Does God divide time? A detailed analysis of dispensationalism
- Dr. Wes Moore
.jpg/v1/fill/w_320,h_320/file.jpg)
- Apr 7
- 39 min read
Updated: Apr 12
Whether you know it or not, you probably believe in dispensationalism. Doubt me? Let me prove it to you.
Do you believe we have been in the “church age” since Jesus ascended into heaven, do you think Israel will one day get its land back, or do you hold to a rapture of the church and a literal 1000-year reign of Christ from Jerusalem?
If any of these statements characterize your convictions, you believe in dispensationalism. Why? Because dispensationalism is the foundation upon which these doctrines are built. In fact, it is so fundamental to them that if dispensationalism is in error, these doctrines are likely in error, too.
So, is dispensationalism true?
Like many doctrines in the American church, it is assumed to be true, but few have taken the time to actually test it against the Bible.
For most believers, knowing that the preachers preach it, the seminaries teach it, and the Sunday school literature declares it is enough to make it an open and shut case.
If 30 years in the church have taught me anything, it is that, if a great swath of the American church believes something, it is worth the time to go back to the Bible to see if it is really there.
This article will attempt to do just that by examining the teachings of C. I. Scofield, one of the fathers of modern dispensationalism. In the paragraphs that follow, Scofield’s definition of dispensationalism and the seven dispensations he identifies will be reviewed and analyzed.
Download a printable pdf of this article:
Dispensationalism Defined
Scofield’s definition of dispensationalism specifies the following three components:
Time is divided into seven periods by the Bible. On this point, Scofield notes, “The Scriptures divide time into seven unequal periods, usually called dispensations (Eph. 3:2), although these periods are also called ages (Eph. 2:7) and days, as in ‘day of the Lord.’”[1]
God’s way of dealing with man changes in each dispensation. Scofield again: “[Each dispensation displays] some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, or a portion of mankind, in respect of the two questions: of sin, and of man’s responsibility.”
Man is tested in a different way in each dispensation. Scofield writes, “Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment, marking his utter failure in every dispensation.”
In terms of evaluating these elements, the present section will analyze the first element, while the latter two will be addressed in subsequent portions of this article.
Does the Bible divide time into disparate periods?
Component one makes two important assertions. First, it claims the Bible identifies time periods using the terms “dispensation,” “age,” and “day of the Lord,” and second, it maintains that the Bible explicitly identifies these time periods. How do these claims stack up?
New Testament terms for dispensations
The word “dispensation”
Scofield says time divisions are “usually called dispensations” and points to Ephesians 3:2 where Paul says, “If indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you” (NKJV) [2].
The Greek word translated “dispensation” here is oikonomia. It refers to “the management of a household or of household affairs,” specifically, the property of another.[3] It can also refer to the office of someone entrusted with this task, such as a manager, overseer, or steward.
The word is used seven times in the New Testament and is translated as either “steward,” “stewardship,” or “dispensation” in both the KJV and NKJV.
The KJV translates it “steward” or “stewardship” three times and “dispensation” four times, while the NKJV translates it “steward” or “stewardship” five times and “dispensation” twice. Both translations use the word “dispensation” in Ephesians 3:2.
What’s the problem? The problem is that, no matter where the term is used, it never refers to a period when God alters his “method of dealing with mankind,” as Scofield suggests.
Want the latest e-mail updates from Dr. Moore? Sign up here.
“Dispensation” in Ephesians 3:2
In Ephesians 3, Paul is speaking of the mystery of Gentile salvation that was made known to him by direct revelation (3-6). God had kept this particular aspect of his plan hidden from mankind and was now revealing it through Paul. The understanding of this mystery came as a “gift of the grace of God” (7).
In the context of Ephesians 3:2, the “household” or “property” Paul had been given to “manage” for God was the knowledge of the redemption of the Gentiles. Dispensation, then, refers to what was given to Paul to manage, not to a period of time.
Paul refers to “dispensation” of his ministry in his other letters, as well. In 1 Corinthians 9:17 he says, “For if I [preach the gospel] willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship [oikonomia].” And in Colossians 1:25, he says he “became a minister according to the stewardship [oikonomia] from God.”
All three verses—Ephesians 3:2, 1 Corinthians 9:17, and Colossians 1:25—describe the same thing and use the same word to describe it. In fact, Paul uses oikonomia only four times in all of his writings, and it never means a time when God changed his method of dealing with mankind.
Is Gentile salvation a dispensation?
“Wait a minute!” someone objects. “The time of the salvation of the Gentiles does refer to a time when God deals differently with mankind!” While this is technically true, the time of Gentile salvation is not a dispensation as dispensationalists define it. Consider two reasons.
This is the eternal New Covenant, not a dispensation that will end at some future date. Dispensationalists see the “time of the Gentiles” as a temporary adjustment of God’s plan that will end at or near the rapture. I will have more to say about this later in the article. For now, let me simply say that Gentiles being a part of the family of God (as revealed in the New Covenant) was the plan all along. God did not change his plan for a season because of the rebellion of the Jews; a people from all nations was his design from the outset. Therefore, this is not a dispensation in the way Scofield would define it.
The New Testament does not refer to the time of the Gentiles as a dispensation. When using the term, Paul does discuss the fact that Christ has broken down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-18), and that the time has come when Gentiles will put their faith in the Messiah and become children of God (John 1:11-13). In this sense, this “time” is new, in that it is part of the New Covenant Jesus was establishing. But the word dispensation does not apply to that; it applies only to Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles, not to a period of time. So, we may call it a “dispensation,” but the New Testament simply does not.
“Dispensation” in Ephesians 1:10
The only time Paul does not use oikonomia to refer to his ministry is Ephesians 1:10. There, he promises that “in the dispensation [oikonomia] of the fullness of the times [God] might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.”
