How the New Scofield Reference Bible Quietly Changed C.I. Scofield's Own View on Joel 2

Introduction

The Scofield Reference Bible has shaped dispensational interpretation more than almost any other single work. Its marginal notes became, for generations of readers, the authoritative lens through which to read Scripture from a dispensational vantage point. So when a revised edition appeared in 1967—under the title The New Scofield Reference Bible—many readers assumed they were receiving an updated presentation of C.I. Scofield's own views, perhaps clarified or supplemented but not fundamentally reversed.

That assumption is not always warranted.

On one of the most debated passages in dispensational hermeneutics—Joel 2:28 and Peter's use of it in Acts 2—the 1967 revision quietly replaced Scofield's original position with a different one, without identifying the change as a departure from his stated view. The original note affirms a partial and continuous fulfillment that begins at Christ's first advent. The revised note eliminates that language entirely and replaces it with a strict "illustration only" reading. These are not equivalent positions; they represent two distinct schools of thought within dispensationalism.

This article places the two notes side by side, explains what each is claiming, and considers what the substitution tells us about the development of dispensational hermeneutics in the twentieth century.

The Original Scofield Note on Joel 2:28

Scofield's note on Joel 2:28 in the original 1909 (and 1917) edition reads as follows:

“

Cf. Acts 2:17 which gives a specific interpretation of "afterward" (Heb. acherith = "latter," "last"). "Afterward" in Joel 2:28 means "in the last days" (Gr. eschatos), and has a partial and continuous fulfillment during the "last days," which began with the first advent of Christ, Heb. 1:2; but the greater fulfillment awaits the "last days" as applied to Israel. See Acts 2:17, note, for the phrase "the last days."

Several features of this note deserve careful attention.

First, Scofield explicitly uses the word "fulfillment"—and he uses it twice. The "last days" have a fulfillment that is "partial and continuous" beginning at the first advent, and a "greater fulfillment" that awaits Israel's future. This is a two-stage or inaugurated structure: something genuinely begins at Christ's first coming, and something greater remains to be completed.

Second, Scofield links Joel's "afterward" to the Hebrew acherith, which he translates as "latter" or "last," and then cross-references it with the Greek eschatos in Acts 2:17. In doing so, he treats Peter's citation as a hermeneutical identification, not merely an analogical illustration.

Third, Scofield cites Hebrews 1:2 ("in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son") as the starting point for the "last days"—the first advent of Christ. This means, for Scofield, that the era of partial fulfillment of Joel is already underway in the church age.

This structure—partial present fulfillment, greater future fulfillment for Israel—is precisely what progressive dispensationalism (PD) argues. It is not a concession to covenant theology; it is a consistent acknowledgment that biblical prophecy can have an inaugurated dimension without forfeiting a future national fulfillment for Israel.

The 1967 Revision Committee

The New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 was produced by a nine-member editorial committee chaired by E. Schuyler English. The committee included:

• William Culbertson
• Charles L. Feinberg
• Frank E. Gaebelein
• Allan A. MacRae
• Clarence E. Mason Jr.
• Alva J. McClain
• Wilbur Moorehead Smith
• John F. Walvoord

These were among the most prominent dispensational scholars of the mid-twentieth century. Several of them—Feinberg, Walvoord, McClain—had already, in their own writings, articulated positions on Joel 2 and Acts 2 that differed from Scofield's original note. The revision, then, did not merely update the language; in at least some cases, it substituted the committee's own exegetical preferences for Scofield's.

The Revised Note on Joel 2:28

The 1967 note on Joel 2:28 reads as follows:

“

Compare Acts 2:17. Peter did not state that Joel's prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The details of Joel 2:30–32 (cf. Acts 2:19–20) were not realized at that time. Peter quoted Joel's prediction as an illustration of what was taking place in his day, and as a guarantee that God would yet completely fulfill all that Joel had prophesied. The time of that fulfillment is stated here ("afterward," cf. Hos. 3:5), that is, in the latter days when Israel turns to the LORD.

The contrast with the original is sharp.

Where Scofield wrote "partial and continuous fulfillment," the revised note introduces "illustration." Where Scofield identified an ongoing fulfillment beginning at the first advent, the revised note reserves all fulfillment for a single future moment—"the latter days when Israel turns to the LORD." Where Scofield used Hebrews 1:2 to anchor the beginning of the last days in the first advent, the revision offers no such anchor and implies that the "last days" for Israel have not yet begun.

The phrase "Peter quoted Joel's prediction as an illustration" represents, in the taxonomy of dispensational positions on this text, View 1—the strict analogy-only reading associated with figures like Arno Gaebelein, Thomas Ice, and (in his earlier writings) Charles Lee Feinberg himself. Scofield's original note was squarely in what would later be called View 2: partial or inaugurated fulfillment. The revision committee moved the note from one position to the other without disclosing that they had done so.

Two Different Views Within Dispensationalism

To appreciate the significance of this change, it helps to recall that the question of how Peter used Joel in Acts 2 has generated at least three distinct answers within dispensational scholarship. These are discussed in more detail in the article Peter's Use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 in Dispensationalism: Analogy or Partial Fulfillment?.

Briefly stated:

View 1 — No fulfillment, only analogy. Peter is not claiming Joel is being fulfilled. He is drawing a comparison: what you are witnessing resembles what Joel described. Full fulfillment awaits Israel's future repentance. This is the position of the 1967 revision.

View 2 — Partial / inaugurated fulfillment. Part of Joel was genuinely fulfilled at Pentecost (especially the Spirit's outpouring in Acts 2:17–18), while the cosmic signs and the day of the LORD (Acts 2:19–20) remain future. This is the position of progressive dispensationalism—and of Scofield's original note.

View 3 — Complete fulfillment. Joel 2 was entirely fulfilled by the NT era or the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the position of preterists and most covenant theologians, and is incompatible with any form of dispensationalism.

The move from View 2 to View 1 is not a minor editorial adjustment. It represents a substantive hermeneutical shift regarding whether any Old Testament prophecy directed to Israel can have a genuine, if partial, fulfillment in the present age.

Scofield's View Is Not an Isolated Case

Scofield was not alone among early dispensationalists in affirming some form of ongoing or partial fulfillment of Joel 2. As shown in the survey of traditional dispensational literature, a significant number of TD scholars—including Stanley Toussaint, Zane Hodges, William MacDonald, John MacArthur, and the Moody Bible Commentary—have held essentially the same position as the original Scofield note: part of Joel was fulfilled at Pentecost; the rest awaits the eschatological future.

What this means is that the 1967 revision did not bring the Scofield Bible closer to the consensus of dispensational scholarship. It brought it into alignment with a specific wing of that tradition—one that tends to view any concession of present partial fulfillment as a concession to non-dispensational interpretation—while replacing Scofield's own clearly stated view.

The Broader Significance

This case is not merely a footnote in the history of dispensational publishing. It illustrates a recurring tension within the tradition between two different instincts:

1. The analogical instinct: a concern that any language of partial fulfillment opens the door to replacing Israel with the Church, or to importing "already/not yet" categories from inaugurated eschatology.

2. The inauguration instinct: a recognition, shared by many TDs and all PDs, that some prophetic texts describe a pattern of fulfillment that unfolds progressively—beginning in the present age and completing in the age to come—without requiring the transfer of Israel's promises to the Church.

Scofield's original note belonged clearly to the second instinct. The 1967 revision replaced it with the first.

The irony is that the revision committee included Charles L. Feinberg, who in his The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets on Joel had himself written:

“

"The best position to take is that Peter used Joel's prophecy as an illustration of what was transpiring in his day and not as a fulfillment of this prediction."

Feinberg's own published view—View 1—appears to have shaped the revised note, even though it directly contradicts what Scofield wrote in the original.

Conclusion

Readers of the New Scofield Reference Bible who consult the note on Joel 2:28 are not reading Scofield's interpretation of the passage. They are reading a revised interpretation, produced by a distinguished committee that held a different view. The original note's affirmation of "partial and continuous fulfillment" beginning at the first advent was not preserved, qualified, or updated; it was replaced with a reading that locates all fulfillment in Israel's eschatological future.

This matters for at least two reasons.

First, it complicates the common appeal to "what Scofield said" in debates about Joel 2 and Acts 2 within dispensationalism. If the question is what Scofield actually said, the answer points toward a position more sympathetic to progressive dispensationalism than to the strict analogy-only reading that the 1967 revision promotes.

Second, it illustrates that the history of dispensational interpretation is more internally diverse than is often acknowledged. Views that are sometimes presented as departures from the tradition—like the PD affirmation of an inaugurated fulfillment of Joel 2—can turn out to be recoveries of earlier positions held by figures at the very foundation of the dispensational movement.