The pre-trib Jesuit conspiracy theory

I've heard many accusations against the pre-trib rapture over the years, but I admit, this is one is new to me. It goes something like this:

The first person who formulated this eschatology was a Jesuit named Ribera in 1591AD. He interpreted the book of Revelation suggesting an end-time personal antichrist, a rebuilt Babylon and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the end of the Christian Era.

This doctrine began to fester within the system of Romanism which by now had a few dozen more erroneous and blasphemous doctrines introduced as biblical truths by its own leadership. But it wasn't until 1745AD that another Jesuit named Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz began to really distort the Scriptures through doctrines that perfectly fit the category of the kind of doctrines whose destructive results we are warned about by Paul. (2 Tim 4:3-4).

Back in the 18th Century, there was a Spanish family living in Chile named the De Lacunzas. In 1731, they had a baby boy whom they named Manuel. After fifteen years at home, young Manuel boarded a ship bound for Spain. He wanted to join the holy orders of Romanism and become a Jesuit priest. Twenty-one years later, the Jesuits were expelled from Spain because of their brutality, and "Father" Manuel de Lucunza y Diaz was forced to leave the country. He made his new home in Imola, Italy, where he remained for the rest of his life. While in Imola, Lacunza claimed to be a converted Jew named "Rabbi Ben Ezra."

Under that alias, he pens down a doctrine which he calls "The coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty." He theorizes for the first time ever the end-time tribulation view. A book with his entire work was published in Spanish after his death.

The reality is: this 2-future-comings theory was invented by Emmanuel Lacunza (or Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz), a Chilean theologian of Spanish descent (born in Santiago, Chile, July 19, 1731, and died at Imola, Italy, June 17, 1801). He became a member of the Jesuit order in 1747 at the age of 16.

Lacunza wrote this book under the assumed name of Rabbi Ben-Ezra as a "converted Jew". The book was finished in 1790, and then circulated in manuscript form before it was published at Cadiz, Spain, in 1812. This was during the time of Cortez in Spain, and after Cortez the book was suppressed, and as much as possible withdrawn from circulation. Lacunza died in June 1801, before the book was ever published in book form.

Rev. Edward Irving, a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, who had been the assistant to Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow, translated this book of Lacunza from the Spanish in 1826, and it was published in English by L.B. Seely and Son, Fleet Street, London, in 1827.

This is the origin of Pretrib.

There is some historical truths mixed in here. But it tries to connect some dots to make huge unsubstantiated assertions. There are three distinct claims that need to be addressed here.

Claim #1: The first person who formulated this eschatology was a Jesuit named Ribera in 1591AD.

Ribera may have believed in a form of Catholic futurism, but the trib-rapture is the culmination of several distinct doctrines and theological ideas, such as dispensationalism, not simply "futurism." The fact of the matter is, Ribera never taught the pre-trib rapture.

Claim #2: The 2-future-comings theory was invented by Emmanuel Lacunza.

Lacunza didn’t invent two future comings. There were other Christians who discussed it before him, such as Morgan Edwards. Edwards, a Baptist pastor, taught a two-phase coming in 1744, decades before Lacunza completed his work, and it was later published in 1788.

Even if you were to dismiss what Edwards wrote, there are other examples that could be cited as well. French Reformed Protestant Peter Jurieu (1637–1713) wrote about Christ coming for the saints and returning to heaven before Armageddon in his work The Approaching Deliverance of the Church. And this is an important point as it demonstrates such concepts can develop independently from one another. 

Claim #3 Rev. Edward Irving, a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, who had been the assistant to Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow, translated this book of Lacunza from the Spanish in 1826, and it was published in English by L.B. Seely and Son, Fleet Street, London, in 1827.

This is the origin of Pretrib.

Here's where I really want to push back. There is no evidence of such a straightforward chain of transmission that demonstrates Ribera invented futurism, Lacunza inherited it and invented pre-tribulationism, Irving transmitted it to Darby, and Darby simply adopted it. That is a huge leap to make.

Edward Irving did translate Lacunza’s work, but that doesn’t prove anything. Clearly, Lacunza's work did have some influence of Irving, but it can't be overstated either. Irving didn't agree with Lacunza on everything, such as his interpretation of Revelation or a collective "moral body" Antichrist, among other things.

Like Ribera, Lacunza never taught the pre-trib rapture. Catholic (Jesuit) eschatology and pre-trib eschatology are fundamentally different. At the very best, you could say Irving synthesized "some" of Lacunza's ideas and incorporated it in his eschatology, but that is the extent of it. That is a far cry from claiming the pre-trib doctrine originates for the Jesuits. Clearly it doesn't as it incorporates elements that neither Ribera nor Lacunza espoused.

John Darby is the man most accredited with fleshing out the pre-trib doctrine. Derby was once associated with Irving and knew of Lacunza's work. But again, this can't be overstated. Irving and Darby parted ways due to theological differences and disagreements over doctrine, and Darby maintained that he arrived at his doctrine through his own study of Scripture.

If Ribera and Lacunza never existed, the pre-trib rapture still would have been developed. But for the sake of argument, let's say it was the origin of the pre-trib rapture. Would that prove that the doctrine is incorrect? No. can never be proved correct or incorrect until Jesus returns.