Sin and Sabbath

(John 9: 16) Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

The consensus of both the Pharisees and “others” was that Jesus did not keep the Sabbath. The Pharisees concluded Jesus was a sinner by reason of the fact He did not keep the Sabbath. He worked on the Sabbath. They watched Him, “witnessed” Him, work on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, like Sabbatarians today, concluded that working on the Sabbath breaks or transgresses the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue, resulting in sin. Even Jesus’ disciple at the time witnessed Jesus break the Sabbath, and stated so in John 5:18, right after citing Jesus’ admission that He worked on the Sabbath.

Ask a Sabbatarian to define sin and he or she will cite the second half of 1John 3:4 that states in the KJV, “… sin is the transgression of the law.”

This is not about what sin “is.” The whole verse tells you what sin does. By taking part of the verse out of context, and interpreting that according to modern English instead of how the language was used over 400 years ago when the KJV was written. A false perception results that negates a declarative statement made by Jesus: “Good works are lawful on the Sabbath” which He further contrasted to evil works.

There are good works, and there are evil works.

Sabbatarians wasted no time in redefining good works to mean something not supported by the context of what Jesus said and taught, so that “good works” morphs into “approved” works where Sabbatarians become their own authority on the matter. Jesus’ explanation of good and evil works is totally ignored, where only good people can and do produce good works, only, and more importantly, only bad/evil people can and do produce evil works (Matthew 7:17-18).

Sabbatarianism recoils at the very thought that any and all good works produced by Christians - “good trees” done on their sabbath idol - are not sinful as a result, forcing them to twist and contort even what Jesus declared in an effort to insulate their sabbath idol from destruction.

Every imaginable and conceivable excuse and rationalization is employed to build a hedge around their idol in order to make it impervious to criticism as well as “doubling down” on emphasizing its overarching importance to the world, so that even the Gospel succumbs to its influence.

Sin is any evil, any iniquity, that is based in action or thought.

Why do Sabbatarians ignore the first half of 1 John 3:4?

It is because the Greek word used for sin there actually defines sin, and it is a definition with ramifications that Sabbatarianism tacitly rejects.

The Greek word for sin at the beginning of 1 John 3:4 is “hamartia.” In Greek, it means “missing the mark” like shooting an arrow at a target and missing it. “The transgression of the law” comes from the one Greek word, “anomia” (against law) which reinforces the actual definition of sin and how sin is “against law” that, in this progression of the statement, ends up invoking the condemnation of law; a death penalty.

Sabbatarianism bypasses the first condition of missing the mark and reconstructs the whole concept of sin into just transgressing the law, so that transgression of the Sabbath commandment results in evil / iniquity / lawlessness in one fell swoop, which is what the Pharisees did with Christ Jesus. They too circumvented the progression so as to make something “sin” that wasn’t sin, and that circumvention was in itself a sin.

Missing the mark / hamartia provides us with only part of the picture. It doesn’t tell us specifically what the “target” or “goal” was that was being missed.

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This reveals the target: the Glory of God. The perfection of God. This is what sin falls short of.

When it comes to a person defined by God as evil / sinful / iniquitous, there is nothing they can do to “hit that target” or even come close to it. An evil person cannot by any measure achieve unto the Glory of God. The absolute “best” they could do was to refrain from their otherwise evil works and even their evil imagination. This brings up an interesting point.

(ISA. 58:13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

They could “honor” God by NOT doing those things they normally did - seeking their own “pleasure”, their own desires, even their own lusts. God wanted them to be focused in on Him when it came to the Sabbath, where this passage states what they were really thinking about on the Sabbath:

(Amos 8:5) Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?

Now, an important observation.

I would simply point out at this setting that Christians do every day what the Hebrews were called to do on the Sabbath.

What did Jesus do, on the Sabbath, that we would agree was to the Glory of God and that we can contrast to the works of mankind who were incapable of doing anything to the Glory of God?

Everything.

