The New Covenant-Part One

This is a chapter from my book, Creating The Israel of God. Available on Amazon.

An Odd Curiosity

I hesitate to mention the following due to its wholly unbiblical character. However, I want to share with you the lengths to which Scofieldism will go to maintain its ideological narrative.

Some who hold this ideology argues that the New Covenant has not yet been made with Israel. This reasoning is solely based upon the arguments of the Pharisaic rabbis who seek to deny the reality of Christ Jesus in world history and exalt their own false covenant ideas.

The rabbinic argument goes something like this. When the Messiah comes, He will make the New Covenant with Israel. Since the Messiah has not come, then the New Covenant has not been made, and the Sinai Covenant is still in effect. If that is true, then the natural Jews remain God’s chosen, covenant people. Nothing has changed.

Even modern rabbis believe the New Covenant will be made when the messiah comes. Earlier I shared a quote from Rabbi Michael Skobac, who said,

“Jeremiah 31 is a Messianic prophecy. The Christians get this right. Their mistake is in assuming it has already taken place.”

So if the Messiah has not yet come, then the New Covenant has not been made. This appears to be the position Scofieldism also takes.
I refer to Dispensationalism as Scofieldism, because C.I. Scofield is the man who popularized it with the publishing of his bible, The Scofield Reference Bible. It is an eschatological ideology he picked up from John Darby, an 19^th century minister of the Plymouth Brethren of England.

Clarence Larkin, a renowned Scofield disciple of the early 20th Century, concerning the New Covenant, says,

This Covenant has not yet been made. It is to be made with Israel after they get back to their own land. It is promised in Jer.31: 31-37. It is unconditional and will cover the Millennium and the New Heaven and New Earth. It is based on the finished work of Christ. Matt. 26:28. It has nothing to do with the Church and does not belong to this Dispensation. It is the "Eighth Covenant,” and speaks of Resurrection and Eternal Completeness. (Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth. 1918, 151)

Some of what he says I can agree with. For instance, I agree the covenant would not be made until they were back in the land. They went back to the land about 536 BC. This return in 536 BC fulfilled at least two prophecies. One by Jeremiah, found in Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10-14, and in 2 Chronicles 36:21.  The second prophecy fulfilled is found in Isaiah 44:28 - 45:1. This prophecy specifically names Cyrus as the one who would say to Jerusalem, “Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.”

There is no Biblical promise of a return to the land after the Jews’ war with Rome and subsequent dispersion. Scofieldism takes the promises of a return to the land after Israel’s Babylonian captivity, and misapplies them to a return after their expulsion in AD 70.

Typical dispensational argumentation ignores the history that does not fit their system. They tend to ignore AD 70 and the Babylonian captivity because neither fit nicely into their ideology. Both of these events fulfill a vast amount of ancient prophecy. However, Scofieldism ignores most of it and pushes their fulfillment into the far future. We will deal with this more pointedly in a later chapter. 

I agree the New is unconditional, as we shall see in the next chapter. I also agree, that it is based upon the finished work of Christ.

Apart from the three agreed points, the rest is pure fantasy, as Scofieldism interprets it. Anyone who takes an honest look at the New Testament witness can easily see that the New Covenant was established in the blood of Christ. In fact, by this position, Dispensationalists have virtually erased the entire book of Hebrews and gutted many others. It is clear from the witness of the apostles that they believed they lived under the New Covenant.

Scofieldism is quite proficient at ignoring the most obvious truths, replacing them with their own version of Biblical reality. They do this by making the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible the authoritative interpreters of Scripture. Have you ever wondered why a specific eschatological belief needs its own bible to establish its position? Can you not deduce or glean from a normal Bible its beliefs and understandings?

In case you're wondering why I continue to refer to Scofieldism as an ideology, is because it has an ultimate, political end-game. Ideology is defined as, "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based. What is the political end-game of Schofieldism? It is the support of the establishment of a Zionist state of Israel. They have achieved their end. Scofieldism is Judaic-centered, not Christ-centered.

Philip Mauro commented on this very issue, when he said,

“For the fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a “Bible” of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God.” (The Gospel of the Kingdom, with an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism, 1928. p. 4)

Mr. Mauro calls Dispensationalism, Modernism, because it is a fairly recent innovation. So, why does Scofieldism need its own “Bible?”

 

The Postmillennialists don’t have their own bible, nor do the Amillennialists. No other eschatological position needs its own bible, except Premillennial Dispensationalism. Why? Because no reasonable person reading a regular Bible, sans Scofield's notes, would ever come away with the beliefs or conclusions contained in the Scofield Bible on his own. The only way a reasonable person could adopt Scofield’s conclusions, is if that person has the help of a blind guide, i.e., Scofield’s notes.

Many unsuspecting people are force-fed Scofield’s poison week after week. Scofieldism is a theological/ideological ditch of mammoth proportions. Many willingly submit themselves to it, while others are held captive, unaware that they are in its clutches. One does not need a copy of Scofield’s Bible to be subjected to its worldview. Its teachings have permeated many denominations and pulpits of various sorts. For many of those unsuspecting Christians, it is the only game in town. They have never heard any alternative view. If they have heard an opposing view, they are told it is Anti-semitic and heretical. So they are held in the grip of this “pernicious” modernism.

An earlier quote from Philip Mauro, is worth repeating at this point.

“For Evangelical Christianity must purge itself of this leaven of dispensationalism ere it can display its former power and exert its former influence.” (Mauro, Philip. The Gospel of the Kingdom, 1928. 4)