Whenever I hear someone dismiss Christian support for Israel as a modern invention, one name usually enters the conversation: C. I. Scofield. The argument is familiar. Scofield created dispensationalism, placed it in the notes of his study Bible, and persuaded generations of Christians to believe that the Jewish people still had a place in God’s purposes and remained connected to the land of Israel. Remove Scofield, the argument suggests, and the theological foundation for Christian Zionism collapses with him.
There is just one problem with that claim: the biblical promises concerning Israel existed long before Scofield placed his notes beneath the biblical text. That does not mean Scofield should be above criticism. His theological system should be studied carefully, and his interpretive conclusions should be tested against Scripture. I have no interest in defending every note Scofield wrote or suggesting that Christians must become dispensationalists to recognize Israel’s continuing significance. My concern is more fundamental: we should not blame Scofield for promises God made to Abraham, reaffirmed to Isaac and Jacob, repeated through the prophets, and addressed by Paul centuries before the Scofield Reference Bible existed. Scofield may have helped popularize a particular way of interpreting those promises, but he did not create them.
Why Was the Scofield Bible So Influential?
The Scofield Reference Bible was first published in 1909 and revised in 1917. Its influence came not only from what Scofield taught but also from where his teachings appeared. Readers did not need a separate commentary or formal theological education to encounter his interpretations. The biblical text appeared on the page, and Scofield’s headings, cross-references, explanatory notes, and theological summaries appeared alongside it. This made his framework accessible to ordinary Christians and helped it spread through churches, Bible institutes, and evangelical networks.
That accessibility was powerful, but it also created a danger that remains relevant today. A study Bible can be an enormously helpful resource, but every study Bible carries an interpretive framework. The biblical text is inspired; the study notes are not. When that distinction becomes blurred, the conclusions of an editor can begin to carry the authority that belongs only to Scripture. Scofield should therefore be examined honestly. Christians should neither defend him without question nor dismiss him without study. More importantly, we should never allow the entire biblical discussion concerning Israel to rise or fall on one man’s study notes.
What Did Scofield Actually Teach About Israel?
Scofield maintained a clear distinction between Israel and the church. He believed that Israel remained a recognizable people within God’s redemptive purposes and that the church had not permanently replaced Israel. He also understood biblical promises concerning covenant, land, national restoration, and future hope as having a continuing fulfillment.
Through his notes, Scofield connected passages from Genesis, the prophets, the Gospels, Acts, and Romans 9–11 within a dispensational framework. He did not create dispensationalism, but his widely circulated study Bible helped organize and popularize its teachings for an American evangelical audience. This distinction matters because Scofield did not simply reproduce the words of Scripture without interpretation. He arranged biblical passages according to specific dispensational categories and offered conclusions about prophecy, Israel, the church, and the end times. Christians may agree with some of those conclusions, revise others, or reject portions of his system altogether.
The biblical case for Israel, however, cannot depend upon one interpreter. If Israel’s continuing significance rises or falls with Scofield, rejecting Scofield would end the discussion. But if the foundation is already present in Scripture, then the conversation must go much deeper than the notes of a twentieth-century study Bible.
Did Belief in Jewish Restoration Begin With Scofield?
Historically, the answer is no. Christians were discussing the preservation, conversion, return, and restoration of the Jewish people long before the Scofield Reference Bible appeared. They did not always use the term “Christian Zionism.” Many spoke instead of Jewish restoration or restorationism, and their theological views were not identical to modern evangelical beliefs concerning Israel.
We should be careful not to place every earlier Christian thinker into the same theological category. Nevertheless, their existence demonstrates that Scofield did not invent Christian interest in Jewish restoration. William E. Blackstone provides an important American example. In 1891, eighteen years before the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible—Blackstone presented a memorial to President Benjamin Harrison calling for international support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Blackstone was not the beginning of the conversation either. Christian interpreters before him had already wrestled with biblical passages concerning Israel’s preservation, conversion, and restoration.
Scofield entered an existing theological and historical conversation. His primary contribution was not the invention of concern for Israel, but the popularization of that concern through a study Bible that reached a massive evangelical audience. The question, therefore, is not whether Scofield influenced Christian thinking about Israel. He clearly did. The question is whether he created the beliefs themselves, and history tells us that he did not.
The Biblical Question Is Larger Than Scofield
History can demonstrate that belief in Jewish restoration existed before 1909, but history alone cannot prove that Biblical Zionism is true. A teaching does not become biblical simply because Christians believed it before Scofield. The final question must return to Scripture.