Everything He did, whether on the Sabbath or otherwise, were works to the Glory of God. He healed people of diseases and afflictions and the people gave praise to the Glory of God ...but not the Pharisees. They remained adamant, hard-hearted, refusing to give Glory to God for the miracles wrought by Christ Jesus, thereby showing their contempt and hatred for both He and the Father in Heaven. They attributed His works to the ‘glory of the devil.’

Compare this now to the works of Christians, wrought in and through the Holy Spirit now dwelling in them, where all their works are now a reflection of God who now dwells in them, so that all their works, all the fruits of these “good trees”, are to the Glory of God.

There is no “missing the mark.”

Evil people not only cannot produce good fruits/works, they also deny the good fruits/works of those called of God and given the Holy Spirit, whose fruits are now wrought in God to the Glory of God. They call the good works of Christians "evil" and "sin", using the Sabbath as justification for doing so.

Sabbatarians, like their predecessors the Pharisees, call good, evil, and evil, good. The works of a Christian, now motivated by the Holy Spirit in them - with the “new heart” and “new law of God” in them - are viewed by Sabbatarians as works of the devil, performed by the servants of the devil, for the faithful Christians trod on the sabbath idol of Sabbatarianism where they do all to the glory of their sabbath.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean In Mark 7:19?

Did Jesus really declare and end to certain laws? Some translations include this wording while others do not. Why is there a disagreement and which is right? This article explores the evidence.

---

Let's start at the start.

It was a Pharisaical tradition to wash your hands in a special way before eating. It wasn't just for dirt's sake, but for ritual cleanliness. The Pharisees would often take a legitimate biblical idea then expand the boundaries around it to prevent anyone from crossing a legitimate line. The intentions were good. If you don't cross our new boundaries, then you are certainly safe from crossing the old boundaries. The idea with the hand washing was, if you had unknowingly touched something unclean, then washing your hands would remove the ceremonial uncleanliness before you had the chance to spread it to other things, like your food. And therefore food could not make your whole body ritually unclean.
But things like this resulted in pushback from Jesus.

It is important that you keep in mind this hand washing ritual was all about ceremonial cleanliness; clean and unclean; holy vs common. And ceremonial cleanliness was all about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space, like the Temple. The closer you got to God's holy and pure presence, the more ritually clean you had to be. (We will go into this more a bit later.)

Jesus' did not encourage His disciples to wash in this way before eating. Certain Pharisees asked Jesus why not. Judging by Jesus' strong reaction, this must have been more than an innocent question by the Pharisees. Jesus' answer was about how the various washings and rituals were undoing God's intent not just for the ceremonial law but God's intent for Israel to understand what the real defilement was in their lives in the first place. Jesus then explained to the crowd how it wasn't what goes into you but what comes out of you that can truly defile you.

When the disciples asked Jesus about this, He explained that the real issue was matters of the heart: evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil look, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. God's greater concern was not with outward displays of ritual purity and various washings, but with inward moral character.
The Pharisees had been expanding boundaries in all the wrong places. Doing the one but leaving the other undone.

It is in Jesus’ explanation to the disciples that the disputed line appears in Mark 7:19.

CEREMONIAL VS MORAL

Now for the hard question:
What about Jesus' response indicates He was concerned with voiding ceremonial cleanliness laws?
I see nothing of the sort at all. The conversation was not about legitimate Old Covenant laws. The conversation was not about pork.

Just like with Mark 2:27, Jesus' answer can seem quite jarring if we aren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation, because it is easy to misunderstand.

The Pharisees had taken ritual cleanliness rules that applied to the priesthood and expanded them to the common person - with good intentions. But in focusing on the ceremonial, they lost sight of the moral. Jesus passed judgment on the Pharisees multiple times (read Matthew 23 or John 8). Rarely do we see a Pharisee responding with, "I did not realize, and I am sorry for my behavior." or "Wait! I did not do what you accuse me of." Rather, they reacted with offense and pride and anger. "How dare you, an illegitimate son from a back water village, judge us, the teachers of Israel?!"
That is the crux of the conversation. All the handwashing in the world did nothing to protect them from what really mattered. They had neither recognized God Himself in their presence, nor recognized their own sin that was bringing them to the point where they would murder the very Author of the Law they so treasured. And no amount of washing was going to help this.

