CONTINUOUS HISTORIC FRAMEWORK

ISRAEL IN BIBLE PROPHECY | home

CONTINUOUS HISTORIC FRAMEWORK

The studies covered in this website regard FULFILLED prophecy, and are determined within the traditional continuous historic (but not Catholic bashing), or what might be called linear historic, framework. That is, an understanding that bible prophecy is fulfilled steadily, as the era about which it is written unfolds. This traditional view is held by ALL CHRISTIANS for Old Testament prophecy that recognize, for example, Daniel's beast/kingdoms to be successive kingdoms that came to pass consecutively over hundreds of years in Daniel's future, or those that recognize Daniel's weeks, or sevens, to be weeks of days as years.

This continuous historic view was also held by the reformers and much of the church throughout the Christian era in regard to New Testament prophecy. This is reinforced - indeed required - by an understanding of the "language" of prophecy of "each day for a year" that was well recognized by so many that we discover when we look to the former age and search their fathers:

Job 8:8 For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: 9 (For we [are but of] yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth [are] a shadow:)

While many Christians don't hesitate for a moment to use this day = year language of prophecy for at least 69 of Daniel's 70 weeks, they then don't hesitate to discard this language in regard to other days, weeks, and months problems assigned to us by prophecy, when this language doesn't suit their doctrine. The application of sound principles of hermeneutics require a consistent approach rather than picking and choosing that which suits our pre-conceived notions, while discarding verses that appear to contradict them.

A few examples of those that understood this "language" of prophecy were:

Quoting from "The False Prophet": "In 1569, the great Anabaptist theologian, Thieleman van Braght, wrote the following in Martyrs Mirror, pages 21-24: 'a thousand two hundred and threescore days, which reckoned according to prophetic language means as many years… let it be reckoned as it may, say we, as a very long period of time.'

Two hundred years later, Matthew Henry, in his 'Commentary of the Whole Bible', came to the same conclusion (Vol VI, page 1157 column 1, para. 2): '….if the beginning of that interval could be ascertained, this number of prophetic days, taking a day for a year, would give us a prospect of when the end might be.'"

Also Jamison, Faucett & Brown commentary - "..... in the wilderness 'a thousand two hundred and threescore days.' In the wider sense, we may either adopt the year-day theory of 1260 years..."

Other examples of those who understood this language include:

Augustine (AD 430)

Nahawendi (Jewish) (AD 8-9th century)

Jehoram (AD 10th century)

Abraham bar Hiyya (Jewish) (AD 1136)

Arnold of Villanova AD (1292)

Tichonius (AD 380)

Joachim of Floris (AD 1202)

John Wycliffe (AD c.1379)

Nicholas of Cusa (AD c.1452)

Martin Luther (AD 1522)

Phillip Melanchthon (AD 1543)

Johan Funck (AD 1558)

James I of England (AD 1600)

Sir Isaac Newton (AD 1727)

It is important to note that the studies in this website discuss FULFILLED prophecy.

"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton

We should consider the warning that Jesus gave to the Pharisees, and never allow our doctrine to trump the truth of God's Holy Word:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

With a couple of thousand denominations all being confident that each has it right, doesn't it behoove us to continuously seek out the truth of God's Holy Word, and if our doctrine has difficulty in the light of scripture, repair it? What much of the uninformed in the church BODY today would presume to be traditional eschatological doctrine, has in fact only been in the church for about one to five hundred years. It is a good idea for all of us to get to know the roots of the doctrine we hold. While most churches are on the same page regarding our core doctrines and issues of salvation, the number of interpretations of end-time prophecy are legion.

In Revelation 2:4 we read of the church of Ephesus: Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

What might be meant by the term "first love"? Some say they lost their commission to evangelize, and perhaps they are right. But if it is about our first commandment to love our Lord God, how can we best accomplish that? In John 14:6 we find: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So Jesus IS truth. Could it be that in spite of all it's good works, that the church of Ephesis lost it's way in regard to the truth of God's Holy Word? That it allowed it's doctrine to trump the truth of God's Holy Word, just like the Pharisees? John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Internet searches are one way to become more familiar with the sources of our doctrine. But we have to be willing to open our eyes and face the truth, rather than stick our heads in the sands of unsound doctrine. Try a search for - alcazar preterism - or - darby ribera futurism - or - futurism preterism - for example (simply click on the links). These are the two main eschatologies in the protestant church today. To review some of the fruit of orthodoxy read Fox's Book of the Martyrs or Martyr's Mirror, or search - law suit million catholic. Here's a paper on the subject of pop doctrines.

