"Vistas of Coming Glory" by Wallace Jackel pp. 86-91

IS THE SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE TRUSTWORTHY 

The Scofield Bible was first published in America in 1909. While the Bible was edited by Dr. C. Scofield, the work is not solely his, but represents the result of deep and prayerful research carried out by a wide circle of devout scholars.

Assisting Dr. Scofield were eight consulting editors, and a glance at the list gives some idea of the calibre of the men, representing as they did the cream of evangelical scholarship at the turn of the century.

The general excellence of the production was early recognized by the Oxford University Press, which, after a most searching scrutiny, accepted it as a standard publication. This was no mean achievement in a field that was highly competitive, and in itself should have a sobering effect on those who take upon themselves lightly to criticize the work The Scofield Bible has been before the public for fifty years and has proven to be most invaluable to Bible students in assisting them to grasp the vital message of the Bible. The Scofield Bible is first favourite with many of the leading Bible teachers of our day, who, despite the crop of newer versions, use Scofield as the basis of their study. The excellence of the notes is generally recognized, but many, unable to accept Scofield's futuristic interpretations, have unfortunately condemned the entire work.

Many Futurists themselves are not wholly in agreement with all that Scofield has written on subsidiary truths. It surely is too much to expect of any human work that it be entirely free from defects, but these are of a minor nature, and touch no major issue, and all such if finally proven to exist, will doubtless be rectified in the revised edition now being prepared.

The hue and cry raised against Scofield IS quite understandable, for it is dispensational and futuristic through and through. It constitutes the biggest threat to opposing schools of thought, and is quite easily the greatest factor in the spread of futurist eschatology. But better a thousand times the safe scriptural and systematic teaching of Scofield than the dread alternatives offered to us in the spiritualizing vagaries, the polished novelties and subtleties of many other interpretations.

A-millenialists make Scofield the special target of their attack, and it would seem that much of their literature has been produced to offset the tremendous influence that the Scofield Bible is at present exerting. We propose to deal briefly with some objections raised by Mr. Hughes to the futurist teaching, as set forth by Scofield.

On Page 194, objection is made to futurist notes inserted in the Bible. Scofield is not alone in this practice. Weymouth, adopts the practice, while the Amplified New Testament has copious Futuristic amplifications. Even the Authorised Version has headings quite inaccurate from the Futurist standpoint. All these notes are coloured by the theology of those who produced them. Provided the actual text is not tampered with, we see no valid ground for the objection.

On page 194, objection is raised to Scofield's statement that the glories of Messiah await the setting up of the Kingdom.

Futurists believe that there are at least two aspects of our Lord's glory, inherent glory, and acquired glory, represented thus:
(1) The glory that was. (John 17:5.)
(2) The ascension glory. (Acts 3:13.)
(3) The advent glory. (Daniel 7 :14.)
(4) The aspect of eternal glory. (Revelation 5:13.)

Scofield does not limit Christ's glory to the Millennium, but emphasizes the fact that the prophets featured this aspect of glory.

On page 84, Mr. Hughes objects to the use of the word, "palingenesia" in the Scripture reference, Matthew 19:28.

The word regeneration is used only twice in the New Testament, once in Titus 3:5 where it is used of a person born again, and in Matthew 19: 28, which Scofield applies to the millennium. The born again man, be it noted, is the same man but spiritually renewed, likewise the earth is the same earth but a renewed earth.
		
The suggestion on page 85 that the millennium cannot be the recreation for it is "only the restoration of the old Jewish order with its priesthood, temple and carnal ordinances and 	sacrifices and racial superiority" is quite false and misleading. There is not a Futurist who would teach such a thing. Features of Jewish ritual and worship will be incorporated into the millennial scheme, and the Jews certainly will attain primacy among the nations, but to describe the millennium as "merely a restoration of the Jewish order" is incorrect.
		
On page 85, Scofield's usage of Romans 8:19-22 is called into question. Our objector applies this Scripture to the New Heaven and New Earth, and thus it is lifted entirely out of history, and placed in the eternal order. "The deliverance of groaning creation in the Day of the Lord when it becomes in its reconstruction, the New Heaven and New Earth which is indestructible and eternal."
		
Creation in this Scripture means "the things created," and include the lower orders of creation, both animal and vegetable, which fell under the curse occasioned by the fall of man.	

Creation is bound up with man's destiny. What happened in the garden of Eden had sad repercussions throughout creation, but as creation was deeply involved in man's failure at the beginning, it will be involved in his redemption at the end. It is a cosmic redemption that is envisaged here.
		
Seeing that the lower creations are to share in the in the renewment of the earth, it must of necessity be on this earth. The only alternative is to give the animal and vegetable Kingdoms a place in the eternal order. The A-millennial system carried to its logical conclusion must teach just this very thing, because it recognizes only two ages, grace and glory. The Futurist., on the other hand, has no difficulties at all here for in an intermediate economy between the present age and the New Heaven and the New Earth, all these things are provided for.

Further, on page 85, the statement is made, "How the Christian apostles in glorified bodies could sit on twelve thrones administering the Kingdom under the old Jewish economy which they taught was abolished, is quite incomprehensible.

The glorified body of our Lord after His resurrection constituted no difficulty as He appeared to the disciples; why 	should the glorified bodies of the Apostles prove an embarrassment? The legal dispensation came to an end at the cross, but as it has already been shown, it is not the "old Jewish economy" over which the Apostles rule.