Paul does not apply the word “dispensation” to a future period of time, however. He applies it to God’s management of time itself. Dispensation refers to the fullness of the times, not to a dispensation of time.
If we substitute “management” for disposition (a synonym for dispensation, per our earlier definition), we can see the meaning more clearly:
“In the management of the fullness of the times [God] might gather….”
What is he saying here? He is saying that God will manage time so that all of his plans will unfold at the optimal moment. Again, the word dispensation does not mean what Scofield advocates.
Moreover, even if it did apply to a future period, that time is in the eternal state. In this text, God has gathered “all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on the earth.” This only occurs at the very end of time. But remember, dispensations are all in time.
Before leaving the subject, it should pointed out that the word dispensation does not appear in the Old Testament. There is no verse that uses this term, or anything like it, to refer to any time period traditionally associated with dispensationalism.
What the big picture tells us about dispensations
Let us step back for a moment and reflect on the actual uses of the term dispensation in the Bible and Scofield’s claim that “the Scriptures divide time into…dispensations.”
What we saw is that neither the New Testament nor the Old ever uses the term to refer to divisions of time. Now, if the entire Bible does not refer to these time divisions in any formal or explicit way, is it really valid to say that “the Scriptures divide time”?
An outside observer may see a division and claim that it has some kind of overarching meaning, but that is far different from saying the Bible itself does it.
Keep this in mind when we begin to evaluate Scofield’s seven dispensations later in this article.
The word “age” and phrase “day of the Lord”
“Age” as a dispensation
Scofield says dispensations are also called “ages” in the New Testament, citing Ephesians 2:7 as proof. As with “dispensation” in Ephesians 3:2, “ages” does not mean what dispensationalists claim either.
Ephesians 2:7 reads: “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Note that Paul doesn’t just say “ages,” he says “ages to come,” referring to the eternal state (just like Paul did in Ephesians 1:10).
But dispensations are all in time, not eternity. So, it cannot refer to any of the seven dispensations in time.
“Day of the Lord” as a dispensation
In the New Testament, the term “day of the Lord” does not refer to a dispensation but to the Final Judgment. Peter uses the term this way in his sermon in Acts 2 and in his second epistle. Note the clear context of his usage:
Acts 2:20, The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
2 Peter 3:10, But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
For time’s sake, an exhaustive list of the uses of day of the Lord in the New Testament will not be covered. But suffice it to say it is never used to apply to any time other than the Final Judgment.
Does “day of the Lord” at the Final Judgment prove dispensationalism?
But doesn’t the “day of the Lord” fit within Scofield’s seventh dispensation? Yes, it does, but that does not make the whole of dispensationalism true. In logic, this is called “proving too little.”
The proving too little fallacy is when a person’s point is correct, but it is not substantial enough to prove everything the person is arguing. For example, if I said a Mt. Dew bottle is green, therefore Mt. Dew causes cancer, would that be true?
No. While it is true that Mt. Dew bottles are green, that fact alone does not prove anything about its propensity to cause cancer.
The same goes for the day of the Lord and dispensationalism. A person can ascribe any true event revealed in the Bible to any system of history they like, but that does not mean that system is true. There must be evidence of the other claims of that system to establish it as valid.
An Analysis of the 7 Divisions of Dispensationalism
According to Scofield, Scripture divides time into seven dispensations. This section will explain each and evaluate it against the teachings of the Bible.
1) Man Innocent
Per Scofield, the Man Innocent dispensation started at the creation of Adam and ended with his expulsion from Eden. On this dispensation, he writes:
Adam, created innocent and ignorant of good and evil, was placed in the garden of Eden with his wife, Eve, and put under responsibility to abstain from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The dispensation of innocence resulted in the first failure of man, and in its far-reaching effects, the most disastrous. It closed in judgment: “So he drove out the man.”
There are several things to note here.
Where does the Bible say this is a dispensation of time where God deals differently with man? As pointed out previously, the word dispensation does not appear in the Old Testament, and the New Testament never refers to the pre-Fall period as a dispensation. The claim that this is a distinct dispensation comes from outside the Bible. This is true for all seven dispensations.
Scofield errantly states that Adam was created “ignorant of good.” Adam may not have known all there was to know about good, but he certainly knew a great deal of it. Among other things, he was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), was created sinless with no predisposition to evil (Eccl. 7:29, Rom. 5:12), was part of a creation God called “very good” (Gen. 1:31), interacted with God (Gen. 2:18-22), and declared timeless truths about his wife and marriage (Gen. 2:23-25). It is simply not accurate to say that Adam was ignorant of good.
Why bring this up? Because it illustrates how proponents of these types of doctrines often nudge and twist Bible teachings to make room for their ideas. Errant doctrines are frequently the result of many minor interpretive errors, not just one or two big ones.
Here, Scofield paints a picture of Adam that is incorrect. This picture then helps justify his claim that during this time God dealt differently with man (he had to, because he was “ignorant of good”).
He does the same thing in the next sentence when he says the dispensation of innocence “resulted in the first failure of man.” This implies that the fall was a failure on par with all the other failures of subsequent dispensations (the flood, Babel, etc.).
But the fall of Adam is not the first in a series of failures that led to God’s actions. It is the single failure that makes the remaining failures certain, and it is the lone failure that brings about the promise of redemption.
When Adam fell, all fell (Rom. 5:12), and that failure was so supreme that God cursed the instrument of that failure (the serpent, and by extension Satan, Gen. 3:14-15), the earth and all creation (Gen. 3:17-18), the woman (Gen. 3:16), and all future generations of man (1 Cor. 15:22a).
Moreover, God issued what has become known as the proto-evangel, the first promise of redemption in the Bible (Gen. 3:15). The remainder of Scripture documents God’s efforts to bring this promise about.
Is God dealing with Adam differently than everyone else?
