What is the Scofield Reference Bible?

We have been speaking only of the text of Scripture and its divisions. When we come to the "Notes," which form quite a full commentary upon the text, we find not only the use of the divisions, but a most lucid and profound exposition of the Word of God. The scope of each book, its theme and main divisions, are stated in a few paragraphs. Then each portion is gone into with careful detail, and the results spread before the reader, opening up the entire passage. All is treated, as we have been saying, from a spiritual point of view. Every word has meaning, every allusion had a purpose in the mind of the Spirit. Thus the types of Exodus and Leviticus are handled with reverent particularity, and the whole book becomes luminous with divine meaning.

There is little or none of the spirit of dogmatism in these notes. We are simply able to accompany the writer, and see upon what scriptural grounds he has reached his conclusions. Thus we are unhampered, and, instead of listening to man's word, have been pointed to the Word of God.

To say that there is a great lack of clear thinking on this matter of definition is an understatement. Both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists are often guilty of lack of clarity. Many from both groups are satisfied to use the well-known definition that appears in the notes of the original Scofield Reference Bible: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture."[1] Dispensationalists use this definition without thinking further of its implications in relation to age, for instance, and without ever examining its basis or lack of basis in the scriptural revelation itself. Nondispensationalists use it as a convenient and useful scapegoat simply because it does not (and could not in two sentences) convey all that is involved in the concept of a dispensation. If this concise definition were all that Scofield had to say about dispensations, then it would be fair to concentrate an attack on it, but if he has more to say (which he does) then it is not.

The New Scofield Bible, though beginning the note on dispensations with the same sentence as the original Scofield, continues with four paragraphs of elaboration. Among other matters those added paragraphs focus on the concepts of (1) a deposit of divine revelation, (2) man's stewardship responsibility to that revelation, and (3) the time period during which a dispensation operates. Also it is made quite clear that dispensations are not separate ways of salvation; rather, there is only one way of salvation -- "by God's grace through the work of Christ... on the cross."[2] More recent nondispensationalists seem to prefer not to interact with this expanded definition/description in their discussions about dispensationalism.[3]

An interesting historical fact: In the second edition of the Scofield Reference Bible (1917, and retained in the New Scofield , 1967) a new section entitled "A Panoramic View of the Bible" was added to "show the unity of the Book," which listed seven marks of this unity.

In like manner, the nondispensationalist points out some lack in the old Scofield definition and with a wave of the hand dismisses dispensationalism on the basis of the weakness of the definition! Perhaps the earlier definition does not distinguish dispensation from age, but such failure does not mean that they cannot be distinguished or that they have not been distinguished by others. And it certainly does not mean that the entire system is condemned. John Wick Bowman resorts to this stratagem when he declares, "The word translated 'dispensation' in the Greek Bible... never means nor does it ever have any reference to a period of time as such, as Scofield's definition demands."[4] Though the accuracy of Bowman's statement may be questioned by the references in Ephesians 1:10 and 3:9, in making such a charge against Scofield's definition, Bowman attempts to discredit the entire system.

The popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible has focused considerable attention on the definition in its notes and has made it a prime target for attack by nondispensationalists. However, scholars who are critical of dispensationalism should recognize that Scofield is not the only one who has defined the word, and, if there are lacks in his definition, they ought to recognize that his revisers and others have offered definitions that are more expanded. At any rate, any scholarly critique should certainly take into account several definitions if the system is to be represented fairly For instance, L. S. Chafer did not emphasize the time aspect of a dispensation in his concept,[5] and long ago the present writer defined a dispensation entirely in terms of economy rather than age.[6] Any critique ought to take into account such definitions as well as ScofieId's.

But certain conservatives also are opposed to the teachings of dispensationalism. On the one hand, the amillennialist recognizes that dispensationalists are invariably premillennialists, which means their teaching cannot be a viable option, since premillennialism and amillennialism do not mix. A. W Pink, for example, writes of dispensationalists as those who impose "their crudities and vagaries, and make their poor dupes believe a wonderful discovery had been made in the 'rightly dividing of the word of truth.'... How dreadfully superficial and faulty their 'findings' are [is apparent] from the popular (far too popular to be of much value -- Luke 16:15!) Scofield Bible."[1] More recently John Gerstner labeled dispensationalism "a cult and not a branch of the Christian church," associating dispensationalists with "false teachers" and heretics."[2] On the other hand, those who might be called ultradispensationalists feel that normative dispensationalists have not gone far enough in their teachings and thus are unbiblical in their conclusions, which, therefore, must be rejected.

John Bowman, in a practically unrestrained attack on the original Scofield Bible and its dispensational teachings, said, "This book represents perhaps the most dangerous heresy currently to be found within Christian circles."[7] In a more temperate manner the editor of Presbyterian Journal, in answer to a reader's question, called dispensationalism "a conservative 'heresy'" since, in his own words, "whatever else you may say about a dispensationalist, one thing you can say about him with great assurance: he is conservative in theology."[8]

It is important to notice that in the first two of these instances there can be no question that the Bible uses the word dispensation in exactly the same way the dispensationalist does. Even Bowman admits that: "Actually, of all seven dispensations accepted by Scofield and his colleagues, there are but two (Grace and the Fullness of Time) in connection with which the word 'dispensation' is ever used at all."[12] The negative cast of Bowman's statement must not obscure the importance of this point. The Bible does name two dispensations in the same way that dispensationalists do (and implies a third). Granted, it does not name seven, but, since it does name two, perhaps there is something to this teaching called dispensationalism.

Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system, as will be discussed in the next chapter. It is not that Scofield taught seven dispensations and Hodge only four that makes the former a dispensationalist and the latter not.

The time of the church is not always regarded as a dispensation in the proper sense (e.g. J N Darby). The rationale for this view is that, although it is on the earth, the church is not of the earth, nor of God’s plan for the earth. It is the ‘called out one’ (ekklesia). Therefore, some characterise this epoch as part of the ‘times of the nations’ which began with Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over Jerusalem (Luke 21:24) or as the time of the Spirit (i.e. the epoch in which the Spirit of God dwells on earth). But this does not take away from the doctrinal conclusions drawn from Scofield’s division. If anything, it amplifies them: first, man’s trial ended at the cross; second, Christians are not part of Israel, they are not under law, they are waiting for the rapture, and so on. It is a slightly different characterisation of the time of grace, but with the same essential insights.

J N Darby demonstrated that one needs to take into account the dispensations in order to understand the Bible properly, especially prophecy and the truth of the church. His teaching became wide - spread. A movement that became very influential, especially in America, and which essentially builds on Mr Darby's re-discoveries, is now know as 'dispensationalism'. A series of books, published in multi million editions, contributed their part to the spreading of these truths (with a greater or lesser degree of accuracy). It is estimated that, today, 20-40 million Americans subscribe to dispensational teaching.