Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

The Scofield Bible and Zionism


Christianity and the Middle East 


Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,
 October 2015, pp. 45-46

The Scofield Bible—The Book That Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christians

By Maidhc Ó Cathail

“For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.”

—The New Scofield Study Bible

Since it was first published in 1909, the Scofield Reference Bible has made uncompromising Zionists out of tens of millions of Americans. When John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), said that “50 million evangelical bible-believing Christians unite with five million American Jews standing together on behalf of Israel,” it was the Scofield Bible that he was talking about.

Although the Scofield Reference Bible contains the text of the King James Authorized Version, it is not the traditional Protestant bible but Cyrus I. Scofield’s annotated commentary that is problematic. More than any other factor, it is Scofield’s notes that have induced generations of American evangelicals to believe that God demands their uncritical support for the modern State of Israel.

BLESSING ISRAEL, CURSING ITS CRITICS

Central to Christian Zionist belief is Scofield’s commentary (italicized below) on Genesis 12:3: “‘I will bless them that bless thee.’ In fulfillment closely related to the next clause, ‘And curse him that curseth thee.’ Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew—well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.”

Drawing on Scofield’s rather tendentious interpretation, Hagee claims, “The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God.”

But as Stephen Sizer points out in his definitive critique, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (available from AET’s Middle East Books and More): “The promise, when referring to Abraham’s descendants, speaks of God blessing them, not of entire nations ‘blessing’ the Hebrew nation, still less the contemporary and secular State of Israel.”

Notwithstanding this more orthodox reading, The New Scofield Study Bible, published by Oxford University Press in 1984, intensified Scofield’s interpretation by adding, “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.”

“Sustained by a dubious exegesis of selective biblical texts,” Sizer concludes, “Christian Zionism’s particular reading of history and contemporary events...sets Israel and the Jewish people apart from other peoples in the Middle East...it justifies the endemic racism intrinsic to Zionism, exacerbates tensions between Jews and Palestinians and undermines attempts to find a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, all because ‘the Bible tells them so.’”

THE INCREDIBLE SCOFIELD

In his 2008 book, The Rise of Israel: A History of a Revolutionary State, Jonathan R. Adelman describes the crucial support Israel receives from Christian fundamentalists as “totally fortuitous.” That assertion is belied, however, by the incredible career of the man who wrote “the Bible of Fundamentalism.”

Two years after Scofield’s reported conversion to Christianity in 1879, the Atchison Patriot was less than impressed. Describing the former Atchison resident as the “late lawyer, politician and shyster generally,” the article went on to recount a few of Scofield’s “many malicious acts.” These included a series of forgeries in St. Louis, for which he was sentenced to six months in jail.

Being a “born again” preacher did not preclude Scofield from becoming a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901, either. In his devastating biography, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Joseph M. Canfield suggests, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.”

That someone, Canfield suspects, was associated with one of the club’s committee members, the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. As Canfield intimates, Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects—the Zionist Movement.”

Others have been even more explicit about the nature of Scofield’s service to the Zionist agenda. In “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” Prof. David W. Lutz writes, “Untermeyer used Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermeyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

On one of these European trips, Oxford University Press publisher Henry Frowde “expressed immediate interest” in Scofield’s project. According to a biography of Frowde, although the OUP publisher was “[n]ot demonstrative in his religious views, all his Christian life he was associated with brethren known as ‘Exclusive.’” The “Exclusive Brethren” refers to the group of Christian evangelicals that, in an 1848 split in the Plymouth Brethren, followed John Nelson Darby, the Anglo-Irish missionary generally considered to have been the most influential figure in the development of Christian Zionism, and a major influence on Scofield.

SCOFIELD’S LEGACY

Had the Scofield Bible never been published, American presidents influenced by Christian Zionism such as Truman, Johnson, Reagan and George W. Bush might have been less sympathetic to Israeli demands, and consequently more attentive to U.S. interests. Moreover, the American people could have been spared the pseudo-Christian rants of John Hagee, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, not to mention the lucrative End Times Rapture “prophecy” peddled by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye.

But it is the people of the Middle East who have been most affected by an expansionist Israel emboldened by the unswerving allegiance of Christian Zionists led to believe that Scofield’s words are God’s will. Not least among the many victims of the Scofield Bible are 5 million Palestinian refugees whose right to return is fervently opposed by America’s Zionized Christians. Thanks to their indoctrination by Scofield’s unholy book, they believe that Palestine belongs not to the Palestinians—many of whom are fellow Christians—but exclusively to “God’s chosen people.” 


