The Biblical Examiner 
An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand 


October 1997



 1) A Lawless Religion (Be sure to check the footnotes in this article.)
2) Counting the Cost
3) Free?

A Lawless Religion


Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921)


Beyond any doubt, the Scofield Study Bible did more to establish the temper of world-wide Christianity for the twentieth century than any other one event in history.

The Bible which Scofield discussed with Gaebelein that night is perhaps the most influential single publication in millenarian and Fundamentalist historiography. The Scofield Reference Bible combined an attractive format of typography, paragraphing, 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.1

"I don't read his notes, nor do I use them," some have told this pastor. However, his marginal cross references also support what he says in his notes. We will also ask, if folks do not use his notes, why is his book such a huge seller? The Old 1917 Scofield Study Bible reportedly is "Used by more Baptist Pastors Than Any Bible Ever Published."2

Being a Baptist pastor, this writer is especially concerned about the tremendous destructive influence of the Scofield Study Bible among his Baptists brethren, as well as its influence among others who believe that Scofield's notes are legitimate study aids. Though vehemently denying they are Scofield's disciples, almost every Baptist pastor this writer knows teaches Scofield's notes though priding themselves on being "independent." Moreover, every major Bible college and every Baptist Bible college this writer knows of teach basically what is found in the Scofield notes. Accordingly, though they may not promote nor use the Scofield Study Bible, their system of exegesis is clearly Scofield's. They are followers of the Scofield religion.

Look Closely

All one must do is read closely what he or she is being told by any author, and the true intent of an author will be readily apparent. (The material this writer puts into circulation is meant to be read closely. Follow through the implications of what is said. Reach your own conclusions from the Word of God. The material is meant to seriously challenge the reader to think and to study it out for him/her self. Our material is NOT for those who want someone else to do the work for them, nor for those who are looking for something to make them feel "warm and fuzzy," e.g., Chicken Soup for the Soul. We offer strong meat that requires earnest consideration. May God deliver us from the Chicken Soup generation of Christians who cannot discern both good and evil, Heb. 5:12-14. Multitudes of professed Christians are being swept before the ever changing winds of false doctrines because they do not know the Word of God. Most have never read it through even one time.)

The Gospels according to Scofield

Scofield himself tells us the truth behind his Study Bible.

With a new system of connected topical references to all the greater themes of Scripture, with annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions, chronology, and index, to which are added, helps at hard places, explanations of seeming discrepancies, and a new system of paragraphs.

"A new system of paragraphs." Why did he feel the established system of paragraphs had to be changed? What can be done with a text when its paragraphs are run together or split differently than originally given?

The real truth behind the Study Bible is clearly reveled in the introduction to "THE FOUR GOSPELS" in the Old Scofield Study Bible. Read it closely, and you will see that his purpose was to destroy almost two thousand years of Christian theology. The introduction is so permeated with inconsistencies and unbiblical assumptions that we will only discuss the more obvious fallacies upon which his Study Bible is based:

... The distinctive part which each Evangelist bears in this presentation of the living Christ is briefly noted in separate Introductions, but it may be profitable to add certain general suggestions.

I. The Old Testament is a divinely provided Introduction to the New; and whoever comes to the study of the four Gospels with a mind saturated with the Old Testament foreview of the Christ, His person, work, and kingdom, will find them open books.

For the Gospels are woven of Old Testament quotation, allusion, and type. The very first verse of the New Testament drives the thoughtful reader back to the Old; and the risen Christ sent His disciples to the ancient oracles for an explanation of His sufferings and glory (Lk. 24. 27, 44, 45). One of His last ministries was the opening of their understandings to understand the Old Testament.

Therefore, 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.

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.

Though Scofield sounds good saying that the Old Testament foresaw Christ and His work, his religion reduces the Old Testament to simply containing quotations, allusions and types.

Typical of the "Bible reading" method of teaching that commonly uses texts out of context to support the "teacher's" theories, Scofield stopped short of Luke 24:46, 47. For there Christ told the disciples that the Old Testament clearly spoke of His death, burial and resurrection, and of the gospel going to the Gentiles — Christ's crucifixion was not "plan B" that took place because national Israel rejected His offer to be its Messiah-King. In fact, the gospel of God's freely given grace through Christ to both the physical seed of Abraham and to those outside that seed was preached to Abraham long before the Old Testament prophets came into history:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. (John 8:56.)

The gospel of Christ was preached to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, and reconfirmed in Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4, 14,

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Gal. 3:6-9.)

The prophets did not promise a restored national Israel, as longed for by the "Jews" since Christ; rather, they spoke of the coming Gospel Church to replace national Israel in establishing Christ's world-wide kingdom — the foundation of the Church is the redemptive work of Christ.

