The Israelites . . . expected a double return. . . This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled.
– Isaac Newton, Observations on Daniel & the Apocalypse, (1733), Anodos edition, p. 41
The modern State of Israel is an Anglo-American creation that took over a century to accomplish. As you will discover below, the proposition was conceived by English Puritans in the 17th Century as a part of their prophetic scheme (cf. Iain Murray’s The Puritan Hope, 1971) to usher in the Christian Millennium. Although not true of John Calvin, who was an Amillennialist, his followers among the Puritans were sympathetic to the Jewish community for its alliance in promoting the value of the Mosaic Law in social and state relations.
Banned elsewhere in Europe, Jews had been admitted into England by Oliver Cromwell (although, some have argued earlier) based upon the strength of Anglo-Israelism: the belief that the English were physical descendants of the Ten “Lost” Tribes of Israel. Some of the English felt a brotherly affection for the Jewish people.
[N.B. Don’t trust Wikipedia or AI sources on this issue. Instead reference works from Covenant Publishing House or Steve Collins]
That affinity translated itself into economic success as exemplified by the rise of the House of Rothschild and other Jewish families in the18th and 19th Centuries. The ideology later became known as “Zionism” which embodied the Jewish yearning for a “homeland” where Jews – unwanted elsewhere in the world – could migrate and live without the constant fear of expulsion.
At the close of World War I, General Allenby wrested Jerusalem from the Ottoman Empire along with other territorial divestments (such as Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) on the “11th Day of the 11th Month, at the 11th Hour” (1917) – a calculation reflecting the English infatuation with numerological destiny. Although the Jews were promised Palestine, it would not be until the close of World War II – after the Holocaust – that it would finally come to pass with the backing of President Truman and the Truman Commission.
In the years which followed, various strands of biblical, philosophical, and ethical arguments would be offered to validate Israel’s “right to exist.” The Arabs and Palestinians, of course, fought them from the start in numerous wars and terror attacks. Seemingly motivated by the doctrine of Islamic supremacy, they mixed personal and racial grievances with a religious zeal which forced the Israelis to adopt desperate tactics. Unlike the American Colonial experience when guerilla warfare against Great Britain consisted in hiding behind trees, Hamas and similar fighters today, in contrast, insist upon mingling with the local populations and fighting from behind civilian infrastructure. This has forced the Israelis to treat the civilian population as enemies combatant. While the world has condemned Israeli tactics, an argument can be made that it is really the fault of Hamas and a passive Arab/Muslim population which has coddled terrorist groups.
But this article is not meant to answer the concerns of the Middle Eastern conflict, but only to reflect on whether Isaac Newton ever had a hand in creating the Anglo-Zionist movement. In recent years, his solitary theological treatise – Observations on Daniel and St. John of the Apocalypse – has been referenced by groups to claim that he did. We have argued the point that while a regathering was certainly in view, the notion of a Third Temple was not.
A recent discussion can be found here:
While Professor Jiang provides a very sound and lucid analysis, a couple over-generalizations cast doubt on his conclusions.
For example, he claims that Newton practiced the occult, which isn’t true. Only if alchemy can be classified as “occult” can it be said that Newton was an occultist. He was an alchemist, but alchemy was proto-chemistry not sorcery. If alchemy should be accompanied by ritual incantations, for example, then the sorcery label would be justified. But this is a superstition. Newton was opposed to superstition in any form.
As for the claim that he was a Christian Zionist, he was, of sorts, if we read his words superficially. As to whether he wanted a new temple to be built, he certainly did not. A new temple is an aspiration of the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion.
The full text in controversy reads as follows:
The Israelites in the days of the ancient Prophets, when the ten Tribes were led into captivity, expected a double return; and that at the first the Jews should build a new Temple inferior to Solomon’s, until the time of that age should be fulfilled; and afterwards they should return from all places of their captivity, and build Jerusalem and the Temple gloriously, Tobi xiv. 4, 5, 6: and to express the glory and excellence of this city, it is figuratively said to be built of precious stones, Tobi xiii. 16-18. Isa. liv.11-12. Rev. xi. and called the New Jerusalem, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Holy City, the Lamb’s Wife, the City of the Great King, the City into which the Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour. Now while such a return from captivity was the expectation of Israel, even before the times of Daniel, I know not why Daniel should omit it in his 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 begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept: and that since the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem, precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come forth 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 this rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places of Judah is predicted in Micah 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 that the return from captivity and coming of the Messiah and his kingdom are described in Daniel vii. Rev. xix. Acts i. Mat. xxiv. Joel iii. Ezek xxxvi. xxxvii. Isa. lx. lxii. lxiii. lxv. and lxvi. and many other places of scripture. The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter.
– Newton, Observations (emphasis added) p. 41-42
It must not be forgotten that Newton was a child of the Puritan movement and was heavily influenced by the theologians of his day, especially as it pertained to Bible prophecy. While he did not write on Christian doctrine, this little book proves he was a capable theologian in his own right.
He could have written much more, but since members of the Royal Academy of Sciences were not allowed to write on matters of faith, this work could only be published posthumously. Still, it would have a profound influence. Its first acquisition by the Library of Congress would be Thomas Jefferson’s personal copy. The great thinkers of the age clearly cared much about Newton’s biblical opinions.
Followers of the Unitarian movement would project their own skepticism and claim that Newton was a proto-Unitarian, but that cannot be the case. Unitarians do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible. Newton did.
While he appears to have been a closet opponent of the Trinitarian doctrine – again, a posthumous conclusion (ala John Maynard Keynes’ discoveries ) – yet a careful analysis of his statements lend credence to the opinions of Newton’s avatar: William Whiston. Newton opposed the formulation of Trinitarianism at the time because it shared the language of Sabellianism. As a scientist, Newton could not tolerate imprecise language on matters ontological. He was unsatisfied with the doctrine’s Creedal expression, but did not deny what we might call “the economical trinity”: a subject for a future Cambrian Pesher.
Note carefully the highlighted text above: the returning of the exiles, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple are said to be “figurative.” As a Christian, Newton would not have made the mistake of insisting that the New Jerusalem of St. John’s visions would be anything other than the Christian civil body politic of heavenly origin and that God Himself is the Temple thereof.
His use of figurative language is carefully explained in the early pages of his treatise (p.5-7):
The whole world natural . . . signifies the whole world politic.
Consequently, that which we call “Zion” or the heavenly Jerusalem or the “gathering of the exiles” becomes fulfilled in a “political” enforcement of a worldwide Jubilee:
. . . the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept.
We may infer, then, that the claim of Newton’s Zionist orientation comes from the misinterpreting of his densely constructed prose. That he became the father of the modern Zionist movement was not his intent. It was a complete accident of history.
As for “the second coming of Christ,” he meant for us to understand it to mean this worldwide Jubilee, in which mankind experiences a deliverance from usury, slavery, and is restored to a land tenure in which every man “sits under his own vine and fig tree” ( Micah 4:4 and 1 Kings 4:25). This Jubilee is achieved by Christ’s second coming to Heaven, as noted by Newton’s reference to Daniel Chapters 7 & 8, which has been cited numerous times in this series (where Christ ascends and approaches the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom and dispossesses the dominion of the Antichrist):
[After which] the judgment is to sit, and they shall take away his dominion, [not at once, but by degrees,] to consume, and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall, [by degrees], be given unto the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
– Daniel 8:26-27 (words in brackets represent interpolations of Newton’s commentary into the biblical text)
JWS, 10/12/25