The main proposition of dispensationalism is that God deals with men differently during each period. However, Adam’s situation illustrates the way God deals with all people in every period, what can simply be termed as the “law-mercy-grace approach.”
First, God gives instruction for living, his law. When mankind fails to follow those instructions, God exercises mercy in enacting punishment. And then, to overcome man’s inability to ever fully obey, God provides a gracious remedy.
In Adam’s case, God’s instruction was “do not eat of this tree.” When Adam failed to keep this instruction, God showed restraint in punishing him (he did not kill him right away but let him and his wife live). Finally, when prescribing punishment, he provided hope of a future resolution (namely, the future triumph over Satan through the seed of Eve).
God even goes so far as to illustrate the means by which he would eventually dispose of Satan, man’s sin, and death. Genesis 3:21 says, “Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”
To cover the shame of man’s nakedness, a nakedness he knew because he sinned, God sacrificed an animal and used its skin as clothing for the man and his wife.
This pattern of sacrifice is repeated in every other dispensation Scofield identifies, save the last [4]:
Dispensation 2 - Abel brought the firstborn of his flock to sacrifice to the Lord (Gen. 4:3-5) [5].
Dispensation 3 - Noah sacrificed one of every clean animal and bird after the flood (Gen. 8:20).
Dispensation 4 - God sacrificed three animals when he made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15:9-21).
Dispensation 5 - The priests sacrificed millions of animals under the Mosaic law (Exo. 20:22-26).
Dispensation 6 - A final, perfect lamb was sacrificed when Jesus Christ died at Golgotha (John 1:29, 19:17).
2) Man Under Conscience
This dispensation takes place from just after Adam’s fall to the flood of Noah. Scofield observes:
By the fall, Adam and Eve acquired and transmitted to the race the knowledge of good and evil. This gave conscience a basis for right moral judgment, and hence the race came under this measure of responsibility to do good and eschew evil. God closed the second testing of the natural man with judgment: the flood.
The conscience spoken of here is likely that which Paul addressed in Romans 2:14-15. There, he said,
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.
In this text, Paul is explaining to the Jews that obedience is more important than circumcision. While making this argument, he states that non-Jews may, as a result of conscience, do the things written in the Law of Moses because part of that law was “written in their hearts.”
Scofield picks up on this when considering life after the fall and sees it as the rule by which God evaluates the conduct of men during this period. But is this correct? Is God dealing with men from Adam to Noah based on the remnants of law in their consciences?
While mankind certainly had a conscience during this period, the Bible indicates in several places that this was not the only way God’s righteous requirements were made known. Consider four arguments to prove this.
Argument 1: The offering of sacrifices indicates something other than conscience was guiding mankind.
In Genesis 4:3-4, both Cain and Abel brought offerings to the Lord: Cain brought an offering from the land, and Abel brought an offering from the flock. Cain’s bitterness at God’s response to his offering likely drove him to murder his brother.
It is also probable that men offered sacrifices during the time of Enosh as recorded in Genesis 4:26. There, it says, “And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
While the text does not specifically state that men offered sacrifices during the time of Enosh, the phrase “call on the name of the Lord” strongly implies they did as the phrase is directly connected to sacrifice in three other places in Genesis. Here they are:
Abraham “built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord” somewhere between Bethel and Ai (Gen. 12:8). What did he do at that altar? The only thing you do at an altar is offer sacrifices.
Later, Abraham returned “to the place of the altar which he had made there at first [and]…called on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 13:4). Here, again, we have the connection of an altar and calling on the Lord.
Isaac “built an altar [at Beersheba] and called on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 26:25).
How does this affect the question of conscience? It affects it because the Bible says men do not seek God out of conscience.
Going back to Romans 2:14-15 discussed earlier, Paul states that fallen man may do some of the things written in the law based on the leading of conscience, but he makes it clear in chapter 3 that no man will call upon the Lord based on his conscience.
In Romans 3:10-11, he writes, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” He is equally forceful in Romans 8:7, when he declares, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.”
The knowledge to properly offer sacrifices cannot be gained through conscience. There must be specific instruction on how, when, and under what circumstances to do this.
So, if sacrifices were offered, the knowledge to do so must have come from somewhere other than conscience. What are the potential sources of that knowledge? Prophets and preachers.
Argument 2: The existence of prophets and preachers
Scofield’s comments imply that man was given no direction by God during this period. They were completely reliant upon conscience. But this is simply not the case. God used both prophets and preachers to instruct man in the post-fall/pre-flood era.
God as prophet
First, God acted as his own prophet. As mentioned earlier, Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God in Genesis 4. How did they know to do this?
Genesis says nothing about this instruction coming before the fall (to Adam and Eve in the garden). There would have been no need to because there was no sin that required an offering.
It is most likely, therefore, that God gave this instruction to Adam and Eve after the fall, and they passed it on to Cain and Abel. And, if God gave this instruction after the fall, it could not have come as a result of conscience.
Moreover, God informed Cain and Abel that one type of sacrifice was acceptable and another was not (Gen. 4b-5b). He also gave Cain specific instructions regarding how to respond to his sacrifice being rejected (5b-7). Again, none of this came from conscience.
Enoch as prophet
Enoch is only mentioned in Genesis 5, where it says he “walked with God three hundred years” (22). Two verses later, it says he “walked with God” and then adds, “And he was not, for God took him.”
So, where does it say he was a prophet? It doesn’t in the Old Testament, but it does in the New. Jude 1:14-15 says this about him:
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Here, Jude reveals that Enoch prophesied. He was a prophet, and during his 365 years on earth, he spoke for God to the people.[6] In the specific case quoted by Jude, he promised judgment on ungodliness, including the wickedness of blasphemy.
Noah as preacher
As with Enoch, the New Testament expands on the work of Noah. Not only did he build the ark, but he also preached righteousness before the flood came.
