Foreword: This post is long. It is long because Christian Zionism is based on a multitude of lies. The bigger the onion, the more the layers we are forced to peel off. I should also note that my paternal ancestors were Russian Jews (see photo below, taken about 1900). My great-grandfather’s name was Abraham Perlovsky. People who criticize Zionism are frequently accused of being motivated by anti-Semitism. As I’m half-Jewish myself, let me be clear that no such feelings impel me. I am unequivocally opposed to racism in any form.
Part 1 of this series explored how the Rockefellers were instrumental in orchestrating the Modernist movement, assaulting every fundamental doctrine of Christianity, for the long-range ecumenical purpose of absorbing it into a one-world religion. The Fundamentalist movement rejected Modernism, intending to stand by the faith’s original tenets.
Unfortunately, as we will now see, Fundamentalism was itself infiltrated and hijacked, consistent with the Rothschild strategy of funding both sides of wars. Fundamentalist churches were targeted to enlist their support for the Zionist agenda. The two principal agents in this scheme were John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and Cyrus Scofield (1843-1921). What Darby planted, Scofield watered and disseminated. The theology they developed served the agenda by making several claims:
• God wanted the Jews to return to, and take over, Palestine.
• God has two plans of salvation—one through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the other a guarantee reserved for Jews, his “Chosen People.”
• Christians should not involve themselves in politics, education, business or the arts, as these are “worldly” matters that should be left in the hands of “worldly” people. (The consequences of this doctrine are very visible in American culture today.)
• God deals with mankind differently during different historical time frames or “dispensations,” of which there are seven. The current one, “Grace” under Jesus Christ, is merely the sixth of the seven dispensations.
• The Christian Church is doomed to inevitable failure, which will bring the Dispensation of Grace to a close.
• The end of this dispensational age will be marked by the Tribulation—worldwide persecution under the Antichrist for a period of seven years; however, Christians need not concern themselves with this, since Jesus will “Rapture” believers off the Earth and they won’t be around to experience it.
• Earth will then experience a Jewish era; Jewish ritualistic animal sacrifices will be reinstituted; Jesus will reign for a thousand years from Solomon’s rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
These doctrines, whose main outcome was “Christian Zionism,” might seem boring to atheists and agnostics, but they are nonetheless exceedingly relevant to the state of the world. They are espoused by celebrity-status theologians like Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, in the best-selling Left Behind book series, and are prevailing views in many conservative evangelical churches. Without these ideas being sweepingly disseminated, there might have been no Israeli state created in 1948, no 9/11, and no Middle East wars.
Before proceeding, I’m aware that some readers may be visiting this website for the first time, so I’ll take a moment to “begin at the beginning.” The United States, and much of the world itself, is run by an incalculably wealthy oligarchy known as, among other names, the Illuminati. The trappings of “democracy” are an illusion; the oligarchy operates behind the scenes, choosing presidents and prime ministers long before the public goes to the polls. It owns and controls the central banks, most of the ”Fortune 500” corporations, and the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, BBC, etc.), the latter being crucial to keeping the agenda, and the oligarchy itself, concealed from public awareness. It coordinates its global policies through international organizations such as the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and an upper, exclusive level of Freemasonry. The cabal’s highest identifiable human center is the Rothschild banking dynasty. But the oligarchy is not only about materialistic matters such as money and power; like the universe itself, it possesses a spiritual dimension: its outlook is satanic, which largely accounts for Western culture’s rapid moral descent.
I cannot document and prove these claims in one paragraph, but I can in a book, which is why I wrote Truth Is a Lonely Warrior. The ultimate goal of the Illuminati is a world government. Regional blocs like the European Union and NAFTA (intended to become a North American Union) are stepping stones toward this end. The world government will be ruled by a dark figure whom the Bible calls the “beast” or “Antichrist.” The book of Revelation says he will have “authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” The capital of this evil world government will be Jerusalem, a city revered by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, to be centered in Greater Israel. It was for this purpose that:
• the Rothschilds committed their fortune to the Zionist movement, beginning no later than 1829;
• Theodor Herzl began hosting the World Zionist congresses in Basle, Switzerland in 1897;
• the British government was persuaded to issue the Balfour Declaration to Lord Walter Rothschild in 1917, promising the Zionists “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in exchange for the Zionists bringing America into World War I on Britain’s side.
