, but a literalist with respect to what pertains to Israel. The dualism of Israel and the church is, in fact, the deeper dualism determining when and where the hermeneutical dualism of "literal" and "spiritual" is applied.¹

Scofield does insist that both historical and prophetic Scriptures have a literal side. The historical passages describe what literally took place in the past, while the prophetic passages describe what will literally take place in the future. He rejects any attempt to eliminate this literal side. But would he allow a spiritual side in addition? If so, we would expect him to say that both historical and prophetic Scriptures are to be interpreted literally as to the actual happenings described, and spiritually as regards any application to the church. This is not what he says. Instead, he introduces a distinction between prophecy and history.

But in fact even this is not the complete story. Scofield wanders from his own principle with respect to "absolute literalness" of prophecy in the note on Zech 10:1. The passage itself reads, "Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain; so the Lord shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field" (KJV). The note says, "Cf. Hos. 6.3; Joel 2.23-32; Zech 12.10. There is both a physical and spiritual meaning: Rain as of old will be restored to Palestine, but, also, there will be a mighty effusion of the Spirit upon restored Israel." Hence this "ground of absolute literalness" in prophecy is not so absolute as we might suppose. Scofield is willing not only to recognize figures, but to speak of double meanings. The one thing that must be excluded is not a "spiritual" meaning, but an interpretation which would imply that the church participates in the fulfillment of this prophecy.

To a nondispensationalist, this procedure might seem to be highly arbitrary. But it does not seem so to Scofield. The procedure is in fact based on a certain understanding of Eph 3:3-6. Classic dispensationalists usually understand the passage to be teaching that the OT does not anywhere reveal knowledge of the NT church. Nevertheless, the idea of "mystery" in Ephesians 3 does allow that the church could be spoken of covertly, as in typology. What is not allowed is a overt mention of the church. If OT prophecy, as prophecy of the future, mentioned the church, it would have been a matter of overt prediction. OT historical accounts, on the other hand, might have a second, "mystery" level of meaning available to NT readers.

Such an understanding of Eph 3:3-6, then, helps to justify a hermeneutical approach like Scofield's. But, of course, that is not the only possible interpretation of Eph 3:3-6. Eph 3:3-6 says that the way in which Gentiles were to receive blessing, namely by being incorporated into Christ on an equal basis with Jews (Eph 3:6), was never made clear in the OT. The claim of "nonrevelation" in Eph 3:3-5 need mean no more than that.

Scofield's hermeneutics is beautifully illustrated by precisely those cases where one might suppose that literalism would get into trouble. Here and there the New Testament has statements which, on the surface, appear to be about fulfillment of Old Testament promises and prophecies. And some of these fulfillments turn out to be nonliteral. But Scofield rescues himself easily by distinguishing two levels of meaning, a physical-material (Israelitish) and a spiritual (churchly).

As a first example, take the promises in Genesis concerning Abraham's offspring. Gal 3:8-9,16-19,29 appear to locate fulfillment in Christ and in Christ's (spiritual) offspring. Scofield's note on Gen 15:18 neatly defuses this problem by arguing that there are two parallel offsprings, physical and spiritual, earthly and heavenly. Hence the fulfillment in the spiritual offspring is not the fulfillment for which Israel waits.

Next, look at Matthew 5-7. The Sermon on the Mount speaks of fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17). This fulfillment appears to involve fulfillment not only in Christ's preaching, but in the disciples of Christ whose righteousness is to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20, cf. 5:48). These disciples, and especially the twelve, as salt and light (Matt 5:13-16), form the nucleus of the church (Matt 16:18). Hence Matthew 5-7, including the promises of the kingdom of heaven, pertains to the church. But Scofield finds that the same route of explanation is available. The Scofield note on 5:2 says, "The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth.... (2) But there is a beautiful moral application to the Christian. It always remains true that the poor in spirit, rather than the proud, are blessed, ...."

Again, in Acts 2:17 Peter appears to say that Joel 2:28-32 (a prophecy with respect to Israel) is being fulfilled in the church-events of Pentecost. Scofield's note on Acts 2:17 boldly invokes a distinction:

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).... 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).

Scofield's general principle of "absolute literalness" with respect to prophetic interpretation would seem to lead us to say that Joel is referring to Israel and not the church. But since Peter is using the passage with reference to the church, Scofield has to make room for it. He does so by splitting the meaning in two. On one level it refers to Israel, but on a secondary level it can still refer to the "last days" of the church. And that is apparently what Scofield does in his note on Joel 2:28:

"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.

In several instances, then, Scofield postulates two separate meanings for the same passage, one Israelitish and the other churchly. To retain the primacy of the Israelitish "literal" fulfillment, the churchly reference may be spoken of as an "application" (note, Matt 5:2) or a "partial ... fulfilment" (note, Joel 2:28). The method is that summarized in diagram 2.2.