Second Peter 2:5 says this about God, the global flood, and Noah: “[God] did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.”
Here we have God sending a preacher to declare righteousness before the great judgment of the flood began. This is interesting in the light of the words of Enoch, who also promised judgment for wickedness.
The Bible does not tell us there were any additional prophets or preachers during this period, but it is not unreasonable to assume there were, given that God sent them throughout redemptive history (see Jer. 7:13, 7:25, 11:7, 26:5, 29:19, 32:33, and 35:15 for examples of God saying how often he sent prophets).
Given the examples of prophets and preachers during this period, it can be concluded that men were not just guided by conscience; they were guided by the Creator’s own words, whether they came from him directly, his prophets, or his preachers.
Argument 3: The attaining of superior righteousness
Speaking of Enoch and Noah, it is also interesting to consider what the Bible says about the level of righteousness to which they attained. Regarding Enoch, it says he walked so closely with God that God took him directly to heaven without requiring him to die.
Hebrews 11:5 reiterates the piety and unusual exit of this ancient man:
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Noah receives similar compliments. Genesis 6:9 says, “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.” Like Enoch, he enjoyed extremely close fellowship with God, so much so he was called “just” and “perfect,” meaning “lawful” and “innocent.”
Are we really saying these men rose to this level of holiness based on conscience alone? Given the nature of man and the limitations of conscience, this would be impossible.
Argument 4: The detailed knowledge of redemptive truth
A final way to see that conscience was not the only way men were instructed during this time is to note the specific knowledge of historical redemptive truth some of them displayed.
For example, in Genesis 5:28-29, Lamech says this about why he named his son Noah:
Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed.”
Lamech’s words repeat the words of God when he cursed the ground for man’s sake in the garden of Eden. In Genesis 3:17b-19, God said:
Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it till the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
This is especially impressive when you consider that, according to the genealogy of Genesis 5, it had been 977 years since the fall. Almost a millennia later, a man quotes the words of God from the garden of Eden.
This is simply not possible from conscience. It is only possible if God brings these words to men’s minds by preserving them in written or oral form, and/or teaching them through prophets and preachers.
Despite the claims of Scofield and other dispensationalists, God did not deal with men based on conscience from the fall to the flood. He dealt with them based on his revealed word through means he would use time and again throughout history.
3) Man in Authority over the Earth
Scofield describes this dispensation as follows:
Out of the fearful judgment of the flood God saved eight persons, to whom, after the waters were assuaged, He gave the purified earth with ample power to govern it. This, Noah and his descendants were responsible to do.
The dispensation of human government resulted, upon the plain of Shinar, in the impious attempt to become independent of God and closed in judgment: the confusion of tongues.
The assumption here is that God established government after the flood, and man, through the vehicle of government, rebelled against God, bringing yet another judgment upon himself.
The problem with this is there is simply no evidence to support it.
Let’s analyze God’s commands following the flood as recorded in Genesis 9 to see if he established government at that time. Here is a summary of his instructions:
9:1, He commands Noah and his family to be fruitful and fill the earth, the same command given to Adam and Eve.
9:2-4, He then grants them the right to eat animals for food and declares that he has put the fear of man into the animals.
9:5-6, God requires any man or beast that takes the life of a human being to be put to death.
9:8-17, God establishes a covenant with Noah that he will never again flood the earth.
The only place where government could remotely be implied is verses 5-6 where God establishes the death penalty for killing another man. But these verses never mention government. In fact, they specifically give this authority to individuals, not government.
Here is the full text of these verses:
5, Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
6, Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.
Notice that the end of verse 5, God says, “From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.” God is giving family members—“every man’s brother”—the right to avenge the unlawful killing of a relative. He does not mention government, or any type of overarching human organizational structure when giving this command.
As far as Noah is concerned, the text specifically says he was not in government. He was not a politician or governor or mayor of any town or city, and he was not involved in organizing any type of governing body.
He was, in fact, a farmer. Genesis 9:20 says, “And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.”
This directly contradicts Scofield’s claim that God “gave [Noah and his family] the purified earth with ample power to govern it” and then made them “responsible to [govern the earth].”
If that was indeed what Noah was told to do, he quite obviously refused to do it, a very surprising response for a “a just man, perfect in his generations” (Gen. 6:9).
The only other place government could be implied is this section of Scripture is Genesis 10:10 which refers to Nimrod’s “kingdom.” Apparently, Nimrod was quite the organizer, as he established cities like Babel, Accad, and Nineveh. All told, verses 10-11 list seven cities he founded.
Now, certainly these cities had some form of government, but the Bible only mentions them in passing, as a way to differentiate Nimrod and explain where these places came from. It does not say anything like, “In keeping with God’s command to establish government, Nimrod built the cities X, Y, and Z.”
Furthermore, the establishment of cities (and the governments that would rule them) did not begin after the flood. Genesis 4:17 reveals that Cain established the city of Enoch after he left the garden of Eden.
If there was a city, it is highly likely there was some kind of government. So, even if God had “established” a post-flood government with Noah (which the Bible does not say he did), it would not have been the first government the earth had ever seen.
Finally, considering that Cain established government after he left the garden, if the argument is that the existence of government led to the rebellion at Babel (and the subsequent judgment there), one could just as easily argue that the government established by Cain led to the global flood.
But government was not the reason the flood came, any more than it was the reason for Babel. Human wickedness was the causative factor in both.
4) Man Under Promise
Scofield had this to say about this fourth dispensation:
Out of the dispersed descendants of the builders of Babel, God called one man, Abram, with whom He enters into covenant. Some of the promises to Abram and his descendants were purely gracious and unconditional. These either have been or will yet be literally fulfilled. Other promises were conditional upon the faithfulness and obedience of the Israelites.