Scofield admitted that the theories offered in his book (his new religion) went against what had been for eighteen hundred years accepted Biblical doctrine. He said that the intelligent reader's mind must be "freed from mere theological concepts and presuppositions," which, we must add, were obtained from passages like Luke 24:46, 47. He pointed out that his notions would counter, among other things, the then universally accepted and the historic understanding of Scripture, "that the Church is the true Israel," and that that truth was presented in the Old Testament. (In making that assertion, he had to willfully suppress the knowledge of passages like Gal. 3:8, that tell us that the Gospel Church, i.e., the gospel of Christ to the whole world, was revealed to Abraham and to the prophets following Abraham.) Note his hostility toward those who disagreed with his new and unique ideas — he said that it was not Biblical to understand that the Gospel Church fulfilled the ideal of the kingdom of God on earth. He told his readers that the orthodox Christian doctrine concerning Israel and the Gospel Church was wrong up to the release of his Study Bible.

Thus with two paragraphs, he swept away almost two millenniums of developed church doctrine. Though Scofield attached his name to the unique ideas found in his notes and cross references, his theories were obviously gleaned from John Nelson Darby (1800-1892), who gathered them from Lacunza (1731-1801) and Edward Irving (1792-1834).3 The reader of Darby's works will be struck at his open hostility against all who might not follow his new and unique theories. This pastor must say that now most of the pastors he knows make Scofield's then new and unorthodox understanding of "Israel" their Shibboleth of fellowship.

II. The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews (Mt. 10. 5, 6, 15. 23-25; John 1.1l). He was "made under the law" (Gal. 4. 4), and was "a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom. 15. 8), and to fulfil the law that grace might flow out.

Expect, therefore, a strong legal and Jewish colouring up to the cross (e.g. Mt. 5. 17-19; 6. 12; cf. Eph. 4. 32; Mt. 10. 5, 6; 15. 22-28; Mk. 1. 44; Mt. 23. 2, etc.). The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace, for it demands as the condition of blessing (Mt. 5. 3-9) that perfect character which grace, through divine power, creates (Gal. 5. 22, 23).

His "Bible reading" method of "teaching" pulled the text he wanted out of its context if that context would not support what he was saying. The following verses in Romans 15 (vv. 9ff.) clearly tell us that the purpose of Christ's work was so the Gentiles could become equal members of the commonwealth of Israel and fully equal with the "Jews" in the covenants of promise. A major argument presented by the Author of the New Testament is that circumcision ([Jews] and uncircumcision [Gentiles]) is no longer any kind of dividing line in God's kingdom. (Eph. 2:11-13; Rom. chaps, 2-4, &c.)

Moreover, Scofield tells us of his hatred for God's law, presenting a very strong militancy between God's law and God's grace. His Study Bible is a major foundation stone for the modern "unconditional love" movement that says that God's blessings are "unconditionally" upon His people. With his continuing distinction between the circumcision (Jews) and the uncircumcision (Gentiles), he teaches that a "Child of God" can lay claim to the promises of God though that person disregards God's Law-Word.4 He dismisses the Sermon on the Mount as for another dispensation yet to come because it contains law. Containing law, it contains conditions for obtaining God's promised blessings, which, in his opinion, cannot be. His lawlessness is clearly revealed for anyone to see who will look.

III. The doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels; but those doctrines rest back upon the death and resurrection of Christ, and upon the great germ-truths to which He gave utterance, and of which the Epistles are the unfolding. Furthermore, the only perfect example of perfect grace is the Christ of the Gospels.

There is no grace in the Gospels! Is it not sad when a "Bible teacher" can read ANY passage of Scripture and not find the doctrine of grace at work? No matter where the Word of God is opened, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21, God's grace is clearly at work: God is the One who gave the saints of old the desire and power to follow Him, and do the things pleasing in His sight. (Comp. 1 Kg. 8:58 and Php. 2:13.) What makes fallen man think that he has in himself the desire and power (natural ability) to seek, worship and serve the Holy Heavenly Father? This writer wonders what "Bible" people read when they can find no Grace of God except in the Epistles. What will the lawless do with 1 Corinthians 7:19?

Though the Gospels contain "great germ-truths," the Scofield religion denies that they are THE TRUTH for the modern Christian living in the "Church age" — THE TRUTH can only be found in the Epistles. And thus is held that only the writings of Paul are for the "Church age." However, not all of Paul's writings are for the Gospel Church, for any dogmatic commands, e.g., Rom 13:8ff., must be dismissed — the Church cannot be under any kind of mandatory obligation (law). Also passages and preconceived notions that counter his new truths must be ignored, e.g., Ephesians 2:11-13, &c. We might ask, "Which words of Christ contain 'germ-truths' for the Christian and which do not? Who determines which words of Christ are to be accepted as truth and which are not?" I believe the reader of Scofield's notes will find that he — CIS — is the one who makes that determination.

IV. The Gospels do not unfold the doctrine of the Church. The word occurs in Matthew only. After His rejection as King and Saviour by the Jews, our Lord announcing a mystery until that moment "hid in God" (Eph. 3. 3-10), said, "I will build my church" (Mt. 16. 16, 18). It was, therefore, yet future; but His personal ministry had gathered out the believers who were, on the day of Pentecost by the baptism with the Spirit, made the first members of "the church which is his body" (1 Cor. 12. 12, 13; Eph. 1. 23).

The Gospels present a group of Jewish disciples, associated on earth with a Messiah in humiliation; the Epistles a Church which is the body of Christ in glory, associated with Him in the heavenlies, co-heirs with Him of the Father, co-rulers with Him over the coming kingdom, and, as to the earth, pilgrims and strangers (1 Cor. 12. 12, 13; Eph. 1. 3-14, 20-23; 2. 4 6; 1 Pet. 2. 11).