Which of these makes more sense?

A) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Dirt is secondary. Sins from the heart are what truly defile you.
-or-
B) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Not any more they don't. Meats laws are gone. Peace out! [mic drop]

I'm going with A!

IS IT REALLY IN THERE?

You may have heard people claiming the words "Thus he declared all foods clean" did not come from the pen of Mark. That's not exactly true. This is considered to be a legitimate verse. The validity of the verse is not in dispute, it's the translation that's in dispute. Let's see two very different ways this verse is translated:

(MAR. 7: 19) [ESV] ...since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

(MAR. 7: 19) [NKJV] ...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

Same verse. Same Greek. Very different English.

At the heart of the difference in translation is what did Mark mean by 'all foods'. One translation takes it as a declaration about ending ceremonial clean and unclean meats laws. The other takes it as the continuation of Jesus' argument that lapses in ritual purity were never the real problem.

Both translations are technically acceptable ways to render the Greek. Yes! Both are technically acceptable translations. However, one of them does not cleanly follow the flow of the conversation.

I side with the NKJV's translation, and I think the parallel account in Matthew 15 supports this conclusion.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

I said we would come to this later, and so we shall. Let's briefly remind ourselves why ceremonial cleanliness laws exist in the first place.

The ceremonial cleanliness rituals in Torah were not arbitrary. It wasn't a matter of health. It wasn't a matter of personal hygiene. It wasn't a matter of the nature of animals and pots and fluids. The rituals were about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space. God is pure and perfect. (No. That's not strong enough.) God is absolutely pure, and utterly perfect. (Yes, that's better.) Things which enter His holy presence must be purified. Sometimes He makes allowances, such as when He met with Moses in the form of a burning bush and only asked Moses to remove his shoes. But when Israel was required to come into His holy presence, they had to perform far more complex purity rituals. The closer you got to God, the more ritually pure you were expected to be. There was another level for the priests who worked in the Temple. And there was still yet another level for the High Priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year. All ceremonial cleanliness rituals were about making a person or object fit to occupy sacred space. Most of the sin offering rituals were not really about forgiving sin but rather about ritual purification. A disinfection, so to speak. This is what clean and unclean is all about; ceremonial purity and symbolizing fitness to be in God's presence.

In the time before Jesus' perfect and invaluable sacrifice purified to the uttermost all who accept it, there had to be a shadow of purification, a symbol. The Gentiles had absolutely nothing. And the Jews would also have had nothing, but God provided a means to symbolically purify them until Messiah could come.

The law did not require ritual hand washings before meals as a condition of entering sacred space. The law regulated what things could be eaten or worn or touched, and the law regulated certain priestly washings, but the law said nothing about regular Israelite's hands transmitting uncleanliness to regular food and then onto the body... which was what the Pharisees hoped to prevent when they made the rule about hand washing.
So, why would Jesus declare an end to one part of the legitimate law as a solution to an issue that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws, in a conversation that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws?

I see no good reason to agree that He did.

Jesus did not counter from the law but from common sense. You eat, you digest, you eliminate - but none of this touches the moral failures which begin in the heart.

Fixating on symbolism and requiring others to do so was distracting from the underlying meaning God enacted cleanliness laws for in the first place. All the purification rituals in Israel could never actually take away sin (HEB. 10:11). Jesus was speaking beyond holiness and onto righteousness. Jesus was cutting to the heart of the matter: sin is real, and it can have no part with a holy and righteous God, and the water was not literally washing away anything that truly mattered. Deal with your sin first (MAT. 23:25-26). Or, to put it another way, deal with righteousness first and then you are free to attend to holiness. This is the same lesson He gave in Matthew 5:

(MAT. 5:23-24) 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And if you think about it, this is the same thing Jesus was addressing in the ritual foot cleansing during His final Passover with the Apostles (read John 13, especially verses 10 & 11).

Here is the crux of my argument: If ceremonies in the first place cannot solve the issue, then removing the ritual laws also does not solve the issue. Therefore, that isn't what Jesus was doing.