Every one of these conditions was violated, and the dispensation of promise resulted in the failure of Israel and closed in the judgment of bondage in Egypt. The book of Genesis, which opens with the sublime words, “In the beginning God created,” closes with, “In a coffin in Egypt.”
Let’s analyze these statements one by one.
Were parts of the Abrahamic Covenant conditional?
Scofield states that some “promises [made to Abraham were] conditional upon the faithfulness and obedience of the Israelites.” A conditional promise is one that is only fulfilled if the recipient accomplishes a specified act. This act is the “condition” of the promise. If the condition is not met, the promise is no longer in effect, and whatever was promised is not delivered.
Scofield claims that more than one part of the Abrahamic Covenant falls under this conditional characteristic. Note that he uses the plural “promises.”
To determine if he is correct, we must first identify what promises were actually made in this covenant. Genesis 12 and 17 specify four:
God will multiply Abraham’s offspring so that his descendants will become a great nation (Gen. 12:2) and eventually produce many other nations (Gen. 17:5-6).
God will give Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan where they can live as an organized people (Gen. 17:8).
God will bring a blessing to the entire world through Abraham (Gen. 12:2b and 3b).
God requires all of Abraham’s male children to be circumcised as a sign and confirmation of the covenant (Gen. 17:10-12).
Items 1-3 list the things God promised to do for Abraham and his descendants. Item 4 binds these same descendants to obey the covenant by having all males physically circumcised on the eight day after birth.
Which promises void?
The first issue to resolve is this: Which two of the three promises are void if Abraham’s descendants refuse to be circumcised? Remember, Scofield says some promises are conditional. There are only three, so for some of them to be conditional, two of them must be conditional. So, which two?
There is nothing in the text that will allow us to answer this. The Bible treats these promises as a group and makes no effort to assign conditional or unconditional labels to them. This claim is placed on the text by Scofield, but it does not appear there on its own.
Which command(s) to obey?
The second issue is, Which command or commands must be obeyed to meet this condition? The only command mentioned to Abraham was circumcision. So, if we take Scofield’s words literally, Israel was only bound to carry out circumcision to make all the promises come true. And it is because they did not that “the judgment of bondage in Egypt” took place.
But where does the Bible say the Israelites would be slaves in Egypt because they refused to be circumcized? When God predicts this event in Genesis 15:13-14, he makes no mention of this as a cause.
Furthermore, it appears that all the patriarchs were circumcised:
Abraham: Abraham, his children, and his house were circumcised (Gen. 17:23-27).
Isaac: Isaac was circumcised (Gen. 21:4).
Jacob: The Bible does not say explicitly that he was circumcised, but God appeared to him in a dream and renewed the covenant with him (Gen. 28:10-16). He would not have done this if Jacob was not circumcised.[7]
Jacob’s sons: As with Jacob, the Bible does not expressly say they were circumcised, but Genesis 34:13-19 implies they were because they refused to allow their sister to be married to someone who was not circumcised.
Joseph: No verse states Joseph was circumcised, but God grants him dreams, the interpretations of those dreams, and great favor in Egypt (Gen. 37-50). He never would have done this if Joseph had violated the covenant.
Finally, when God gives the reason for the enslavement in Egypt, he states it was that the king of Egypt was afraid Israel was growing too numerous and was a danger in the event of war. Exodus 1:8-10 reads:
Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.”
If circumcision was a condition of the Abrahamic promises, it was kept by the patriarchs during the entire period of this dispensation. There was no reason to banish Israel into bondage because of it.[8]
Do the opening and closing words of Genesis identify this dispensation?
Scofield’s last statement reads: “The book of Genesis, which opens with the sublime words, ‘In the beginning God created,’ closes with, ‘In a coffin in Egypt.’” The implication here is that these words bookend the dispensation.
This could hardly be true since the first words of the Bible would fall under the dispensation of innocence, not the dispensation of promise.
Moreover, the words “in a coffin in Egypt” do not refer to the Israelites but to Joseph’s burial after his death. Genesis 50:26 says, “So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.”
Nothing in this text indicates that these words refer to anything other than the obvious—the placement of a dead man’s body in a coffin for burial.
This is another example of Scofield’s shabby theology and poor interpretative practice. We cannot just take words and make them say whatever we want. If we did that consistently, we could never know anything about the Bible for sure, because any statement could mean anything.
5) Man Under Law
Here’s how Scofield sees this dispensation:
Again the grace of God came to the help of helpless man and redeemed the chosen people out of the hand of the oppressor. In the wilderness of Sinai He proposed to them the covenant of law.
Instead of humbly pleading for a continued relation of grace, they presumptuously answered: “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.”
The history of Israel in the wilderness and in the land is one long record of flagrant, persistent violation of the law, and at last, after multiplied warnings, God closed the testing of man by law in judgment: first Israel, and then Judah, were driven out of the land into a dispersion which still continues.
A feeble remnant returned under Ezra and Nehemiah, of which, in due time, Christ came: “Born of a woman-made under the law.” Both Jews and Gentiles conspired to crucify Him.
Let’s examine two of Scofield’s assertions here, that the law was a proposal and that the Israelites were presumptuous to accept it.
The law of Moses: A proposal?
Scofield says that God “proposed to [the Israelites] the covenant of law.” The choice of this word may seem insignificant, but it is very important.
Presenting the law as a proposal gets at the very core of what dispensationalism teaches: that God’s plans for mankind have been continually frustrated, leaving him with no choice but to start over following each successive failure.
Innocence was frustrated by Adam eating the fruit, conscience was frustrated by man’s rejection of his inner moral compass, government was frustrated by man’s desire to rule God, and promise was frustrated by the patriarch’s refusal to mark their offspring.
After each of these plans fail, God implements a new one, presumably with the hope that man will eventually get it right.
But is this really the story the Bible is telling? No, and we can see this very clearly in the central element of this dispensation, the institution of the law.
Why did God give the law?
Dispensationalism suggests God gave the law because man failed under promise. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, as discussed in the previous section, the patriarchs did not fail to circumcise their children; they circumcised them, so there was no basis for them to “fail” this test.
And, second, the law was not offered to the Israelites as a means to finally “get it right,” one more opportunity in a long series of chances to meet the divine challenge.
The giving of the law is presented in the Bible as another step in the development of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity, not as a distinct dispensation man will eventually fail.
In the garden, God promised that a “seed of the woman” would bruise the head of the serpent, that is, Satan (Gen. 3:15). Later, God reveals the line from which that seed would come, the descendants of Abraham (Gen. 12:2b and 3b).
When making the covenant with Abraham, God revealed that Abraham’s descendants would eventually be slaves in Egypt (Gen. 15:13), and, after 400 years, God would bring them out and give them the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:14).
The commitment to Abraham is eventually passed to Isaac (Gen. 17:19) and then Jacob (Gen. 28:13-15), whose name God changed to Israel (Gen. 32:28). To preserve this seed, God used Joseph, one of Israel’s sons, to save Egypt from a worldwide famine and provide a safe place for Israel’s family to dwell (Gen. 41-50).
When the 400 years had passed and the Egyptians had become the oppressors God had predicted, God stepped in to deliver his people (Exo. 2:23-25).
The law: Always intended
As you watch the events of the Exodus unfold, you realize God intended to implement the law all along.
Exodus begins by stating the reason God intervened on Israel’s behalf—he had “remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exo. 2:25).
To begin the process of deliverance, God appears to Moses in the burning bush on Mt. Sinai. During that event, he tells Moses to go to Pharoah to demand the release of the Israelites. When Pharoah refuses, God will strike him with plagues until he relents.
The sign God gives Moses that the people will actually be delivered is that “when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain,” namely, Mt. Sinai (Exo. 3:12). Why does he mention this? Because Sinai is where the law will be given (Exo. 19:1-2).
So, God clearly had the law in mind before he even spoke to Moses.
Moreover, this is not the first mention of the law before the people reached Sinai. Here are four additional commandments God gave between the Exodus and reaching the mountain, commandments that would later be part of the law:
God institutes the Passover, an event that would mark the beginning of the Jewish calendar and serve as a “memorial throughout the generations” (Exo. 12).
(As an aside, during this instruction, God makes a provision for non-Jews to be redeemed, circumcised, and allowed to take the Passover. This continues the promise to Abraham to bless many nations and thereby provides another point of connection between the law, the Abrahamic Covenant, and the promise of the seed [Gen. 3:15].)
God requires the consecration of firstborn men and animals (Exo. 13:1-2 and 11-13). This instruction includes the process of redeeming the firstborn (13).
God indicates that more commandments are coming, the need to obey those commandments, and the blessings associated with that obedience (15:22-27). This occurs at Marah when God made the bitter water sweet.
God institutes the Sabbath requirement after providing manna in the desert (Exo. 16:23-20). This commandment is quickly violated, but God shows mercy and does not execute the offenders.
What do we see here? We see that God had the law in mind before he appeared to Moses, led the people out of Egypt, or gave the bulk of his commandments at Sinai.
The law’s connection to the Abrahamic Covenant
We also see that God viewed the law as integral to his covenant with Abraham. Recall that at the very beginning of Exodus, he “remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exo. 2:25), and he led them out of Egypt to give them the law. But why? Why would the law be so fundamental to the promises to Abraham?
We find the answer in two statements the Lord made to Israel during the giving of the law itself, one from Exodus 15 and the other from Exodus 19. Those texts read as follows:
Exodus 15:26, “If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the Lord who heals you.”
Exodus 19:5-6a, “If you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
Per Exodus 15, the law was given to protect and preserve the people’s lives, something God promised to do in the Abrahamic Covenant. In Genesis 12:2 and 17:5-6, he said he would multiply Abraham’s offspring, make them a great nation, and produce other nations from them (Gen. 12:2, 17:5-6).
One of the ways he would do that is by keeping them healthy so they could produce a great number of children.
Exodus 19 adds that the law will make Israel “a special treasure to [God] above all people.” Obedience to the law was paramount for Israel to remain in God’s favor and receive the promises made to Abraham.[9] If the law was not given, Israel could not obey; if Israel did not obey, the promises would be in jeopardy.[10]
The law, then, was always an inherent part of the Abrahamic Covenant, but that connection was not revealed until the time of Moses and the Exodus. It was not a new opportunity for man to pass a divine test. It flowed out of and was a continuation of the promises made to Abraham.
The lengthening bridge between dispensations
In our study of the first five dispensations, we have established a bridge between the garden (Scofield’s dispensation of innocence), Abraham (promise), and Moses (law), namely, the concept of “seed.” We also have a bridge between Abraham (promise) and Moses (law) through the implementation of the law itself.
As more biblical data is reviewed, the idea that these are separate dispensations becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
The presumptuous Israelites?
Scofield also says that the Israelites were “presumptuous” in accepting the Mosaic Law. To him, they should have rejected it and sought to stay under the Abrahamic Covenant, which Scofield sees as a “dispensation of grace.”
There are numerous problems with this teaching.
There is no such distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the law, as discussed in the prior section. The law was a continuation of the promises to Abraham.[11]
The greater problem with this view is the notion that coming under the law of God was a bad thing, as the word presumptuous implies. The Bible does not present the response of the Israelites as something coming from a sinful heart. On the contrary, the nature of God’s acts on their behalf made them want to come under his law. The people feared and admired God for what he had done in the Exodus and Red Sea events. Following the Red Sea, Exodus 14:31 says, “Thus Israel saw the great work which the Lord had done in Egypt; so the people feared the Lord.” Then, the Song of Moses in chapter 15 declares “the Lord is my strength, song, and salvation” (2), and the Lord is “a man of war” (3), has “glorious power” (6), and “overthrows those who rise against him” (7). The Song goes on to ask in verse 11, “Who is like you, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” This is why the people joyfully fell under the law of the Lord, not because they were presumptuous.
