Historicalist Problems

Historicalist Problems

Some say "Christianity was for the most part paganized and the Sabbath worship changed from Saturday to Sunday." Yet what do the Scriptures say? “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Here we find the thing which should be done on the first day of the week. Paul repeated an order to the churches in Achaia that he formerly had given to the churches in Galatia. On each Lord’s day there was something to be done. It is quite evident that during the apostolic time, the first day of the week was a special day, the day of Christ's resurrection. Jesus died on the cross April 1, 33 AD at the age of thirty seven and a half. “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread” (Acts 20:7a)—this is the way distinctly laid before us in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the Sabbath. The one and only similarity between the Sabbath and the Lord's day is that both were chosen out of the week for a specific purpose. The Bible never sanctions any attempt to change the Sabbath into the Lord’s day. Under the New Covenant God chose another day for us to remember our Lord.

Revelation 5 is pertaining to the death of Jesus on the cross: "a Lamb as it had been slain" (v.6) and the ascension of Jesus Christ, where we read, "Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof" (v.5). First Jesus died on the cross so naturally the first seal we "behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow" (6.2) without an arrow because the arrow has been shot, giving Satan a deadly wound at the cross.

All three Gospels do agree, which is, that all three speak to the church as well as to the Jews: Mark 13.5-27 is addressed to the Jews, 28-37 to the church; Luke 21.8-28 is addressed to the Jews, 29-36 to the church (notice that in both these Gospels, as in Matthew 24, the parable of the fig tree is spoken to the church).

"The end of the age” is related to the Jews as well as to the church. Matthew 24.20 says, “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath”—and no doubt this is addressed to the Jews. Luke, though, says this: “But watch ye at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man” (21.36). Such prayer and exhortation is moral in nature, and is therefore directed towards the church. And the same is true of Mark 13.33-37. In Luke 12.12, "synagogues" pertains to the Jews, not the Church. Luke is clearly mentioning "Jerusalem" (v.24) not the Church in Luke 21.8-28 with its Jewish terminology.

Revelation 12 includes more than Jesus, but also the man-child overcomers. “And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (v.5). Three times in the book of Revelation is this ruling with an iron rod mentioned. The first time is in 2.26,27: “And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron”—This most distinctly points to the overcomers in the church. The last time is in 19.15: “And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron”—This is in reference to the Lord Jesus.

Now then, to whom does this verse in 12.5 refer? If it is not applicable to the overcomers in the church it must have reference to the Lord Jesus. Yet can it mean the Lord Jesus here? It is highly improbable (though not absolutely impossible, since we observe that Jesus can be included). Why is it not probable? Because as soon as the man child is born he is caught up to the throne of God. It thus indicates that the man child cannot be Christ since the Lord Jesus when on the earth lived for over 33 years, died, and was raised from the dead before He ascended. Here we see the man-child is caught up immediately. Hence we believe this man child signifies the overcomers in the church. He represents a part of the church, that part which overcomes. Nonetheless, the man child also includes the Lord Jesus since He is the first overcomer and all other overcomers are included in Him.

Satan is always attacking the Church. How odd that his attack only begins at 325 AD, centuries later after the death of Christ. How else does one explain the gnostic gospels for example, if Satan waits to attack the Church after the gnostic gospels in earlier centuries? Why are the gnostics not an attack on the Church?

When did the Gentiles start to receive the Gospel? Did it not start when Peter went to see Cornelius (Acts 10)? Or even before than when Peter and James (Acts 8) went to Samaria (part Jews, part Gentiles) to confirm Philip's work. If you are a historicalist why say the Gentiles received Christ centuries later?

The woman in Revelation 12 is the eternal will of God. Each dispensation there is a woman representing that dispensation. She is none other than Even in creation, the body of Christ in the dispensation of grace, this woman whom we see at the close of the dispensation of grace, and the New Jerusalem God will have in eternity to come.

Is not the book of Revelation a book of the future just as Genesis is a book of beginnings? Take another look. See how Gen. 3 gives the details of Gen. 2, just like Rev. 12-19 give the details of Rev. 6-19.

Seven arguments can be brought against the historicalist view: (a) Though there were people who claimed to be Christ, yet none of them performed any wonder (Matt. 24.24)—(b) “The abomination of desolation” (an idol is to be put in the temple) has not been fulfilled: the historicals school argues that this was fulfilled when the Roman flag was raised in the holy place—but when this happened, no Jew could flee anymore; yet 24.16 reads, “then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains”—(c) The Lord orders the Jews, upon witnessing the idol placed in the temple, to flee, that is to say, to flee in a hurry; but no such need to hasten was evident at the time in 70 A.D.—(d) The destruction of Jerusalem will affect the whole world, yet during the time of Titus such an aftermath did not happen—(e) In those days there was also no disturbance in celestial phenomena (24.29)—(f) The Lord will appear after the destruction, yet He did not appear after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.—(g) This part from 24.4-31 is parallel to what is found in Revelation 6. The book of Revelation was written in or about 96 A.D. and the historical event involving Titus occurred in 70 A.D. Had this first part been completely fulfilled at the time of Titus, why should this old event which happened some 26 years earlier be gone over again by John in his prophetic writing?