FINAL POINTS

When we look at it this way, the verse no longer reads like Jesus declaring an end to Old Covenant meats laws. Therefore, the NKJV translation fits the narrative better. That is not to say He could not have done so. He had the authority. But I do not see anything here that leads me to believe He intended to.

This is where I pull out an old favorite verse:
(MAT. 5: 17-18) 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I am not citing this selection to claim the law continues forever. I am citing it to demonstrate that it was not Jesus' intention to simply declare things away.

Jesus came to genuinely solve the issue. He did not come to circumvent by declaring an end to certain laws. He did not come to take the easy route. He was going to do it the hard way; the only real way. He did not permit Himself the option of simply making declarations. He came to fulfill fully, to keep Israel's end of the Covenant for them perfectly, as the true Israel of God, and when that was accomplished, He would die to cleanse us all and solve the issue at its very heart and root.

Lastly, let's skip ahead to Peter's Sheet Vision in Acts 10. When God said, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat," Peter responded, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (v14.) Peter was quite adamant. This response would make no sense at all if Peter was fully aware that Jesus removed foods laws in Mark 7. The Gospel of Mark is traditionally considered to be Peter's version of events, after all.

CONCLUSION

Did Jesus declare all foods clean in Mark 7: 19?

No.

As Bereans Did has always said we would happily point out where Herbert Armstrong got things right, and we think he did here, at least to a degree.
However....
If Jesus did not declare meats clean in Mark 7, does that mean meats laws are still in effect for all Christians and we can proof-text Isaiah 66:17?

Also no.
...but not because of Mark 7:19.

The answer to that question can be found in Jesus' perfect sacrifice that permanently cleanses and truly takes away sin, which tore the curtain and opened our way straight to the Father, and which ended the Old Covenant with its terms and symbols and rituals and distinctions between Jew and Gentile. We go over this in other articles.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Sabbath Rest of Mark 2

Does the phrase "the Sabbath was made for man" in Mark 2:27 indicate the Sabbath was made on day 7 of Creation Week and is binding on all mankind? This article looks at that interaction from several angles and discovers there is so much more to consider.

---

In "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", we saw how the word "commandments" in English Bible translations rarely refers to the Ten Commandments, and never on its own, and that such help is missing in John 14. So, we naturally conclude the Sabbath is missing from John 14.

Today, we will go over another very popular selection: Mark 2:27-28.

Clearly, there is a Sabbath here. That's not the issue. Instead, we need to look at three related issues.

The first is the phrase "made for man". Sabbatarians claim it means "made for all mankind." Does it, or does it mean something else?
The second is the claim that verse 27 supports a weekly Sabbath at creation. Did we neglect to review this verse in our article "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", or does it mean something else?
The third is the claim that since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is binding in the New Covenant. Can this phrase support this, and only this?

Or, to put it another way, the Sabbath is there, but are we reading about its nature or its scope?

Let's start with one of the things we hammer away at here: context, context, context.

THE CONTEXT

To get an idea on what these two verses mean, we should take them as part of the conversation they were in. So, let's see that conversation.

(MAR. 2: 23-26) 23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”

The disciples were accused of violating the law for gathering food on the Sabbath. There are a couple of things to notice here.
First, gathering food on the Sabbath really was understood to be a violation of Torah. This wasn't just some Pharisaical tradition, like hand washing.
Second, Jesus never denies the accusation that they had violated the Sabbath. Rather than argue that the accusation was false, He argued that they were guiltless. He defends His disciples by appealing to examples where human need and mercy outweighed a rigid application of the law.
He used David violating of the law and being guiltless as His defense. They were guiltless because they did not act in contempt but out of need. A key comes from the parallel account in Matthew 12:7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

The most important thing to bear in mind is that Jesus' words were defending the disciples. That is critical to the context. Context is key.

QUALITY OR QUANTITY

With that context filled in, now we come to verses 27 and 28.

