The Scofield Factor--Part 4
Nov 01, 2011
To my knowledge, none of the Dispensationalists a century ago had an understanding of the laws establishing the two comings of Christ. Further, when Dispensationalism became mainstream (largely through the Scofield Reference Bible), this meant that the Church itself inherited this lack of awareness. Certainly, they all believed in the two comings of Christ, but not knowing the meaning of the divine law caused them to misunderstand the real purpose of the second coming of Christ.
That same ignorance of the law prevented most of the people in Jesus' day to understand the purpose of His first coming. When Jesus spoke of His soon-coming death on the cross, Peter rebuked Him in Matt. 16:22. Peter's ignorance came on the heels of his greatest revelation, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (vs. 16).
This shows how believers can have great revelation in one area and yet be totally in the dark in another area. The contrast is amazing.
Christians today are as confident of their understanding of the second coming of Christ as the Judeans were about the first coming of Christ. In my view, the Judean ignorance was necessary to fulfill the plan of God, for if the chief priests had known, they would never have crucified the Messiah.
It is certain that the real purpose of the second coming of Christ has likewise been hidden from the Church today. Christian ignorance allows the prophesied event to occur naturally, rather than allowing fleshly but well-meaning Christians to force Christ into returning.
When Judas betrayed Jesus, it was not out of a malicious heart, but to force Jesus into doing a great miracle to save Himself and thus prove to the whole nation that He was indeed the Messiah. He tried to force Christ's hand by the power of the flesh, not understanding that His purpose in coming was to die. When Judas finally understood this, his remorse caused him to hang himself.
On October 26, I wrote a weblog explaining the Judas Factor and how he played the New Testament role of Ahithophel, who had betrayed David a thousand years earlier.
When Absalom usurped David's throne rights with the help of Ahithophel, the pattern was established prophetically for the New Testament drama. There the chief priests played the role of Absalom, Jesus played the role of David, and Judas played the part of Ahithophel. Jesus came of the tribe of Judah and of the seed of David in His first coming, because otherwise, He would not have been qualified to inherit David's throne and the scepter of Judah.
But in the second coming of Christ, the conflict does not focus primarily upon the throne and scepter. Instead, it is a conflict over the birthright of Joseph. And yet, when that conflict is finally concluded, BOTH issues will be resolved once and for all. First, it will be like the return of David to the throne of Jerusalem. Secondly, it will resolve the question of who is truly "chosen" to inherit the Kingdom and to claim the birthright name "Israel."
Darby and Scofield led large portions of the Church to accept the idea that the Jews were God's chosen people and that the state called "Israel" is the inheritor of the birthright. Without realizing it, they induced the Church to allow the usurpers of Christ's throne to usurp the birthright also. Hence, Dispensationalism brought back the Judas Factor by causing Jesus' disciples (Christians) to betray Jesus in this matter of the birthright.
Their support of the Jewish state of "Israel" and the belief that the Jews are Israel puts Christians on the wrong side of this conflict. This is best illustrated by Scofield's relationship and friendship with Samuel Untermeyer, the Jewish lawyer who worked hard to create the Jewish state, but was also one of the framers of the Federal Reserve Act that put America into its present captivity to Mystery Babylon.
Scofield's view was clearly based on the idea that being "chosen" was a racial matter, rather than a matter of faith. If anyone has the physical genetics going back to Abraham, then he was thought to be "chosen." This viewpoint is very common today as a result. It is believed that Jews are Israelites, regardless of their unbelief.
Even if we were to accept that definition of an Israelite without qualification, it could easily be proven that the Jews are not Israelites. A simple reading of Scripture proves that. The Kingdom had split into two nations: Israel and Judah. "Jew" is simply a shortened form of "Judah." The Israelites were the northern tribes.
You see, the birthright name, Israel, was the name that the angel gave to Jacob when he was 98 years old (Gen. 32:28). He was not born an Israelite. It was a title that testified of his new-found faith in the sovereignty of God. Years later, he crossed his arms and passed that name down to the sons of Joseph, saying in Gen. 48:16,
(16) The angel who has redeemed me from all evil [i.e., delivered him from Esau] bless the lads; and may my name live on in them ....
Thus, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were given the name of Israel. For any of the other tribes to call themselves Israelites, they had to be united with Ephraim and Manasseh who carried the name Israel. Further, we read in 1 Chron. 5:2, "the birthright belonged to Joseph." Hence, if any of the other sons of Jacob wanted to benefit from the birthright, they had to be in unity with Joseph (and his sons).
That unity was broken when the kingdom was divided after the death of Solomon. From then on, the prophets do not call Judah by the name of Israel.
Once the Kingdom split, the prophets gave separate prophecies to each nation. Judah was the tribe of the Messiah in His first coming, because He had to come of the lineage of David. Those prophecies were, indeed, fulfilled, as we read in the New Testament. But the question facing us today is how the prophecies to ISRAEL are to be fulfilled through Joseph.
If we deal with this question on the basis of genealogy, then it is clear that the Jews are not Israelites, and they have no right to usurp the name Israel in a Jewish state. They have not been reunited with the tribes of Joseph, which were dispersed by the Assyrians and who never returned to the old land.
There is no reunification of the tribes apart from uniting under one Head, Jesus Christ (Hos. 1:11). It is self-evident that the Jews do not claim Jesus Christ as their King. It is also self-evident that the tribes of Israel did not return to the old land. The first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us,
"Wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans; while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now; and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers." [Antiquities of the Jews, XI, v, 2]
The Jewish Encyclopedia confirms this under the heading, "Tribes, Lost Ten," saying,
"As a large number of prophecies relate to the return of "Israel" to the Holy Land, believers in the literal inspiration of the Scriptures have always labored under a difficulty in regard to the continued existence of the tribes of Israel, with the exception of those of Judah and Levi (or Benjamin), which returned with Ezra and Nehemiah. If the Ten Tribes have disappeared, the literal fulfillment of the prophecies would be impossible; if they have not disappeared, obviously they must exist under a different name."
This is the fourth part of a series titled "The Scofield Factor." To view all parts, click the link below.
Dr. Stephen Jones