6) Man Under Grace
Regarding the dispensation of grace, Scofield observes:
The sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ introduced the dispensation of pure grace, which means undeserved favor, or God giving righteousness, instead of God requiring righteousness, as under law. …
The predicted result of this testing of man under grace is judgment upon an unbelieving world and an apostate church.
The first event in the closing of this dispensation will be the descent of the Lord from heaven, when sleeping saints will be raised and, together with believers then living, caught up “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:16-17).
Then follows the brief period called “the great tribulation.”
Two objections will be raised to Scofield’s reasoning here, first, that the coming of Christ presented mankind with another test, and second, that the closing of this dispensation begins with the rapture.
Is Jesus’ atonement a test?
The New Testament never presents Jesus’ work on the cross as another in a long line of tests for mankind. One need only peruse the sermons of Acts to see how the apostles characterized it. To them, it is a promise fulfilled (2:38-39), a blessing (3:25-26), a warning (13:40-41), and a command to repent (17:30).
It is all of these and more, but it is never a test.
The coming of a redeemer who would sacrifice himself is a thread that appears through the entire Bible and every dispensation Scofield attempts to create. Consider how it shows up in each of the first five dispensations:
Innocence: The one who bruises the serpent’s head will himself be bruised (Gen. 3:15).
Conscience: Cain and Abel bring sacrifices to the Lord (Gen. 4:3-4), demonstrating their need to appease the Creator with an offering.
Authority: Noah offered sacrifices of animals (Gen. 8:20).
Promise: Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son (Gen. 22).
Law: The scapegoat is offered for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:8-10).
The coming of Jesus is therefore not another test for mankind; it is the pivotal act of God to do what he had said he would do from the beginning—kill Satan and redeem mankind from the curse of death.
Does the rapture mark the end of this dispensation?
Scofield says the dispensation of grace will end with the rapture, the time when Christ takes believers to heaven to spare them the suffering of the great tribulation. He references 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to substantiate this claim.
The existence of the rapture, then, is critical to the legitimacy of this dispensation. But what if the doctrine of the rapture is wrong?
As I discussed at length in a separate article, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 does not teach a rapture of the church (find the full article). Here is a summary of the reasons presented there:
The Greek word translated “caught up” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, harpazó, is not always used in a way consistent with a “violent snatching away.” Revelation 12:5 refers to Jesus’ ascension as being “caught up [harpazó] unto God,” but we know from Acts 1:9 that this was not a violent act.
The fact that Paul does not say Jesus stepped on the ground in 1 Thessalonians 4 does not mean he did not. This is an example of the fallacy called the “argument from silence.” When describing an event or making a prophecy, the Bible writers do not always say everything there is to say about something; they say what they need to say to make the point they are making. Paul may have not mentioned Jesus coming down to the earth because it did not fit his purpose at the time.
The fact that Paul does not say that Jesus set up the millennial kingdom in 1 Thessalonians 4 does not mean a rapture occurred. Not only is this another example of the argument from silence, but it is also based on a highly questionable event, the millennial reign. (For a review of the weaknesses of the millennial view, see my comments on the final dispensation later in this article.)
Contrary to the claims of rapture proponents, Paul does mention Jesus coming to judge the world in both 1 Thessalonians in general and the immediate context of chapter 4. Overall, 1:9b-10, 2:16 and 19, and 3:13 directly mention or strongly imply Christ coming in judgment. And chapter 4 and 5 show evidence of referring to the same return of Christ (not separate ones, as rapture proponents argue), the return to bring the “day of the Lord.”
7) Man Under the Personal Reign of Christ
Scofield elaborates on the events of this final dispensation as follows:
After this the personal return of the Lord to the earth in power and great glory occurs, and the judgments which introduce the seventh, and last dispensation.
After the purifying judgments which attend the personal return of Christ to the earth, He will reign over restored Israel and over the earth for one thousand years. This is the period commonly called the millennium.
The seat of His power will be Jerusalem, and the saints, including the saved of the dispensation of grace, namely the church, will be associated with Him in His glory.
But when Satan is “loosed a little season,” he finds the natural heart as prone to evil as ever, and easily gathers the nations to battle against the Lord and His saints, and this last dispensation closes, like all the others, in judgment.
Much of this dispensation is occupied with the 1000-year reign of Christ on the earth. As indicated in the previous section, this reign is highly suspect from a biblical standpoint.
The primary text used to establish it is Revelation 20:4-6. I have provided a detailed analysis of this text in the article mentioned earlier (find it here), so I will only provide a summary of my arguments now:
The Book of Revelation falls into a type of literature called “apocalyptic literature,” which uses highly symbolic language and images to communicate deeper ideas, generally about the end of the world. Because of its symbolic nature, the imagery of Revelation cannot be taken literally; it was never intended to be.
The symbolic nature of Revelation include its use of numbers. Fee and Stuart state it this way: “John’s apocalypse…is a carefully constructed piece of literature, using cryptic language and rich symbolism of fantasy and numbers.”[12]
The number “1000” is used 19 times in Revelation (counts of angels, people, years), making it one of John’s most significant numerical symbols. Chilioi, the Greek word translated 1000, is known to be symbolic in apocalyptic books like Revelation and is “frequently used for a great period or epoch of time,” not a specific, literal number of years.[13]
The number “1000” from Revelation 20 appears in a set of verses littered with symbolic elements, like “dragon,” “beast,” “bottomless pit,” and “seals.” This indicates the entire account is symbolic and cannot be taken literally.
