The hazard for historians in interpreting the great minds of the past is the quest for something new and hitherto undiscovered information about their subjects. Great thinkers often write down their evolving thoughts and perform what we might call elaborate “thought experiments” to test ideas and propositions. If they remain unpublished, it is for a reason. The author ultimately felt that a proposition failed upon closer analysis, but he might preserve the record of his intellectual journey as a warning to himself, like the lost hiker who marks his trail to avoid walking in circles.
Such is the case with the legacy of Sir Isaac Newton.
There have been sensational discoveries over the years of Newton’s unpublished papers. Suggestions have been made that he was an occultist, Evangelical, Deist, mystic, and any number of other deviancies because of what these papers contained. These discoveries while interesting and informative in their intrinsic value – it is too much of a leap to suppose that they represent anything more than the inner workings of a great mind. Like an unfinished sculpture, we cannot imagine that they are meant to be a final authoritative representation of his beliefs.
Isaac Newton studied astrology and other mythologies, not because he was an occultist, but because he felt that these traditions preserved coded messages from the ancient Magi. He felt the myths of the Greek gods, for example, could be deciphered into a discussion on chemistry. Likewise with the Bible, he felt the prophets – particularly Daniel, whom he admired – were writing in code and were divulging secrets about God’s plans for human history. Newton placed too much stock in the notion of “Divine Providence” to be strictly classified as a Deist. Unlike Thomas Paine and other Deists who would come later, he believed the Bible represented Divine inspiration. Consequently, the idea of “prophecy” was possible in Newton’s world view.
When it comes to Newton’s posthumously published work “Observations on Daniel and the Apocalypse,” – and even though it was an uncompleted one – it does represent his sincerely held beliefs. We know this both from its contents and from his correspondence with the great theologians of his day. While the book itself posits the future end-date of 2060 (see discussion in “Newton on the Apocalypse” in “Articles” above), he was influenced by other interpreters of the time and came to the conclusion that “2046” was the more accurate calculation (see Wikipedia sources). In writing it, he was preparing a work intended for publication and wanted it to be a part of his legacy to the world.
Newton was labeled a Deist because he de-emphasized the miraculous language of the Bible – particularly Bible prophecy – because of his strong belief in natural law. He did not believe the Creator acted arbitrarily and felt that the miracles of the Bible had to have an explanation grounded in natural law. He did not disbelieve the stories of the Bible. He did not dismiss them as embellished legends as the Higher Critics would do (such as the German Rationalists who came later), but felt, like the ancient interpreters of Qumran, that the miraculous accounts – even the scribal errors – were intentionally preserved cryptic messages. Jesus used His miracles as “signs” for pedagogical purposes. Newton was more interested in what those “signs” might have meant spiritually than to speculate on whether Christ healing a blind man meant He wanted to start a school for blind healers.
In this respect, Newton was as much an adherent of the “Idealist” school of prophecy as he was of the “Historicist.” He did not think that prophecy was merely a rote recitation of history in advance but rather an authoritative source for understanding biblical typology as it pertains to soteriology and eschatology. History has a purpose and Newton was on a personal quest to find out what that was.
JWS