(link to this spot)

The primary root of problems in the church ever since John wrote of nicolaitionism would seem to be a failure to recognize that authority lies in Jesus Christ, not in men that other men have declared to be in a position of authority, or men that have declared themselves to be such. It would seem that the broader this error of authority, the more difficulty the church encounters. From the serious problems of orthodoxy, to the dead formalism of mainstream protestant denominations, to the 19th century John Darby penned eschatology of the so-called non-denominational denominations. It would also seem that the more a church declares in regard to doctrine through it's "statement of faith" or it's "we believe...", the greater the difficulty they have presented themselves with in regard to rethinking and correcting error. The ecclesia of the first century that largely met in houses, did not have the pulpit-pew relationship, that we find later in the buildings that eventually came to be referred to as churches. Excellent reads in regard to this discussion of authority is "Pagan Christianity" and "Rethinking the Wineskin" by Frank Viola.

Consider the example of Martin Luther. As a Catholic priest with access to a bible he came to understand the error of misunderstood authority in the church. As a result he took his ministry to the streets. But by the end of his life he became exalted by his followers, as the authoritative head of his church, thereby it would seem assuming the very position of authority he had earlier identified as error.

In modern times we have the example of those like Pastor Churck Smith of Calvary Chapel, one of the most vibrant and spirit filled churches of our times. He was indoctrinated as pastor of a mainstream denomination, who wound up walking out of the building and taking his ministry to the beaches of California and witnessing to hippies. The Costa Mesa congregation has an appropriately broad Statement of Faith. But some 40 or so years later, Chuck Smith finds himself the head of a huge ministry, some branch churches of which declare as dogma, an eschatological doctrine that was penned in the mid-18th century through the private interpretation of an individual named John Nelson Darby.

Internet searches regarding doctrine may be a little upsetting at first, but shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to seek out the truth? Where does the "man of sin" "sitteth"? Before we inquire of church leaders we should recognize that by and large they are the product of seminaries that teach doctrine, and how to teach that doctrine to others. Their eyes are likely the most scaled over that you will find in your church, which is perhaps a direct result of their assuming their position of "authority". The second and third chapters of Revelation describe a boatload of doctrinal heresy that had already come into the church just 70 years after the Cross. All of the "overcommeth"ing of those chapters would seem to be about overcoming unsound doctrine, not Satan. Is it reasonable to presume that things improved over the ensuing 1900 years? Jesus Christ is the head of the church.

Should we expect our church leaders to have the answers? Should they have even put themselves in a position to suggest that they do? 1 Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

How do inflexible, traditional doctrines, inhibit the intensive search, that should be inspired by the following verses?

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

God followed this up with a crystal clear statement of fact:

Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

How did Isaac Newton and Matthew Henry weigh in on the above verses?

Regarding pop-doctrines like futurism, preterism or Marianism (which became dogma only after WWII) the bible warns:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