However, Zionist seizure of Palestine could not have occurred without the consent and cooperation of the world’s Christian community. Given the centuries-old conflict between Jews and Christians, it was necessary to remold Christian theology to accommodate the Rothschild plan. Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible came on the scene for this express purpose.
Darby Plants the Seeds
Before examining Scofield’s life, we should note a little about John Nelson Darby, the principle figure from whom Scofield borrowed his Biblical analysis. Darby was a Satanist, Freemason and agent of the Rothschild-owned British East India Company,1 the latter being the most powerful multinational corporation of its day and the supplier that turned millions of Chinese into opium addicts.
Darby became a leader of a Christian sect called the Plymouth Brethren (named for Plymouth, England, where its most popular gatherings were held). He is generally credited with originating the “Secret Rapture” doctrine and made several trips to America to spread his ideas.
Darby used many terms in common with occult Theosophists—he referred to Jesus as “the coming one” (same term New Agers use for the Antichrist); referred to God as the “architect” (same phrase employed by Freemasons, meaning “God” for the uninitiated, “Lucifer” to true adepts); and many other occult phrases, as summarized in this article.
Darby even penned his own satanic version of the Bible. The Illuminati have always known they could not perform a wholesale transformation of the Bible, because it would be recognized as such and rejected. Therefore the approach through the centuries has been to whittle it away: a word here, a phrase there—the universal strategy of boiling the frog.
Darby slyly introduced satanic wording into the Biblical text. For example, in the King James rendering of John 6:69, Peter told Jesus: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Darby rendered this: “And we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God.” “Holy one of God” is a title used for Jesus only by demons in the King James. For a comprehensive review of Darby’s satanic mistranslations, see the article John Nelson Darby Version: Doctrinal Changes to the Holy Bible.
Scofield Spreads Darby Like a Virus
In 1897, Theodore Herzl began hosting the Rothschild-backed Zionist congresses in Switzerland, developing the plan for Zionist takeover of Palestine. Knowing this scheme would require Christian approval, in 1904 Herzl approached Pope Pius X, who very politely told him what he could do with his plan. After Catholic rejection, the Rothschilds knew Protestant support would be essential. But this could only be achieved by tampering with the Bible to make it appear God himself had ordained that Jews retake Palestine. Such a Bible would have to come from a non-Jew, someone with credentials as a theologian. Thus emerged Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible.
Scofield started out as a crooked Kansas lawyer and politician, working under the auspices of John J. Ingalls, a major figure in corrupt Kansas politics. In 1881, the Atchison Globe reported:
C. I. Schofield [sic], who was appointed United States District Attorney for Kansas in 1873, and who turned out worse than any other Kansas official, is now a Campbellite preacher in Missouri. His wife and two children live in Atchison. He contributes nothing to their support except good advice.2
That same year, the Topeka Daily Capital picked up the story:
Cyrus I. Schofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past. The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.3
However, court cases against Scofield were inexplicably dropped. As Joseph M. Canfield, who is probably Scofield’s most thorough biographer, notes: “The very sudden dropping of the criminal charges without proper adjudication suggests that Scofield’s career was in the hands of someone who had clout . . .”4
According to Scofield, his conversion to Christ occurred in 1879 in his “St. Louis law office.” However, he was not a member of Missouri’s bar, and no record exists of his practicing law in that state5—in fact, he was habitually on the run from the law.
Scofield began immersing himself in Darby’s teachings. He was mentored by Rev. James H. Brookes, whose very pulpit Darby had preached from.6 He made rapid ecclesiastical progress: by 1881 he was already a pastor in St. Louis, despite having no seminary training or other formal religious education.