The symbolic nature of the 1000-year reign mentioned in Revelation throws serious doubt on Scofield’s claim that a literal 1000-year reign marks the end of the seventh dispensation.
Conclusions
An analysis of the teaching of C. I. Scofield, one of the fathers of modern dispensationalism, reveals the sketchy basis upon which the entire doctrine of dispensationalism is built. Scofield uses the word “dispensation” in a way the New Testament does not, and his biblical justification for each dispensation is fraught with errors and mischaracterizations.
Given the litany of problems with the doctrine, believers would do well to re-evaluate their confidence in dispensationalism and the doctrines it supports.
Notes:
[1] C. I. Scofield, “The Seven Dispensations,” in Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, https://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=777.
[2] All verses quoted in this article use the New King James translation.
[3] Biblestudytools.com, New Testament Hebrew Lexicon. All word meanings in this article were taken from this source.
[4] Dispensationalists generally argue that sacrifice returns to the temple during the 1000-year reign of Christ, but I do not believe this is a literal reign (see my article on the subject) or that animal sacrifices will ever be offered again (Heb. 10:1-4). Therefore, I do not see them occurring during the seventh dispensation.
[5] Genesis 4:26 may imply animal sacrifice when it says that during the time of Enosh “men began to call on the name of the Lord.” In at least three other places, the phrase “call on the name of the Lord” means to build an altar and sacrifice.
Abraham “built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord” somewhere between Bethel and Ai (Gen. 12:8); he later returned “to the place of the altar which he had made there at first. And there Abram called on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 13:4). Isaac did the same when he “built an altar [[at Beersheba] and called on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 26:25).
[6] Jude only relates a single instance of Enoch prophesying, so it is possible this was the only time he acted as a prophet of God. However, it is also possible that he had an ongoing prophetic ministry that the Bible simply doesn’t tell us about. Enoch’s words in Jude sound like those from a sermon. It is difficult to see such a righteous man only crying out about sin once.
[7] God’s response to a man under the covenant not circumcising his children can be seen in Exodus 4:24-26. There, God sought to kill Moses, apparently because he had not circumcised one of his sons. Moses’ wife Zipporah steps in, immediately circumcises this son, and stays the hand of God against him.
Walter Kaiser had this to say about what was going on here: “The sudden introduction of Zipporah’s actions leads us to believe that she instinctively connected her husband’s peril…with their failure to circumcise their son. This she immediately proceeded to do.”
Given this reaction, it is inconceivable that God would allow the patriarchs to violate this requirement and remain under the covenant.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, 1990, p. 332.
[8] But perhaps Scofield means the law of Moses when he said the conditions of the covenant were violated. It is possible that he means this. But this does not help his argument. Scofield himself places the period of the law after the dispensation of promise. So, God could not have been using the law to judge Abraham’s descendants before it was even given.
[9] Some will instantly object that the Abrahamic Covenant was not conditional upon obedience. This is often claimed, but a closer examination reveals it cannot be true.
First, the Bible connects the major covenants of the Old Testament, even the ones we typically view as conditional, like the law. For examples, see Deuteronomy 27:1 and 2 Chronicles 7:17-20 where the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants are spoken of as one. For additional analysis of these verses, see note 11.
Second, God requires Abraham to keep the covenant through circumcision. The clear implication is that if he do not, the covenant would be void.
Third, all covenants, even the New Covenant, are dependent upon the obedience of the people who fall under them.
The Abrahamic was dependent on circumcision (Gen. 17:10-12), the Mosaic on obeying the law of Moses (Lev. 18:5), and the Davidic on the faithfulness of the king (2 Sam. 7:14. To see this, note that there was no king on Israel’s throne from Zedekiah, 586 BC, to the birth of Christ. The human kings failed, so the promise tarried until a worthy king would arise who could sit on David’s throne forever).
While we think of the New Covenant as not being based on obedience (or works), it is actually dependent on the works of the Redeemer. He obeys the law, and believers are connected to his obedience by faith (John 3:16).
[10] The New Testament expands on the uses of the law, saying it restricts the wickedness of the ungodly (1 Tim. 1:9-11), reveals sin (Rom. 3:20), and guides sinners to Christ for redemption (Gal. 3:24).
These last two reasons provide yet another connection between what Scofield sees as separate dispensations. The dispensation of law folds over into the dispensation of grace because the law reveals sin and points to Christ.
Again, the distinctions of dispensationalism collapse when compared to the Bible’s actual teachings.
[11] Today, people speak of the major covenants of the Old Testament as if they were distinct and only tangentially connected, particularly when it comes to the law. Both the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are seen as distinct from the Mosaic. However, as this section has indicated, these covenants are integral to one another. The Old Testament affirms this is other places.
For example, Deuteronomy 27:1 connects the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants when it says, “Now Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying: ‘Keep all the commandments which I command you today. And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the Lord your God is giving you….”
In the first half of the verse, Moses requires the people to keep the commandments which he had given them. What commandments were these? The commandments of the Mosaic Law. But then he transitions directly to speaking about “the land which the Lord your God is giving you.” Where does the promise of a land come from? The Abrahamic Covenant.
Moreover, 2 Chronicles 7:17-20 connects all three when it speaks of God’s laws, the land, and David’s throne. It refers to Solomon doing “all that I [the Lord] have commanded” by keeping “My statutes and My judgments” (17). This is clearly a reference to the Mosaic Law.
The text then connects obedience to the Mosaic Law to maintaining a presence in the land (20), which is the Abrahamic Covenant. And then, in verse 18, God joins Solomon’s obedience to the Mosaic Law to the continuation of the Davidic Covenant. “I will establish the throne of your kingdom,” the Lord declares, “as I covenanted with David your father.”
[12] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003, p. 447.
[13] W. White, Jr., “Numbers,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 4, edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, p. 461.