We are told by the Spirit right in the midst of his proof text that the "mystery" was that both Jews and Gentiles would be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: The "mystery" was that the "Jew/Gentile" distinction would be removed in Christ. (Eph. 3:6. See Point II above.) Though his proof text is Eph. 3:3-10, he completely ignores the Scriptural fact that Christ completely did away with the "Jew/Gentile" distinction. (Isn't the "Bible reading" study method something wonderful? It will "support" the whims of both a "teacher" and a "learner.")

The Church cannot be found in the Gospels, except for the "only" use of the word in Matthew, implies that the word is only used 16:18. Because Christ's statement there is in the future tense, I will, the Church was future from His time, and could only come about as "plan B" after the Jews rejected Christ as King and Saviour. However, a great "Bible scholar/teacher" as Scofield should know that Christ also used the word in Matthew 18:17, and it was in the present tense:

The name [Greek word] is used even by Christ while on earth of the company of his adherents in any city or village: Mt. xviii.17. bb. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth; collectively, all who worship and honor God and Christ in whatever place where they may be: Mt. xvi.18 (where perhaps the Evangelist employs [Greek word] although Christ may have said [Greek word]); 1 Co. xii.28; Eph. 1:22...5

Why did Scofield say that Christ only used the word, Church, in speaking of a future event when he had to know that Christ also used it of a present event? There are vast multitudes who willingly follow to their own destruction modern "teachers" who wrest, i.e., torture, twist, put to the rack, the Word of God. (2 Pet. 3:16.)


The Scofield religion strips Christians, the Church, of any hope of victory over the world, flesh and the devil this side of Christ's literal reign upon this earth. (See one of the Epistles, Rom. 8:37.) Thus the Scofield religion leaves Christians hopeless victims of surrounding events, telling them that they have no hope of victory (dominion, or authority) over anything of this earth until they co-rule with Christ in a kingdom that will come someday. Christians are simply "pilgrims and strangers" passing through this earth, totally unconcerned about the surrounding social chaos; they are little more than victims of their environment. They are left with no option except to capitulate and wait in withdrawn fear and misery until a day when they will be supernaturally removed from their victimhood. What Scofield presents here was clearly the ideas offered, developed and published by Irving and Darby many years before Scofield was even born.6

V. The Gospels present Christ in His three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.

As Prophet His ministry does not differ in kind from that of the Old Testament prophets. It is the dignity of His Person which makes Him the unique Prophet. Of old, God spoke through the prophets, now He speaks in the Son (Heb. 1. 1, 2 . The old prophet was a voice from God; the Son is God Himself (Deut. 18. 18, 19).

The prophet in any dispensation is God's messenger to His people, first to establish truth, and, secondly, when they are in declension and apostasy to call them back to truth. His message, therefore, is, usually, one of rebuke and appeal. Only when these fall on deaf ears does he become a foreteller of things to come. In this, too, Christ is at one with the other prophets. His predictive ministry follows His rejection as King.

The sphere and character of Christ's Kingly office are defined in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7. 8 16, and refs.), as interpreted by the prophets, and confirmed by the New Testament. The latter in no way abrogates or modifies either the Davidic Covenant or its prophetic interpretation. It adds details which were not in the prophet's vision. The Sermon on the Mount is an elaboration of the idea of "righteousness" as the predominant characteristic of the Messianic kingdom (Isa. 11. 2-5; Jer. 23. 5, 6; 33. 14-16). The Old Testament prophet was perplexed by seeing in one horizon, so to speak, the suffering and the glory of Messiah (1 Pet. 1. 10, 1l). The New Testament shows that these are separated by the present church age, and points forward to the Lord's return as the time when the Davidic Covenant of blessing through power will be fulfilled (Lk. 1. 30-33; Acts 2. 29-36; 15. 14-17); just as the Abrahamic Covenant of blessing through suffering was fulfilled at His first coming (Acts 3. 25; Gal. 3. 6-14).

The "present church age" was, according to Scofield's religion, not seen by the prophets of old, and has nothing to do with the "Davidic Covenant of blessing." Observe: Luke 24:47, the Old Testament law, prophets and psalms clearly presented the gospel, saying that Christ must suffer, rise from the dead and that His gospel would be preached among all nations, including the non-Israelite, Gentile nations. The "present church age," according to the Lord's words, did not come unexpectedly. However, this fact cannot be understood unless the Lord opens the understanding, v. 45.7

Note Scofield's very strong support of a restored national Israel as the glory of the whole earth prevalent throughout his Introduction, and cutting off the Gospel Church from any Old Testament prophecy. He, intentionally or unintentionally, seems to relegate all non-Israelites/Jews to an afterthought of the Father. Exalting national Israel and cutting out the Gospel Church from prophecy and from the four Gospels, the Scofield religion borders on being the old Jewish religion revived. His religion contends that the Gospel Church has no part in the "Davidic Covenant;" in fact, the Lord suspended His workings through the house of David and injected the "present church age." But one day, this religion says, He will pick up the loose ends of the "Covenant" and continue. The error of Scofield's plan is readily apparent to those who read all Scripture, and remain true to the context of the passages. The "Davidic Covenant" is found in 1 Samuel 7:12-17, and it mentions three things: (1) He shall build an house for my name, and (2) I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (3) I will be his father, and he shall be my son...