In 1882, Scofield moved to Dallas and began an extended term as pastor of the First Congregational Church. Possibly this move was necessitated because his criminal past and familial irresponsibility were too well-known in the Kansas-Missouri region. As Rev. John S. Torell writes:
There were a number of wealthy and political power brokers in the membership of the First Congregational Church in Dallas. . . I do know that most churches in the United States are heavily infested with Freemasons. George Bannerman Dealey was a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the later part of his life. But he was also heavily involved in the occult, majoring in the Scottish Rite of Masonry with a 33rd degree and active as a Shriner, and was also a member of the Red Cross of Constantine. Most likely he had a hand in getting Cyrus into Masonic circles and particularly the Lotos Club in New York.7
I am well aware that a person redeemed by Christ receives forgiveness of sins. I am also aware that those born again remain flawed individuals. Nevertheless, a high standard is held for pastors and elders of churches. In 1883, back in Kansas, Reverend Scofield’s wife Leontine was granted a divorce on the grounds that he had long since abandoned her and their two daughters, Abigail and Helene. The court ruled that Scofield “was not a fit person to have custody of the children.”8 Within six months of the divorce, Scofield married a new wife, Hettie.
Here is what the Bible says (1 Timothy 5:8): “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Scofield’s fans give him a free pass on this teaching, and not surprisingly, the Scofield Reference Bible makes no commentary on this verse.
Scofield’s defenders have argued that he had to divorce his wife because she was Catholic, but there is no Biblical grounds for that, and Scofield had deserted his family long before his professed conversion to Christ. However, if handlers were prepping him to fulfill the role of Zionist messenger to Protestant churches, it may well be that having a Catholic wife was deemed unsuitable.
Although Scofield became quite wealthy from his reference Bible, there is no evidence that he ever shared his riches with his abandoned family, or ever made restitution to people whom he had defrauded in Kansas and Missouri.
Truthfulness is another characteristic of genuine conversion. Here is how Scofield later described his military service in his Who’s Who in America entry:
Pvt. Co. H. 7th Tenn. Inf. May 1861 to close of Civil War; served in Army of Northern Va. under Gen. Lee, and awarded Cross of Honor for valor at battle of Antietam.9
Although Scofield was in the 7th Tennessee, this little entry is full of falsehoods. Scofield did not serve until “the close of the war.” He successfully begged out of the service in 1862 on grounds that he was a Northerner (he was Michigan-born). Also, Scofield was not decorated for valor at the battle of Antietam. Decorations were a frill the Confederate army could not afford. The Cross of Honor was a postwar decoration bestowed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, beginning in 1900, to any veteran who had provided “loyal, honorable service to the South.” As to having served “under Gen. Lee“—as Canfield notes, this was only in the same sense that “GIs in WW2 were under Eisenhower.”10
Perhaps more egregiously, by 1892 Cyrus began using the title “Dr. Scofield.” In the Scofield Reference Bible, he is “Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D.” (Doctor of Divinity). Conveying this landmark book as a scholar’s work was, of course, vital. However, there is no evidence Scofield ever received a doctorate. He never attended a college or seminary. Some suggest he could have received an honorary doctorate, but even this seems improbable: no institution has ever claimed credit for awarding it, Scofield made no allusion to the degree’s source in his Who’s Who biography, and since Dispensationalism was still viewed as highly unorthodox in 1892, no Christian institution would have likely bestowed such an honorary degree on Scofield.
Scofield Acquires Connections and Backers
Scofield met the distinguished theologian D. L. Moody during one of the latter’s evangelical campaigns. In 1886, Moody spoke in Dallas at Scofield’s invitation. A loose association continued between them, and in 1896 Scofield moved to New England, becoming pastor of Trinitarian Congregational, Moody’s home church. It is unclear if this occurred at Moody’s request, but association with Moody gave Scofield another credential that advanced his theologian resumé. In December 1899, Moody died at 62 from an undiagnosed illness.
In 1901, Scofield became a member of New York’s exclusive, invitation-only Lotos Club, a hangout for the financial and literary elite. Members have included Mark Twain, New York Times owner Arthur Hay Sulzberger, the atheist industrialist Andrew Carnegie, and sexual revolution advocate Margaret Mead. The Lotos Club was the sort a place a Fundamentalist preacher would ordinarily be ridiculed, yet somehow Scofield joined its rolls, even though the membership fee alone equaled one-fifth of his salary as a pastor.11 He remained a member until his death in 1921.