The biblical argument begins with Abraham. God promised Abraham descendants, blessing, and land. Those promises were reaffirmed to Isaac and Jacob and became woven into Israel’s identity throughout the biblical story. The land is not the whole covenant, but it is undeniably part of the covenant. Christians may disagree about how those promises relate to the present and the future, and those discussions deserve theological care. What we should not do is speak as though the land promise entered Christian theology through Scofield’s notes. It entered the biblical story in Genesis.
The prophets continued that story. Israel’s sin brought judgment, exile, and national suffering, but the prophets did not treat exile as evidence that God had permanently abandoned His people. They spoke of return, rebuilding, renewal, and restoration. Those passages must be interpreted carefully, but interpretation should never become erasure. The prophets addressed Israel as a real people, confronted Israel’s real sin, described Israel’s real exile, and offered Israel a real hope.
God’s judgment did not mean that His word had failed, and His discipline did not mean that His covenant purposes had disappeared. God corrected His people, but He did not cease to be faithful. Any biblical theology of Israel must take both realities seriously: the severity of God’s judgment and the endurance of His covenant faithfulness.
Paul and the Danger of Gentile Arrogance
Romans 9–11 is essential to this discussion because Paul directly confronts the question of Israel’s unbelief and God’s faithfulness. Had the word of God failed? Had God rejected His people? Paul’s answer is unmistakable: “By no means!” (Romans 11:1, ESV).
Paul then describes an olive tree. Some of the natural branches have been broken off, and Gentile believers—wild branches—have been grafted into the cultivated tree. Gentiles now share in the nourishment of a root they did not plant. They have entered a covenant story they did not create. Paul’s response is not triumphalism but a warning: “Do not be arrogant toward the branches” (Romans 11:18, ESV).
That warning should shape every Christian conversation about Israel and the Jewish people. Jesus was born into Israel. The apostles were Jewish. The Scriptures came to us through the Jewish people. Gentile inclusion is a miracle of grace, but grace should produce gratitude and humility—not arrogance, contempt, or replacement. Scofield recognized Israel’s continuing significance, but Romans 11 did not receive its meaning from Scofield. Scofield attempted to explain Paul; Paul does not depend upon Scofield.
Biblical Zionism Must Be Larger Than Scofield
Recognizing that Scofield did not invent the biblical case for Israel does not require Christians to accept every element of his theology. His dispensational framework may be studied, questioned, revised, or rejected in part. Biblical Zionism cannot be built upon one study Bible, one end-times chart, one political party, or one theological system. If it is truly biblical, it must begin with Scripture and with the character of a God who remains faithful to His word.
A careful Biblical Zionism recognizes that the Jewish people remain part of the biblical story and that God’s covenant faithfulness should never be treated lightly. It resists the arrogance Paul warned against and rejects the idea that the church must erase Israel in order to affirm the gospel.
At the same time, supporting Israel does not require Christians to excuse every decision made by an Israeli government or to ignore the suffering and dignity of others. The prophets affirmed God’s covenant with Israel while confronting injustice, idolatry, corruption, and sin within Israel. Covenant faithfulness did not mean moral exemption then, and it does not mean moral exemption now.
This is where the conversation must move beyond slogans. Christians should be able to affirm God’s covenant faithfulness, oppose antisemitism, recognize the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land, and still speak truthfully about justice and human dignity. Conviction and compassion are not enemies, and neither should be sacrificed in the pursuit of the other.
The Scofield Reference Bible did not create the relationship between God, Israel, covenant, and land. It created a highly influential framework for interpreting that relationship. That framework shaped generations of evangelical Christians, but it did not write Genesis, inspire the prophets, or place Romans 9–11 in the New Testament. The strongest case for Biblical Zionism cannot rest upon Scofield’s notes. It must rest upon Scripture.
The deeper question is not merely, “What did Scofield teach?” The deeper question is, “Does Scripture teach that Israel and the Jewish people remain significant within God’s redemptive purposes?” If the answer is yes, then Biblical Zionism cannot honestly be dismissed as a twentieth-century invention. Scofield may have given the belief a system, a study Bible, and a larger audience, but he did not create the covenant, choose Abraham, inspire the prophets, warn the Gentile church against arrogance, or make the promises of God.
Sources
Blackstone, William E. “The Blackstone Memorial.” 1891. William E. Blackstone Papers, Collection 540, Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton College.
Brueggemann, Walter. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002.
Hummel, Daniel G. The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle over the End Times Shaped a Nation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023.
Mangum, R. Todd, and Mark S. Sweetnam. The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact on the Evangelical Church. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2009.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909. Revised edition, 1917.
Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.
Wyschogrod, Michael. The Body of Faith: God in the People Israel. New York: Seabury Press, 1983.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
