Like a mother cat, defending her kittens. That is how I feel as I come to the defense of my most beloved study Bible.
One of the sites I regularly read to keep up with trends is Rense. Some of the articles, are fluff. Some are very deep, including the illustrations that head up this site.
But presently I was amazed to see there an illustration of a church wrapped in chains. On the chains is a kind of medallion with a Zionist motif. A man in the midst of all this holds up a Scofield Bible. Now what is wrong with this picture? Not the actual picture--it is skillful propaganda. But what is wrong with the intended link between my favorite study Bible and Zionism?
Let's start with--everything.
The one great method of sorting out Bible themes, both theological and prophetic is so-called "Scofieldism". It is really not a theology but a sorting out of Bible themes, a kind of filing mechanism.
The only invention or discovery in this Bible is the listing of a hitherto neglected covenant, the Deuteronomic covenant. How dare anyone call this a distinct covenant? Let me quote God's words:
These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. (Deut. 29:1).
Pretty simple isn't it? God informs his people that he is making a covenant in addition to one he made before.I have read chapter 29 many times but find re-reading it is very refreshing and promising. I would recommend it and chapter 30 to be read by Christians and Jews alike.
When I worked in a large motel I got a call that someone with a large dog was scaring patrons. I found three young people with a Great Dane. They had brought him to the motel grounds for exercise. They had come inside to use the Coke machine. As people came down the hall they were frightened by the dog's large size. I asked the kids not to let their dog scare people.
I found the children were part of a near-by Jewish community. They seemed to want to talk. I asked them if they had read the wonderful promises in the Bible that were made for the Jewish people. I recommended some passages. They returned the next night. They had read the passages but didn't see how they applied to them. But a rapport had been established.
That is what this portion of Deuteronomy is all about--Israel's future blessings. Now why would anybody get mad about a Bible that separates these out as its own covenant? God himself said it was a covenant besides one he made previously.
I think I know the real issue. The Scofield says that Israel will be restored. You might ask, well doesn't Zionism say the same thing? The answer is of course, yes, but with one all-important difference. Zionists say that Israel was restored by a UN treaty in 1947. Scofield says that the restoration is future.
Further, this great dispensational Bible tells what must take place before Israel is restored. First the church must be completed, as in Acts 15, and Romans 11. Then Israel must go through a great period of testing called the time of Jacob's trouble. This is the Scofield time line.
Israel will be led into the Holy Land by Messiah himself, and not under a United Nations mandate. Those who are trying to grab the Holy Land now are violating the Bible, simple as that.
Ever buy a book and as you read it find two pages stuck together? Covenant theologians, among others. just skip ahead. We dispensationalists separate the stuck pages. What do we find when we do? The covenant of Israel's restoration. What could be the motive for those who get angry over this?