(1) build an house: For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb. 3:3.) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 2:5. See also Mat. 16:18; Lk. 1:31ff.; 1 Cor. 1 & 2.) The house is the Gospel Church, made up of born again believers, 1 Corinthians 3:16. (See also, 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:20ff., &c.)

(2) stablish the throne: And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet... (Eph. 1:19-22a.) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is (present, not will be future) for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. The King now has the sceptre of the power of His kingdom. (See also Dan. 4:17, 25, 32, 35.) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Heb. 1:8, 9.) Hebrews 1:8, God the Father quoted Psalms 45, placing that Psalm with its promises into effect at Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. (See also Isa. 9:6, 7.)

(3) his father: And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Lk. 9:35.) The fact that God the Father is his father is too obvious to develop. (See also Ps. 2; 89:20ff.; Heb. 1:5.)

Christ is never called King of the Church. "The King" is indeed one of the divine titles, and the Church in her worship joins Israel in exalting "the king, eternal, immortal, invisible" (Psa. 10. 16; 1 Tim. 1. 17). But the Church is to reign with Him. The Holy Spirit is now calling out, not the subjects, but the co-heirs and co-rulers of the kingdom (2 Tim. 2. 1l, 12; Rev. 1. 6; 3. 21; 5. 10; Rom. 8. 15-18; 1 Cor. 6. 2, 3).

Christ's Priestly office is the complement of His prophetic office. The prophet is God's representative with the people; the priest is the people's representative with God. Because they are sinful he must be a sacrificer; because they are needy he must be a compassionate intercessor (Heb. 5. 1, 2; 8. 1-3). So Christ, on the cross, entered upon His high-priestly work, offering Himself without spot unto God (Heb. 9. 14), as now He compassionates His people in an ever-living intercession (Heb. 7. 25) . Of that intercession John 17. is the pattern.

Proof texts?

Twice, points IV & V, Scofield tells us that the church has no responsibilities as subjects in and to God's kingdom on earth — that is, subject to the written Law-Word of the Tri-Une God. The Church's responsibility is simply to wait until it is supernaturally exalted. It is astounding that a man who claimed to be skillful enough with God's Word to write a commentary (his notes) on it can overlook so many passages in the very contexts from where he pulls his proof texts. It is even more astounding that there are so many good people who claim to believe the Bible (KJV or Geneva) from cover to cover yet follow this religion. They even "believe the cover," for it says, Holy Bible.

Scofield's Proof Texts

2 Timothy 2:19, Paul does not suggest, but he commands that those who name Christ depart from iniquity, lawlessness. "We are not subjects" in God's earthly kingdom during the "Church age;" Divine law and Christ's commands (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5) are for subjects, and Christians are "not the subjects, but the co-heirs and co-rulers of the kingdom" yet to come — clearly lawlessness.

Subject — built upon proper subjection to Divine law in God's kingdom on earth is proper subjection in the home and in society. Denial of proper subjection leads to the breakdown of proper authority in every area. This religion's lawless attitude, when it is imbibed by the general Christian population, must lead to the pagan's refusal to be subject to civil law (e.g., the Constitution). Multiplied millions who nameth the name of Christ claim they are not subject to Divine law, and then they complain when all proper law breaks down. However, the pagan's simply reflect their attitude toward Divine law. (Cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:21-25; 1 Cor. 15:28, &c.) Of course, if one believes that this world is the Devil's kingdom, he or she might justify saying there is no responsibility other than wait to be co-ruler with Christ.

Though it took a few years to come to pass, like a falling egg obeying the law of gravity, the national results of Scofield's 1917 lawless religion are clearly reveled: The US president, congress and the courts all feel they are above the law — they consider themselves not subjects, but co-rulers of the "kingdom." How many "balanced budget" laws have been passed in the last ten years? There is no law that can bind the co-rulers, the "lawmakers," and they know it. They are lawless, but they are acting in complete conformity with the Scofield religion's lawlessness.

Revelation 1:6 and 3:22, encompasses God's anger against His professed people's refusal to be subject to His Divine laws, 2:20; 3:15. V. 21, To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. In order to remain consistent that the Church is not called out to be subjects, but co-heirs and co-rulers in a kingdom to come, overcometh must mean overcometh the temptation to be subject to Divine law and/or overcometh the temptation to be involved in restoring a Christian social order as existed, say, in the Byzantine Empire (founded by Constantine, 330 AD, and fell to the Ottoman Turks, 1453 AD), or in America's foundation (See The Biblical Examiner, Safety in the Land, Apl., 97). Scofield tells us that Christians must be "as to the earth, pilgrims and strangers." Let us follow to an absurdity the implications of those words. Those who desire to please the Lord must not follow the example of the Good Samaritan, because, as a pilgrim, he failed to remain unconcerned, Luke 10. However, maybe he was a pagan, and, therefore, he was not bound by Scofield's grace to ignore Divine law. But then again, maybe because Luke 10 took place before the crucifixion and the issuance of God's grace, his actions fell under the Old Testament law, and not under Scofield's New Testament grace.