Maidhc Ó Cathail writes extensively on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. He is also the creator and editor of The Passionate Attachment blog, which focuses primarily on the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

 


SINCE YOU'RE HERE...

We have a small favor to ask…

… More people are reading the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. Our independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

Unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want our journalism to remain free and open to everyone. Democracy depends on reliable access to information. By making our journalism publicly available, we're able to hold governments, companies and institutions to account, and offer our diverse, global readership a platform for debate and commentary. This encourages us all to challenge our opinions on what’s happening throughout our world. By supporting the Washington Report – and just giving what you can afford – you can help us ensure that everyone has access to critical information for years to come.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Washington Report – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Support the Washington Report

paypal and credit card

CS Lewis on Marriage

 
CS Lewis

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ's words that a man & wife are to be regarded as a single organism—for that is what the words ‘one flesh’ would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact—just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock & its key are one mechanism, or that a violin & a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its 2 halves, the male & the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it & make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure & try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste by just chewing things & then spitting them out without swallowing.

As a consequence, Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There is, of course, a difference here between different churches: some do not admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. They all regard divorce as something like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership. What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another.

We must not forget to consider faithfulness in relation to another virtue, namely justice. Justice includes the keeping of promises. Now, everyone who has been married by a church has made a public, solemn vow to stick to their partner till death. To this someone may reply that it was regarded as a mere formality. Whom, then, was he trying to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That was not very much wiser. The spouse, or the in-laws? That was treacherous. Most often, I think, it was hoped to deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were impostors & cheaters. If they are still contented cheats, there is nothing to say to them: who would urge the high & hard duty of faithfulness on people who have not even wished to be honest? If they have now come to their senses & want to be honest, their promise, already made, constrains them. If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make vows they do not keep. The idea that ‘being in love’ is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a vow at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; & if it adds nothing, then it should not be made. The curious thing is that lovers themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those who talk about love. Those who are in love have a natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the world are full of vows of eternal constancy.

And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love & because I am in love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits me to being true even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions: no-one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way. He might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry. But what, it may be asked, is the use of keeping 2 people together if they are no longer in love? There are several sound, social reasons. What we call ‘being in love’ is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous & courageous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, & it subordinates our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is the great conqueror of lust. No-one would deny that being in love is far better than either mere sensuality or cold self-centeredness. But the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our nature & set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. No feeling can be relied on to last at its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come & go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called ‘being in love’ usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending “They lived happily ever after” is taken to mean “They felt for the next 50 years exactly as they felt the day they were married,” then that probably never was nor ever could be true, & would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even a few years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be ‘in love’ need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense—love as distinct from ‘being in love’—is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will & deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask & receive from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other.

If you disagree with me, of course, you will say, “He knows nothing about it.” You may quite possibly be right. But before you say that, make quite sure that you are judging me by what you really know from your own experience & from watching the lives of your friends, & not by ideas you have derived from novels & films. This is not so easy to do as people think. Our experience is colored through-&-through by books & TV & the cinema, & it takes patience & skill to disentangle the things we have really learned from life for ourselves.

People get from books the idea that if you have married the right person you may expect to go on ‘being in love’ forever. As a result, when they find they are not, they think this proves they have made a mistake & are entitled to a change—not realizing that, when they have changed, the glamour will presently go out of the new love just as it went out of the old one. In this part of life, as in every other, thrills come at the beginning & do not last.

There we have the Christian doctrine about the permanence of marriage. Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said by God to be the ‘head.’ Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all—why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?

(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the spouses are agreed, no question need arise; & we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs most of the time. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Assuming they have talked it over & still failed to reach agreement, what do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of 2 there is no majority. One of 2 things can happen: either they must separate & go their own ways, or else one or other of them must have the deciding vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of setting the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? It is easily seen that a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say, “Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that woman to boss him about the way she does is beyond me.” I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship.’ There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it, & despise the husbands whom they rule.

The relations of the family to the outer world—what might be called its foreign policy—must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he usually is much more just to outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children against the rest of the world. Naturally, rightly, for her their claims override all others. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith