Thoughts from The Frontier: Newton on The Restoration of The Jews, by Franz Kobler (Jewish Frontier, March, 1943)

“…the street shall be built again, and the walls even in troublous times.”

Perhaps it was not surprising that amidst the darkness of the Second World War, the Jewish Frontier published an essay by Franz Kobler, which concerned Sir Isaac Newton’s theories concerning the political – and spiritual? – restoration of the Jewish people.

Born in Bohemia in 1882, Kobler, a prolific writer with an interest in Zionism, was an Austrian citizen and lawyer by profession. Following the Anschluss in 1938, he and his wife fled to Zurich, and then London.  They were able to join their son in San Francisco after the war’s end.  He resided in Berkeley until his death in 1965. 

____________________

“MR. NEWTON is really a very valuable man, not only for his wonderful skill in mathematics, but in divinity also, and his great knowledge in the Scriptures, wherein I know few his equals.”  These words by John Locke, the philosopher, were fully confirmed by Newton’s posthumous literary work.  It became manifest to a surprised posterity that the great scientist had devoted the same ingenuity and patience to the Bible as to natural phenomena and mathematics.  It might be even supposed that the studies of divine things were more important to him than his epoch-making computations as the greater part of his unpublished writings related to theological subjects.  It has been established beyond any doubt that Newton’s scientific genius was inseparable if from his deep religiosity.  According to L.T. Moore, Newton’s biographer, “it is the most striking evidence of the sanity of Newton’s genius that, while he speculated on such problems as the nature of space, time and substance) … he saw they could not be included in the scientific method.  The conclusion of such speculations always ended for him in the acceptance of a divine providence, of whose design we have an intuitive knowledge sufficient for us to predict with considerable accuracy a limited order of events.”

This faith in providence was linked with an unshakable conviction of the divine origin and truth of the Scriptures.  Newton was extremely opposed to Deism, which developed rapidly towards the end of his life.  Against Toland, Tindal and Collins, he strongly advocated the authenticity of the sacred texts.  Nevertheless, his religious opinions deviated from the prevalent creed of that time.  Prophecy was for him the only source of the divine message.  “The authority of emperors, kings and princes is human; the authority of councils, synods, bishops and presbyters is human; the authority of the prophet is divine, and comprehends the sum of religion, reckoning Moses and the apostles among the prophets, and if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than what they have delivered, let him be accursed,” he wrote.  Newton was, however, critical in dealing with particular Biblical texts, as shown in his work “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures, In a; Letter to a Friend.”  This profound discussion of “the two Trinitarian proof texts, 1 John v. 7, and 1 Timothy iii. 16,” showed much similarity with the method of the contemporary French scholar Richard Simon, the initiator of Biblical criticism.

A remarkable achievement of Newton’s theological studies is also his contribution to the doctrine which since the early beginnings of the Puritan movement made the question of the Restoration of the Jews a central point.  This doctrine emerged from millenarianism which had been revived towards the end of the middle ages and linked, on the British soil, with “English Hebraism,” the deep trust in Scripture, and in the truth of Prophecy.  The main feature of this doctrine consists in the faith that the Kingdom of God cannot be established on the earth until the Jews will be restored to the land secured to them by the everlasting covenant.  It was generally assumed that the Jews would embrace Christianity, at that time; but different opinions developed, especially on the decisive question: if they will be restored before or after conversion.  At the time of Newton’s birth the doctrine of the Restoration of the Jews was already elaborated by teachings of scholars and tradition.  A new stage had been inaugurated in connection with the Civil War, marked by revolutionary efforts and eccentric attempts for an immediate realization of the millennial hope.  In the year of Isaac Newton’s birth (December 25, 1642), John Archer, an outstanding leader of the Fifth Monarchy Men, published his book “The Personal Reign of Christ upon Earth,” predicting that this reign would begin in 1666 and be preceded by “the deliverance of the Israelites” either in 1650 or in 1656.  This was, however, only one of many similar predictions.  The disappointments that followed – especially the failure of Sabbatai Zevi, whose appearance had produced feverish expectations even in England – however, did not check the development of the doctrine of the Restoration of the Jews, or any of the activities for realizing the aim.

In the same way as Puritanism gained victory in the revolution of 1689, the faith in the Restoration of the Jews was saved for the period: following the overthrow of the Stuarts.  John Milton became the messenger of that faith during the last years of his life.  In his “Paradise Regained” he foretold “a wondrous call” by which God will bring back the posterity of Abraham “to their native land.”  Milton’s posthumous work, De Doctrina Christiana, also shows him as an adherent of the doctrine of the Restoration of the Jews.  Locke, too, may be counted among the representatives of this doctrine.  The author of the “Essay on Human Understanding,” in his Paraphrases of St. Paul’s Epistles, writes: “However they (the Jews) are now scattered, and under subjection of strangers, God is able to collect them into one Body, make them his People, and set them in flourishing condition in their own land.”  Thomas Burnet, author of the “Sacred Theory of the Earth,” dealing with the problem of trhe Restoration of the Jews, devoted a rather voluminous dissertation, De Futura Judaeorum Restauration, to his “celebrated question,” as he termed it.  He contemplated the Restoration of the Jews as an important and indispensable part of the apocalyptic events, and maintained that the Restoration of the Jews will not take place before the great cosmic events due at that time. 

Sir Isaac Newton, too, affirmed the millenarian teaching and the doctrine of the Restoration of the Jews.  He relied entirely upon the predictions of the Bible, drawing conclusions with the same certainty as from the mathematical principles.  His method of interpretation, however, differed from that of Burnet and other millenarians.  Newton’s main sources of the millenarian eschatology were the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John, both of which were the subject of profound studies.  The results of these studies are contained in the “Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John,” published five years after his death in 1733.  A passage in the Book of Daniel has, in Newton’s opinion, a decisive significance for the question of the Restoration of the Jews.  Newton regards this passage, Chapter ix, 25*, as a prophecy not yet fulfilled.  He tries to lift the mysterious veil which surrounds verse 25, and to reveal the sense of this yet unfulfilled prophecy: This part of the prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing that, as the seventy and the sixty-two weeks were Jewish weeks ending with sabbatical years, so the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and of the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept; and that, since the commandment to return precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity and give occasion to it; and lastly, that the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places is predicted in Mich. vii. 11, Amos ix. 11, 14, Ezek. xxxvi. 33, 35, 36, 38, Isa. liv. 3, 11, 12, lv. 12, lxi. 4, lxv. 18, 21, 22, and Tobit xiv. 5, and thus the return from captivity and coming of the Messiah and his kingdom are described in Daniel vii, Rev. xix., Acts i., Mal. Xxiv., Joel iii., Ezek., xxxvi., xxxvii., Isa., lx., lxii., lxiii., lxv., and lxvi., and many other places in Scripture.  The manner I know not.  Let time be the interpreter.”

This cautiously formulated “Observation” of the great naturalist is one of the first interpretations by which the historical-political reality entered into the doctrine of the Restoration of the Jews.  The commandment coming forth from a “kingdom friendly to them” is, although still a religious phenomenon, essentially different in its appearance from Milton’s “wondrous call” or from the miraculous conversion, which Joseph Mede, the master of English Millenarianism, and his followers declared to be the prerequisite of the Restoration of the Jews.  Thus Newton’s splendid realism, regarding miracles as in a certain sense natural phenomena, became triumphant.  He kept also outside the adventurous road of Thomas Burnet and avoided any fantastic mixture of mysticism and science.  Here again, Newton tried “to predict with considerable accuracy a limited order of events,” expecting the intervention of an earthly power into the destiny of the dispersed people and daring the conjecture that this step will cause its Restoration, like the decree of Cyrus.  It may be recalled that in 1695, during the lifetime of Newton, the Dane, Oliger Paulli, appealed to King William III to re-erect the Jewish Kingdom.

Newton, anxious to be no less precise in predicting historic events than in calculating astronomical phenomena, did not predict any detail, and did not speculate on the question as to which was the kingdom friendly to the Jews.  There is, however, no doubt that Newton, a true and ardent Protestant, could not bear in mind any other power than a Protestant Kingdom.  It is reasonable to assume that Great Britain was at least one of the powers destined, according to Newton’s conjecture, for the issue of the “commandment.”  In an even more restrained manner, Newton dealt with the Restoration itself.  The many carefully chosen quotations, mostly from the Prophets, clearly indicate his full confidence in the coming of the event.  He refused, however, to make more particular assertions, with definite decision: “The manner I know not.”  But a characteristic hopeful turn is given in the sentence: “Let time be the interpreter.”  A wise modesty linked with deep trust in the truth of prophecy and the Divine rule of history shine out of these five words uttered by a man who transformed the idea of Universe.

The effect produced by Newton’s “Observations,” and particularly by his attitude towards the Restoration of the Jews, was considerable and can be traced in the later development.  In 1747, William Whiston, himself an outstanding pioneer of the doctrine, referring to Isaiah’s prophecy on the ships of Tarshish. (chap. lx, 9, 10), thought that the British nation and the States of Holland are probably chosen for the purpose of assisting the return of the Jews.  Whiston was Newton’s intimate friend and temporary successor as professor of mathematics at Cambridge, and was obviously inspired in this conjecture by Newton’s remark that a kingdom friendly to the Jews would help in the Restoration.  Even more certain is the connection of Newton’s “Observations” with Samuel Collet’s “Treatise of the future Restoration of the Jews and Israelites to their own Land,” published in 1747.  In this work the foresight and the absence of any conversionist tendency deserve special attention.  Here the passage from Newton’s “Observations” dealing with the “forthcoming commandment” has been quoted literally.  Collet himself supposed that “Some commandment will go forth (but from whom is not said) to cause them (the Jews) to return from their present dispersion, and to build Jerusalem.”  Half a century later, James Bicheno, impressed by Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt and Syria, wrote his remarkable book, “The Restoration of the Jews: the Crisis of all Nations” (published 1800), in which, for the first time, political action is urged upon Great Britain, in favor of the resettlement of the Jews in Palestine.  This book contains also a historical survey of the authors and works dealing with the question, and in this connection Sir Isaac Newton is mentioned as having accepted the distinction made by the ancient prophets between the first return, when the Jews should build a temple inferior to Solomon’s, and the second, when they should return from all places of their captivity and build Jerusalem.

No time, however, was more appropriate to renew the memory of the interpretation which one of Britain’s greatest sons applied to a prophecy on the Restoration of the Jewish people than these present-days.

*”Know also and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to cause to return and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the walls even in troublous times.”

Franz Kobler…

… Guide to the Papers of Franz Kobler (Center for Jewish History)