Unable to accept Matthew 19:28 literally, Mr. Hughes proceeds to spiritualize the whole thing, but this only involves him in greater difficulties. We are informed "the Apostles received at the inauguration of the Kingdom of Christ, the place of honour and authority. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, and the authoritative teaching of the Apostles is still paramount in the Kingdom of God, now the Kingdom of Christ."

Now, Matthew 19:28 is a very awkward Scripture so far as our opponents are concerned, and received literally would go a long way toward convicting them of error. Hence something must be done to break the force of this Scripture. Spiritualizing is the answer. This is always ready at hand to deal with obstinate Scriptures.

So it actually turns out, according to this theory, that these are not twelve actual Apostles, or twelve real thrones, or a literal twelve tribes, but rather the teaching of the Apostles governing the life of the Church which is now the Kingdom.

Our Lord is taken from the right hand, and placed on the "Throne of Glory," while this age becomes "the regeneration." Such handling of the Word of God is nothing less than jungle law. To spiritualize such a scripture is to loose it altogether. 	

1. Everything in the text suggests that it be interpreted literally, and this exactly fits the prophetic pattern.
2. Jesus Christ is not now sitting on the throne of His glory, but some twenty times is declared to be at the "right hand."
3. This present age cannot be termed a regeneration, for Scripture contradicts this and designates it, "this present evil age," wherein "evildoers will wax worse and worse." A "crooked and perverse generation" (Philippians 2:15-1(;) could scarcely be called a regeneration.

On page 104, objection is made to Scofield's use of 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Commenting on this passage of Scripture, our objector writes, "It is unwarranted to insert between the words, 'They that are Christ's at His coming' and 'Then cometh the end' a period of 1,000 years." It should be noted at the outset that with respect to the order of events the first thing is put last, and the last is put first, as any reputable commentary will indicate.

In Greek, the phrase is simply "the end" without any verb. Since the words (to Telos) might be taken adverbially as in 1 Peter 3:8, some think the whole passage should read, "Then finally when He hands over His royal power to God the Father, after He has put down every other rule and authority and power, for reign He must till He hath put all enemies under His feet."

When does the end come ? 
When does Christ deliver up the Kingdom ? 
Not until the forces of evil are subdued, and seeing that this will not be accomplished in this age, there
must be an intermediate Kingdom between grace and glory in which this will be effected.

In regard to the use of "eita," it is incorrect to affirm as Mr. Hughes does, "that what follows, follows almost immediately." This is true in many cases where the word is 	employed, but not in all.
 
For example, in Mark 4 :17, it is used of certain people who professed conversion, but who fell away afterward (eita), when persecution came. Then again in 1 Timothy 2 :13, "For Adam was first formed, then (eita) Eve." A considerable time elapsed before the creation of Eve, in which other events transpired.
		
According to Strong and Young, the word "eita" means, "afterward, furthermore, moreover, after that." The idea of subsequency is certainly in the word, but not always immediacy. No ! 1 Corinthians 15:24 does not preclude a millennium, and Scofield's usage of it is quite correct.

The order of 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 is as follows:-
	(1) Christ, the first fruits.
	(2) They that are Christ's at His coming.
	(3) The putting down of all rule and authority.
	(4) The end followed by the great abdication when Christ hands back the Kingdom to God.

On page 10, Mr. Salmon objects to Bible teachers putting Matthew in another dispensation, thereby destroying the unity of New Testament. Evidently some writers have gone to extremes at this point, but theirs is an individual viewpoint and must not be confused with the teaching of Futurism generally.
		
That Matthew has a strong Jewish emphasis, and that the book has a significance above all others for the Jews is undeniable.

Some, however, have relegated the entire sermon on the Mount to the millennial age, but it is evident that the conditions to which the principles of the Sermon on the Mount apply stand in the sharpest contrast to the conditions in the Millennial age. For example, evil is very prevalent so that men hunger for righteousness; wickedness is widespread for the righteous are the salt; the Devil is free and men are enjoined to pray that they may not fall under his power; darkness is prevalent, for believers are the light of the world.
		
Then again, almost the entire "Sermon on the Mount" is found in various forms scattered throughout the epistles, so that we may say that the epistolary teaching generally, is implicit in the gospels.
			
Neither is the sermon "law," for we are informed that "the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The Sermon on the Mount then consists of principles for the guidance of believers in this age, and doubtless, in its general features, it will be the basis of conduct in the age to come.

A consideration of these facts compels the belief that Matthew is a Jewish-Christian gospel. Like all other books of the Bible, the Gospels are not in hermetically sealed compartments, but are complimentary the one to the other. The principle of anticipation runs through them all, and the great doctrines of the Epistles are found here germinally expressed.

On page 9, objection is made to Scofield's teaching in respect to the seven dispensations. We contend that there is nothing arbitrary or stilted in this seven-fold division, for it is patent to even a superficial reader that the Bible naturally falls into these divisions.

We insist that God has marked out these divisions in no uncertain way. In the case of each period, there is a definite beginning, and a clear-cut ending. Apart altogether from dispensational distinctions, it is a most helpful method of impressing Bible history on the hearers.

It is, above all, a systematic and scientific approach to Bible study, and is to be infinitely preferred to some of the haphazard hit-miss methods we have seen. With this method the tangled web of history assumes the clear cut pattern of divine purpose.