Romans 8:15-18, is totally misused to prove that those in the Church age are "not the subjects, but the co-heirs and co-rulers of the kingdom." V. 4, speaks of the righteousness of the law being fulfilled in the life of the believer; then Paul contrasts the lust of the flesh with the power of the spirit to walk according to the righteousness of the law, i.e., the Ten Commandments. (1 Cor 7:19. See the book of James.) V. 18 speaks about suffering. But if one has the same lawless attitude as do the pagans, what brings on the suffering? V. 29, Christians are called to be conformed to the image of Christ, and Christ was subject to the Father, even to the death. (John 4:34; 6:38; 15:10; Php. 2:8; Heb. 10.) So Scofield's call to conform is to conform to Christ reign over the earth, not to His subjection in all things to the Father according to the written Law-Word of God.

1 Corinthians 6:2, 3, follow 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul told the Church to judge those within the Church who refused to be subject to Divine law. Using Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:2, 3 to say that the Church is not called to be subject to Divine law, but is called to be "co-heirs and co-rulers of the kingdom" is clearly wresting scripture. (2 Pet. 3:16.)

We are told in point V that Christ came to call national Israel back to God the Father through Himself. Then only upon failure of national Israel to heed His call did the crucifixion take place. However, One must reject God's Word to even consider such an absurd idea, for the purpose of Christ's coming is clearly spelled out by the Word of God. He came to take on a body to offer as a sacrifice for the "sins of his people." (Is. 53; Acts 2:23; Rev. 13:8, &c.)

The Sermon on the Mount, we are told, contains general ideas of "righteousness," i.e., right living, that are good for the Christian to consider and maybe even follow. However, the Christian is under no obligation to follow what is presented by King Jesus there, for it is presented in the Gospels, not in the Epistles. By being in the Gospels, Christ's commands are for national Israel in the coming Messianic kingdom. Christ's laws there are not for the "Church age."

Obviously, Scofield had to reach this conclusion that "Christ is never called the King of the Church" because he totally rejected the orthodox, Biblical doctrine that the Gospel Church is the new Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16.) Those who start with false assumptions, MUST reach false conclusions.

VI. Distinguish, in the Gospels, interpretation from moral application. Much in the Gospels which belongs in strictness of interpretation to the Jew or the kingdom, is yet such a revelation of the mind of God, and so based on eternal principles, as to have a moral application to the people of God whatever their position dispensationally. It is always true that the "pure in heart" are happy because they "see God," and that "woe" is the portion of religious formalists whether under law or grace...

Scofield removed any commands (laws) from the Gospel Church one might find in the Gospels, and replaced them with a "moral application." Though "much in the Gospels" belongs "in strictness of interpretation to the Jew or the kingdom" to come, the Gospels contain some good "moral applications." Thus in this religion, under the "gospel age," the Christian finds no command-word from Christ, only moral suggestions. Notice that the reader is left to determine for him or her self what should be understood as his or her "moral applications" from the Gospels.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Gen. 3:5.)

The Scofield religion leaves the reader to determine for him or her self what is sin and what is not, for the reader is left with no command-word from God; he or she is only left with moral applications while he or she waits to be exalted to rule and reign with Christ.

The lawlessness found in the notes and cross references of the Scofield Study Bible "Used by more Baptist Pastors Than Any Bible Ever Published" is amazing.

End Notes

1 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 222. Arno C. Gaebelein [1861-1945], was a German immigrant who arrived in the United States in 1879. He became a minister in the German conference of the Methodist church. He learned Yiddish well enough to be accused of attempting to pass as a Gentile. Thus Gaebelein was a "Jew." He preached to large audiences of Jewish men on Saturday afternoons with considerable success. He began publishing a Yiddish monthly paper and, in 1894, established an English periodical called Our Hope to publicize his work, proclaim the imminent second advent, and alert Gentiles to the remarkable Zionist awakening among the Jewish population. After converting to Plymouth Brethrenism, he finally cut himself off from the Methodist in 1899. A heated conflict arose in 1900 between the posttribulation and the pretribulation positions. In a special December issue of Our Hope devoted entirely to Christ's premillennial advent, in which appeared Scofield's "May the Lord Come at Any Time," Gaebelein said point blank: "No one can continue to give out a truth, scriptural, edifying testimony of the coming of the Lord who believes that certain events must come to pass before the Lord comes or that the church will pass through the tribulation." With this statement, Gaebelein had, in effect, excommunicated the posttribulaationists. The controversy also involved who would be in apostolic succession from Brooks, who was a through Darbyite pretribulation rapture dispensationalist, and from Gordon, a historicist, i.e., historic "Chiliasm." Each side had a publication, with Gaebelein (Our Hope) on the pretribulation side, and Cameron (Watchword and Truth) on the historicist side. Both Gaebelein and Cameron sought to fill the void left by Brooks and Gorden. (Scofield was a protégé of J.H. Brooks. For A.J. Gordon's belief, see A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 1012, 1013. Brooks and Gordon were among the five organizers, four Presbyterian and one Baptist [Brooks], of the prophetic movement in America, the first Niagara Bible conference for prophetic study, 1876. George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 46.) The Gaebelein-Scofield Darbyite party emerged from the struggle far stronger than its opposition. According to a 1943 issue of Moody Monthly, Gaebelein, who never seemed to lack funds, put Scofield in touch with several of his supporters, Alwyn Ball, Jr., John T. Pirie, and Francis E. Fitch, all of whom contributed toward Scofield's expenses during the next few years while he worked on his manuscript. Roots, 215-220, 233. Gaebelein was known for "prophetic vision of the needs of the Jews in this country" and "his effort in behalf of the Jewish people. [He was, ed.] Superintendent of the Hope of Israel Mission in connection with the City Mission of New York. (1894-1899)." Elgin S. Moyer, Who was Who in Church History, 158, 159. Rev. Arno C. Gaebelein, D.D., a "Jew" converted to Plymouth Brethrenism, is listed by Scofield as a consulting editor for his Study Bible. Evidently, it was thus "Jewish" money that financed the Scofield Study Bible. It seems that behind just about every well-known name in the formation of the modern "Protestant Zionist" movement—i.e., pretribulation, premillennial dispensationalism—there are found "converted" "Jews."