	ISRAEL IN BIBLE PROPHECY \| home CONTINUOUS HISTORIC FRAMEWORK The studies covered in this website regard FULFILLED prophecy, and are determined within the traditional continuous historic (but not Catholic bashing), or what might be called linear historic, framework. That is, an understanding that bible prophecy is fulfilled steadily, as the era about which it is written unfolds. This traditional view is held by ALL CHRISTIANS for Old Testament prophecy that recognize, for example, Daniel's beast/kingdoms to be successive kingdoms that came to pass consecutively over hundreds of years in Daniel's future, or those that recognize Daniel's weeks, or sevens, to be weeks of days as years. This continuous historic view was also held by the reformers and much of the church throughout the Christian era in regard to New Testament prophecy. This is reinforced - indeed required - by an understanding of the "language" of prophecy of "each day for a year" that was well recognized by so many that we discover when we look to the former age and search their fathers: Job 8:8 For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: 9 (For we [are but of] yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth [are] a shadow:) While many Christians don't hesitate for a moment to use this day = year language of prophecy for at least 69 of Daniel's 70 weeks, they then don't hesitate to discard this language in regard to other days, weeks, and months problems assigned to us by prophecy, when this language doesn't suit their doctrine. The application of sound principles of hermeneutics require a consistent approach rather than picking and choosing that which suits our pre-conceived notions, while discarding verses that appear to contradict them. A few examples of those that understood this "language" of prophecy were: Quoting from "The False Prophet": "In 1569, the great Anabaptist theologian, Thieleman van Braght, wrote the following in Martyrs Mirror, pages 21-24: 'a thousand two hundred and threescore days, which reckoned according to prophetic language means as many years… let it be reckoned as it may, say we, as a very long period of time.' Two hundred years later, Matthew Henry, in his 'Commentary of the Whole Bible', came to the same conclusion (Vol VI, page 1157 column 1, para. 2): '….if the beginning of that interval could be ascertained, this number of prophetic days, taking a day for a year, would give us a prospect of when the end might be.'" Also Jamison, Faucett & Brown commentary - "..... in the wilderness 'a thousand two hundred and threescore days.' In the wider sense, we may either adopt the year-day theory of 1260 years..." Other examples of those who understood this language include: Augustine (AD 430) Nahawendi (Jewish) (AD 8-9th century) Jehoram (AD 10th century) Abraham bar Hiyya (Jewish) (AD 1136) Arnold of Villanova AD (1292) Tichonius (AD 380) Joachim of Floris (AD 1202) John Wycliffe (AD c.1379) Nicholas of Cusa (AD c.1452) Martin Luther (AD 1522) Phillip Melanchthon (AD 1543) Johan Funck (AD 1558) James I of England (AD 1600) Sir Isaac Newton (AD 1727) It is important to note that the studies in this website discuss FULFILLED prophecy. "The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton We should consider the warning that Jesus gave to the Pharisees, and never allow our doctrine to trump the truth of God's Holy Word: Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. With a couple of thousand denominations all being confident that each has it right, doesn't it behoove us to continuously seek out the truth of God's Holy Word, and if our doctrine has difficulty in the light of scripture, repair it? What much of the uninformed in the church BODY today would presume to be traditional eschatological doctrine, has in fact only been in the church for about one to five hundred years. It is a good idea for all of us to get to know the roots of the doctrine we hold. While most churches are on the same page regarding our core doctrines and issues of salvation, the number of interpretations of end-time prophecy are legion. In Revelation 2:4 we read of the church of Ephesus: Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. What might be meant by the term "first love"? Some say they lost their commission to evangelize, and perhaps they are right. But if it is about our first commandment to love our Lord God, how can we best accomplish that? In John 14:6 we find: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. So Jesus IS truth. Could it be that in spite of all it's good works, that the church of Ephesis lost it's way in regard to the truth of God's Holy Word? That it allowed it's doctrine to trump the truth of God's Holy Word, just like the Pharisees? John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Internet searches are one way to become more familiar with the sources of our doctrine. But we have to be willing to open our eyes and face the truth, rather than stick our heads in the sands of unsound doctrine. Try a search for - alcazar preterism - or - darby ribera futurism - or - futurism preterism - for example (simply click on the links). These are the two main eschatologies in the protestant church today. To review some of the fruit of orthodoxy read Fox's Book of the Martyrs or Martyr's Mirror, or search - law suit million catholic. Here's a paper on the subject of pop doctrines. (link to this spot) The primary root of problems in the church ever since John wrote of nicolaitionism would seem to be a failure to recognize that authority lies in Jesus Christ, not in men that other men have declared to be in a position of authority, or men that have declared themselves to be such. It would seem that the broader this error of authority, the more difficulty the church encounters. From the serious problems of orthodoxy, to the dead formalism of mainstream protestant denominations, to the 19th century John Darby penned eschatology of the so-called non-denominational denominations. It would also seem that the more a church declares in regard to doctrine through it's "statement of faith" or it's "we believe...", the greater the difficulty they have presented themselves with in regard to rethinking and correcting error. The ecclesia of the first century that largely met in houses, did not have the pulpit-pew relationship, that we find later in the buildings that eventually came to be referred to as churches. Excellent reads in regard to this discussion of authority is "Pagan Christianity" and "Rethinking the Wineskin" by Frank Viola. Consider the example of Martin Luther. As a Catholic priest with access to a bible he came to understand the error of misunderstood authority in the church. As a result he took his ministry to the streets. But by the end of his life he became exalted by his followers, as the authoritative head of his church, thereby it would seem assuming the very position of authority he had earlier identified as error. In modern times we have the example of those like Pastor Churck Smith of Calvary Chapel, one of the most vibrant and spirit filled churches of our times. He was indoctrinated as pastor of a mainstream denomination, who wound up walking out of the building and taking his ministry to the beaches of California and witnessing to hippies. The Costa Mesa congregation has an appropriately broad Statement of Faith. But some 40 or so years later, Chuck Smith finds himself the head of a huge ministry, some branch churches of which declare as dogma, an eschatological doctrine that was penned in the mid-18th century through the private interpretation of an individual named John Nelson Darby. Internet searches regarding doctrine may be a little upsetting at first, but shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to seek out the truth? Where does the "man of sin" "sitteth"? Before we inquire of church leaders we should recognize that by and large they are the product of seminaries that teach doctrine, and how to teach that doctrine to others. Their eyes are likely the most scaled over that you will find in your church, which is perhaps a direct result of their assuming their position of "authority". The second and third chapters of Revelation describe a boatload of doctrinal heresy that had already come into the church just 70 years after the Cross. All of the "overcommeth"ing of those chapters would seem to be about overcoming unsound doctrine, not Satan. Is it reasonable to presume that things improved over the ensuing 1900 years? Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Should we expect our church leaders to have the answers? Should they have even put themselves in a position to suggest that they do? 1 Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. How do inflexible, traditional doctrines, inhibit the intensive search, that should be inspired by the following verses? Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. God followed this up with a crystal clear statement of fact: Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end. How did Isaac Newton and Matthew Henry weigh in on the above verses? Regarding pop-doctrines like futurism, preterism or Marianism (which became dogma only after WWII) the bible warns: 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.