Scofield’s Lotos Club admission was approved by the ultra-Zionist attorney on the club’s Literary Committee, Samuel Untermyer. During his lifetime, Untermyer served as President of Keren Hayesod (Zionism’s chief financial angel), played a major role in drafting the Federal Reserve Act, was notorious for blackmailing Woodrow Wilson into appointing Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, and spearheaded the Jewish “declaration of war” boycott against Germany in 1933. Is it surprising that someone who might be called America’s leading Zionist would sponsor, at the Lotos Club, the theologian who produced the book which birthed “Christian Zionism”?
According to some sources (e.g., this article), Untermyer introduced Scofield to other leading Zionist financiers, such as Jacob Schiff and Bernard Baruch. This is credible, since Untermyer was close to these individuals, and Scofield’s finances took a turn for the better—he was suddenly able to afford extended trips to Europe in pursuit of producing his reference Bible.
Scofield and his wife Hettie traveled to England in 1904. According to Charles Trumbull’s official, laudatory biography of Scofield, he told a London acquaintance, Robert Scott, that he planned writing a reference Bible, but had no idea who might publish it. As luck would have it, Scott was able to introduce him to Henry Frowde, head of Oxford University Press. Quoting Trumbull:
Mr. Frowde was interested. He said he would consult Mr. Armstrong, then head of the American branch of the Oxford University Press. Mr. Armstrong was immediately enthusiastic at the suggestion that this new Reference Bible be brought out by the Oxford Press, and a preliminary understanding was quickly reached. Mr. Frowde assured Dr. Scofield that, if he finally decided to place the Bible with them, they could readily arrange a proper contract for the publication, in the interests of each party. And so the publishing question was settled . . . . 12
This story is as preposterous as Scofield’s Lotos Club admission. Major publishing houses don’t assure publication of manuscripts they haven’t even seen yet, unless the author has a proven track record of bestsellers (e.g., a Stephen King). Scofield had never written a book before, with the exception of Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (which was actually self-described as a “pamphlet”). He had no academic background qualifying him to edit a reference Bible.
Furthermore, Oxford University Press was owned by Zionist Jews and run by Fabian Socialists. It was primarily devoted to publishing literary and scholarly books, not Bibles, and like the Lotos Club, was a venue normally hostile to evangelical Fundamentalists.
It is rather apparent that Scofield’s Zionist connections, who got him into the Lotos Club and provided travel funding, also arranged for Oxford’s up-front publication agreement. Is it only coincidence that Scofield’s trip to England came on the heels of the Pope’s rejection (January 26, 1904) of Herzl’s plea to support a Zionist state in Palestine? With the Catholics out, rallying Protestants had become imperative. Oxford University Press, with offices on both sides of the Atlantic, could ensure Scofield’s work would receive the publicity and distribution the Zionists desired.
When the Scofields left England, they moved to Switzerland, where, according to Trumbull, Scofield did nine months of “solid work” on his reference Bible. But why Switzerland? Although John Calvin’s library was there, it was not a very logical place to research and write a reference Bible. It was, however, a center of Freemasonic and covert banking activities, and, perhaps most importantly, where Theodor Herzl hosted the early Zionist congresses.
Scofield came back to America in 1905. In 1906 he returned to England (and according to some sources, Switzerland again). In 1907, Scofield signed his publishing contract at the New York City office of Oxford University Press, and his reference Bible was first published in January 1909.