2 Emp. his. Calvary Journal, Vol. 68, Summer 1997. Bi-Monthly Journal of Calvary Bible Ministries International. Calvary Ministries is a very large mail-order retailer of Bibles. (1-812-347-3388) Though he promotes the Scofield Study Bible, he does have good prices on good Bibles, including the one published by World Publishers, which this pastor uses and recommends.

3 Manuel De Lacunza Y Díaz, a Roman Jesuit who wrote The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty, using the pseudonym, Juan Josafat Ben Ezra. The manuscript became known as Ben-Ezra. Lacunza's 1790 manuscript circulated for several years before the Church of Rome published it in Spanish in 1812. However, it "was finally banned by the Holy Office on Sept. 6, 1824, and again on July 11, 1941." The problem Rome had with the book was its millenarianism and its praise of Judaism. Lacunza had been a Jew before converting to Romanism. The Ben-Ezra document laid the foundation for Edward Irving's millenarianism and his "Protestant Zionism", which is held to so tenaciously today by millenarians. New Catholic Encyclopedia, VII.309. The Death of Victory throughly traces modern millenarianism from its Ben-Ezra roots, following its rapid growth through prophecy conferences, and develops its fruits in modern Christianity. The Death of Victory also shows that Darby developed the "Bible reading" method of study to support his newly developing theories, for the context of his "proof" texts would not support what he was offering to the Christian public. Through the untiring efforts of D.L. Moody, the "Bible reading" study method became accepted in America. Though historic "Chiliasm" has always been around, that faith had fallen into the background. It was revived by Lacunza, Irving and Darby, each adding his unique ideas, and, with those added ideas, re-energized "Chiliasm" had been circulating for over a hundred years before Scofield published his book. That faith had been gaining gradual acceptance, but it was Scofield's notes that injected it into Christian society as the major Christian "doctrine."

4 If one did not know better, he might be inclined to believe that we have in Scofield's book what took place in Numbers chapters 24 and 25. Balaam, for the wages offered to him, taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before Israel. That stumblingblock caused God's people to disregard God's Law-Word, bringing upon themselves God's own hand of judgment, 2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14. However, we know that God's grace intervened.

5 Thayer's, 96.

6 The tracks of the "Plymouth Brethren" are all over the Scofield Study Bible, yet it is "Used by more Baptist Pastors Than Any Bible Ever Published." In other words, those who use and defend Scofield are Plymouth Brethren regardless of their claims otherwise, for Scofield clearly set forth the tenets of Brethrenism. This is, no doubt, a reason former Plymouth Brethren have very little problem becoming Baptists.

7 We must mention here that the denial that the gospel was presented in the Old Testament laid the foundation of sand for the modern "Christian Identity" religion.

Counting the Cost.

[Needing shorter articles to fill in the mailings, I at times separate out portions from larger "studies." The following is one of the short thoughts, removed from the end of Lev. 27:1-8, Value of the woman.]

It seems today that American Chrisitanity demands a "costless" religion. Over the years, my wife and I have seen many people that upon discovery that "discipleship" will cost them time and money, find other places to "worship," or other, more important things to do. Our Lord warns His followers that following Him will cost them; Paul also points out that following Christ in the manner that pleases the Father costs the follower everything. The warning of both Christ and of Paul is according to the law as revealed to Moses:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. (Lev. 27:2.)


"What shall I give unto the Lord for all his benefits?" The answer is given in Leviticus 27, where the "worshiper" appeared before the priest to dedicate him or her self to the Lord. Rather than the "worshiper's" physical efforts being used in the service of the Lord, as it would be today, the "worshiper" payed a set amount to be used for the tabernacle/temple service.

In Leviticus 27:1-8, we learn that serving God is a privilege that should cost the "worshiper" something. In other words, those who honestly wish to serve the Lord must "pay" to do so. The following statement by Bonar at the close of Leviticus 27:1-8, is to the point:

What do we learn from this ? Let us remember how it is written that the price of a slave, gored to death, is, in Exod. xxi. 32, reckoned at thirty shekels; and that, in Zech. x. 12, the same price is weighed for the prophet in his typical character; and then in Matt. xxvi. 15, paid for Jesus. If such was the manner of making over a slave to another, have we not here the manner of making over persons to the Lord ? But the Lord gives no price for them. True; because the Lord is not the gainer. It is a privilege to be taken into the Lord's service; and the man is therefore represented here as buying his admission into the Lord's service. It is all to shew how precious is the Lord's service ! Men often sacrifice a large sum in order to get a servant to do their work; but lo ! it is reversed here. We might well sacrifice all we have in order to be permitted to serve the Lord.

Oh, it is no common blessedness to be allowed to stand in Thy presence and worship Thee, Lord God Almighty!1


"Pay and sacrifice to serve the Lord?" "Lower my standard of living to serve God?" How unheard of in our day of covetousness and materialism! How contrary to the fallen nature to actually pay the Lord God for the privilege of serving Him. Fallen man is looking for a god that will pay him, the fallen man, to serve him, the god. There is an abundance of speakers who offer such a god, a god that considers it a favor to himself for man to worship him, e.g., "He will make you healthy, wealthy and wise if you will only give me your money and say these magic words (call this number on your screen)," or "Here is what god will do for you if you will only choose Jesus," or some such drivel. (This writer is well aware of the proper use of "who" and "whom," so he purposefully avoided using "who" after "god," for such a "god" as mentioned exists only as a figment of fallen man's imagination. He is certainly not the living Lord God, of Whom Holy Scripture speaks.)

However, the law of God found in Leviticus 27 is as contrary to such thinking as light is from darkness. Is it any wonder that the Old Testament laws that apply to every day life are hated by the world, the flesh and the Devil? These laws mean sacrifice to serve God. The fallen flesh tells us that the Lord God should pay us to serve Him: "After all, am I not doing Him a service?" (Cf. 2 Sam. 24:24; 1 Chron. 21:24; Lk. 14:28. Note that the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the OT law, Lk. 24:44.) We ask the antinomians who demand that the "New Testament Christian" is not required to keep the Old Testament laws (obviously, we are not referring to the mediation laws, Col. 2:14) what they will do with Paul's words?

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Rom. 12:1.)


I may be wrong (though I don't believe I am), but Paul's requirement (clearly based upon the Mosaic law in Lev. 27) upon the people of God since Christ appears to be far more strict than what was placed upon the "worshiper" in Leviticus 27. There it was a free-will offering, and not everyone was required to participate. Under the Gospel Church: First, the offering is not free-will — it is required of everyone who names the name of Christ; second, the required sacrifice is not restricted to one's "wealth" (sheckles of silver), but the required sacrifice is the body of the believer, and third, sheckles of silver will not replace one's physical labor, i.e., time and effort, in his or her service for the Kingdom of God on earth.



There is a story that goes around among Baptists that tells of a wicked man who was genuinely converted. When the man stepped in to the baptistry to be baptized, the pastor reminded him that his wallet was still in his pocked. The man said, "I know. It needs to be baptized too."

In other words, those genuinely converted and who desire to worship the Lord God, i.e., Jesus Christ, must sacrifice far more than the their silver as required in Leviticus 27. We are required to present our bodies a living sacrifice — everything we have or ever hope to have to the cause of Christ.


The People and Leaders

Those who "accept Jesus" because of what has been offered to them by some speaker as the benefits of Christianity may be in for quite a surprise in the day of judgment. The believer is a servant of the Most High God, Jesus Christ, and in this case, the servant pays the Master. (See John 13:1-17.)

In addition, those who enter into "full time ministry" because of what might be in it for themselves or because it pays as much or better than something else they could do are little more than "Prophets for Profit." (For God's thoughts about "Prophets for Profit," see Jer 23 & 50.) "Full time" service to the Lord God of Scripture, Jesus Christ, costs the server — it is not materially profitable. Godly service in general for the average Christian is to cost them in time and money.

The law shows us that God does not pay an individual to work for Him; the individual pays, sacrifices, for the privilege of serving the Lord. Remember, the Leviticus 27 vow was a free-will offering — the individual was not under any command to serve the Lord in this manner. He knew the cost before he made the vow. However, in the Gospel Church, the sacrifice is required — individual believers should be made aware of the cost.


Also keep in mind that the Levites were born into the service of the Lord, and the other tribes were commanded to tithe to the Levites, which, if Israel obeyed the command, made Levi a very wealthy tribe. How much did Israel remain faithful to that command, and where did it leave Levi when Israel disobeyed? (Cf.. Jud. 17:9.) The vows mentioned in this chapter were over and above what was required of the individuals by the Command-Word of God.


Count the Cost

The Christian religion of Scripture costs the "worshiper" to serve his God. It is evident that Christ referred to this law in Luke 14:

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Vv. 25-33. See also, Hag. chp. 1.)


According to our Lord's words, a costless religion is not the Christian religion.

We must not overlook the grace of God at work in the heart of the "worshiper:" That grace is plainly evident in both the Old and New Testaments, e.g., Exodus 36/Philippians 2:13. When the Lord places the desire to serve Him in the heart of an individual, the cost involved to the individual is one of the least of his considerations.


The Poor

Leviticus 27:8, provision is made for the poor man who did not have the money to give as valued upon him by the preceding law. The poor were not prohibited from expressing their gratitude to the Lord in the free-will vow: The poor appeared before the priest with the desire to offer himself, and he makes his financial inability known. The priest then values the man, keeping in mind the general rules just given in vv. 3-7. Gill's comments:

according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him; he was to examine into his circumstances, and as they appeared to him he was to put a value on him, which was to be paid, but not less than, a shekel; for if he could not pay that, it was to remain as a debt until he could {q}; and it was the ability of him that made the vow that was to be inquired into, and according to which the estimation was to be made, and not of him that was vowed: so it is said in the Misnah,

"ability is regarded in the vower, and years in the vowed, and estimations in the estimated, and according to the tithe of the estimation: ability in the vower, how? a poor man that estimates a rich man, pays the value of a poor man; and a rich man that estimates a poor man, pays the value of a rich man: if he is poor and afterwards becomes rich, or rich and afterwards poor, he pays the price of a rich man {r};"


but the sense which Jarchi gives is, that a priest in such a case was to judge according to what a man has, and so order him to pay, but was to leave him so as he might live, a bed and bolster, and working tools, and if he had an ass he might leave him that.2


According to his ability... The Lord does not expect anything from His people above their ability. Now, the Lord may provide ability over and above what one normally has, and if so, then the Lord expects that ability to be properly used for His glory. Paul's statement is built upon "According to his ability":

Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. (2 Cor. 8:11, 12. See also, Mat. 18 & 25.)


And thus every person will be held accountable for what he has, not for what he has not.

We also see in Leviticus 27 that "vows" made in the heat of the moment are valid, but that is another study.

It costs to serve the Christian God. However, just giving silver as required by Moses is no longer sufficient. The law of the Gospel Church under her Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, requires every fiber of one's being to be sacrificed, which includes one's silver:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Rom. 12:1.)


End Notes


1 Emp. added. Bonar, Leviticus, 497, 498.

2 Gill, Online Bible.
If I have eaten the fruits thereof without money, or have caused the owners thereof to lose their life: Let thistles grow instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley. The words of Job are ended. (Job 31:39, 40.)

Do we enjoy the fruits thereof without money? Many enjoy the fruits of Christianity with no sense of responsibility to support the source of the fruits — that is, support the Christian ministries that produced the fruits. (See Mal. 3:5; 1 Cor. 9; Lk.10:7, &c.)

It is indeed sad to see "Patriots" extremely willing to spend vast sums of money trying to get out a "Patriotic" message (e.g., return to the Constitution, knowledge is power, &c.) when that message holds absolutely no hope for America. Yet Christians who know that the only hope for America is the revival of Godliness in the hearts of individuals (i.e., return to the Bible and the God of the Bible) refuse to invest the funds entrusted to them by the Lord to reach the hearts of individuals.


This is NOT FREE

We mail The Home Schooler with The Biblical Examiner without charge. We have been receiving about 50 new requests to be added to our mailing each time we mail. We certainly rejoice in the interest shown in The Biblical Examiner and The Home Schooler. However, it goes without saying what kind of expense is involved with just the postage. (This mailing alone added about 1,000 people, upon their request. Postage is at least 18.5¢ per piece, for we are not a "Not for Profit" organization. We are a church, and must use the more expensive "Bulk Rate." Thus the bi or tri monthly mailing.)

If you find this ministry, The Biblical Examiner and The Home Schooler, helpful in your service for the King, please remember us in your giving and your prayers.



Understandably, some are offended that the Examiner is written from a strong Reconstruction perspective. (Reconstruction — the view that every area of life must be "reconstructed" in terms of God's total Word as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms and in the New Testament, Luke 24:44, 2 Tim 3:16. Those involved in Christian education and Home Schooling are involved in reconstruction in terms of the future. They are not hoping for an "escape" from the social turmoil their children must face.) Therefore, if you do not find this material helpful and/or if you just glance at the material and discard it, please let us know so we can effectively use what the Lord has provided for us. We must make every penny count.

Though we print and mail The Home Schooler, that does NOT mean Dr. Cates and I agree on everything, nor will you agree with all we place in these publications. Examine the Word of God for yourself, and use what you can. We as Christians must learn to work together in areas of agreement, which is what Dr. Cates and I do.


Address Changes

Expences have forced us to a point where we must drop from the mailing list those who do not notify us of their address changes or of their "Temporally Away" status, particularly if they have not contacted us in the past. Though there are exceptions, those who are not interested enough in the material to notify us of address changes probably throw it away anyway. We will continue to announce this, but will start droping names after the next mailing. We have been receiving about 50 returns from each mailing @ 50¢ each. This mailing will probably have half again as many returns.


Web Site

As time permits, we update material on the site. Past Examiners and Home Schoolers are posted there, and can be easily downloaded. Lord willing, we will also post information about material by Dr. Cates & his speaking schedule. Check it often.

Pastor Need

['Document Archive']   ['Home Page']   ['The Biblical Examiner']