One immediately notices the volume was produced with astonishing swiftness. For most men, a reference Bible would have required a lifetime’s work. All the more remarkable: Scofield had no seminary or university training, and was not formally schooled in the languages that ancient Biblical texts are written in—Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
The Scofield Bible’s Strategy
Were, then, some of Scofield’s notes dictated to him by other parties? Even if not, reviewing the Bible makes it evident that Scofield borrowed heavily from John Nelson Darby, James Brookes, and other early proponents of Plymouth Brethren-Dispensational theology. Scofield would undoubtedly have preferred to use Darby’s satanic Bible version, or a Hort-Westcott modernized translation. But since the Zionists wanted to reach the largest cross-section of Fundamentalists, the King James was employed. As James Whisler notes:
Cyrus wanted to use the bible of his heroes, Westcott and Hort, for this project. However, he knew that due to the prominence of the KJV and the meager results of the Revised Version sales, that his dispensationalist teachings would never get anywhere if coupled with the R.V. So he used the KJV, but he subtly showed his contempt for it and his reverence for the Revised Version. This is how he did it. Everywhere that the King James disagreed with the Revised Version in an area of doctrinal importance, Cyrus inserted a footnote stating the KJV was incorrect and he always offered a “more correct” rendering which was almost always identical to the RV.13
Although his reference Bible was first published in 1909, that edition is virtually impossible to find today. It was the revised 1917 edition that was hyper-marketed, with limitless advertising, by Oxford University Press, selling millions of copies. Is it only coincidence that 1917 was also the year of the Balfour Declaration, by which Britain’s government pledged to Lord Walter Rothschild and the Zionist Federation to establish a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine? The simultaneous mass-marketing of Scofield’s Bible would make it appear that God himself had cosigned the Declaration, and “prophecy was being fulfilled” before believers’ eyes.
Why was Scofield’s work so effectual at changing people’s understanding of the Bible? Before this, most commentaries were published separately from the Scriptures themselves. Earlier expositors had regarded the Bible as the sacred Word of God, and that its text should not be adulterated by their unworthy human words. Scofield scorned this tradition, placing his comments right on the Bible’s pages. While this was done under the pretext of reader convenience, its subliminal impact was to give Scofield’s views status competing with the Scriptures. When a reader recalled a specific Bible verse, he was apt to remember Scofield’s words along with it, or even in its place.
Some were not fooled. As Philip Mauro commented in 1927:
It is a matter of grief to me that a book should exist wherein the corrupt words of mortal man are printed on the same page with the holy Words of the living God; this mixture of the precious and the vile being made an article of sale, entitled a “Bible,” and distinguished by a man’s name. . . . For the fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a “Bible” of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God.14
With Oxford’s intense marketing, people who simply wanted a Bible often found themselves holding a Scofield Bible, and thus became unwitting recipients of “Scofieldism.” To help ensure the Bible sold well, Oxford produced it in beautifully printed cloth and leather editions. To the unsuspecting, this appeared “God-honoring.”
How Scofield Twisted the Bible to Accommodate Zionism
I know some will argue that Scofield’s notes include many theologically sound remarks. Of course they do, because lies are far more effective when mingled with truths. The Bible warns us that “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9) and to “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” (Matthew 16:6). Scofield’s foremost mission was to harmonize his Bible with Zionism. Central to this was distorting the promises God had made to Abraham (the ancestor of both the ancient Hebrews and Arabs) in Genesis 12:1-3:
Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Although the word “thee” is singular in the Hebrew,15 Scofield pulled a fast one, made it plural, and applied the blessing to modern Jews. He wrote in his notes:
“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.16
The Scofield Reference Bible was copyrighted by Oxford University Press, not Scofield. This gave the publishing house license to change his words in subsequent printings. Oxford issued a revised edition in 1967 (coinciding with the Six Day War and Israel’s seizure of Jerusalem). That version put Scofield’s Zionism on steroids, adding, for example, this phrase to the above words: “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.” The Bible, of course, never refers to “the sin of anti-Semitism.”
In Genesis 15:18, God described the land He was giving Abraham and his seed:
In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
This demarks “Greater Israel”; the Euphrates and Nile rivers are the two blue stripes displayed on the Israeli flag. They enclose a star traditionally used in Satanism, with six points, six triangles, and a hexagon (six-sided) in the middle—666.To convince Christians that Zionists remained entitled to this land, Scofield made God’s promise “unconditional.” He wrote:
For Abraham and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing.17
But as any Bible student knows—or should know—God’s promises to the Hebrews were always conditional upon their faith. When Moses brought the Hebrews out of Egypt, God did not even permit them to enter the land due to lack of faith. Instead, they were compelled to first wander in the wilderness for forty years. Do you think today’s “Israelites” are more faithful to God than those of Moses’ days?