(MAR. 2: 27-28) 27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

The Sabbatarian explanation takes verses 27 & 28 in complete isolation, apart from any context, and goes like this:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless because the Sabbath was created on day 7 and was made for every single human. And therefore, the Son of Man is Lord of it. And since the Son of Man is Lord of it, it also applies in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.

I was a little tongue-in-cheek there, but not inaccurate. But we must ask, does that interpretation fit? In my view, no. It does not.

It does not make sense in the cultural and legal context of Israel, as everyone there was Jewish, during the Old Covenant period, and they believed the Sabbath was for the Jews only. Jesus expanding the scope of the Sabbath would certainly have caused new and even greater issues.
It does not make sense in the context of the conversation. It reads as if Jesus suddenly leapt into a completely different conversation.
It does not make sense that because the scope of the Sabbath was far greater than anyone realized therefore Jesus gets to be Lord of it. Make that make sense.
It does not make sense as a legal defense. The disciples were guiltless because the Sabbath is far more binding than anyone realized? How does that make them guiltless? It doesn't. Jesus' defense was not, "Well, everyone else on earth is guilty, too!"
It does not make sense in that Matthew says nothing of it. In the synoptic parallel in Matthew 12, Jesus doesn't come anywhere close to saying the Sabbath is binding on all mankind. But He does defend the disciples. How can the scope of the Sabbath be His primary point if Matthew says nothing of it?
But worst of all, it does not make sense in that it indicts Jesus Himself. As their teacher, He was responsible for what He let them do. If His comments were about the scope of the Sabbath, then He conceded that everyone is guilty, including Himself.

I offer a different way to understand these verses:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless ... because they ate out of need. The Sabbath was meant to lift burdens not cause them. And since it was meant to be a blessing, the Son of Man is Lord of it and has authority to declare these men guiltless.

David broke the law and was guiltless. The priests regularly broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. His disciples broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. In short, the law allowed for violations done in need (for example, certain police actions were necessary, as in NUM. 15:32-34) and in ignorance (NUM. 15:22-26). The disciples were not ignorant, nor were they acting wantonly. Their motivation was need. The Pharisees were not allowing for any of that. Their main concern seemed to be that the Sabbath was paramount and it had been violated. Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees how the Sabbath was never intended to be what they had made it into (MAT. 23:4,23). Their priorities were backward.

That said, it wasn't meant to crash into the other ditch, either. Jesus was not teaching that the Sabbath could be ignored whenever it became inconvenient (see "The Law Was Written On Our Hearts - Part I"). His disciples were not callously violating it. Wanton disregard for the Sabbath carried the death penalty (EXO. 35:2). But that was not the case here.

Jesus repeatedly showed that the Sabbath was never intended to prevent acts of mercy, necessity, and doing good. Even where the law had been legitimately violated, God desires mercy more than rules and regulations. Life, even an animal's life, was not to be sacrificed on the altar of rigid legalism. As He told the Pharisees, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” (MAT. 12: 7). This is the exact same point He made in Luke 13: 10-7 &15-17, 14:1-6, and John 5:1-18.

And perhaps most telling of all, both Matthew and Mark flow straight into yet another example of Jesus showing how it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (MAT. 12:9-14; Mark 3: 1-6). That is no accident. Again, mercy is emphasized. Again, no mention of the Sabbath being binding on all mankind from creation.

(MAT. 12:12b) Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

Here is the heart of what I'm getting at: Jesus's words in verses 27 & 28 were about the real nature of the Sabbath, not its scope. The quality, not the quantity.

Jesus was teaching the weightier matters of the law (MAT. 23:23). Sometimes rest is a blessing. But sometimes doing nothing when there is an obvious need is evil (MAT. 25:45). As James said:

(JAS. 2:13b) Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Neither Mark nor Matthew say, “Therefore all mankind was bound to the Sabbath from creation.” That conclusion is being read into the verse. That conclusion is not being reached because that is what these verses say, or even what they logically support, but because of other Sabbatarian commitments.

Now, let's do a deeper dive into the Greek.

ANTHROPOS

The Greek words translated "man" are anthrōpon (ἄνθρωπον) and anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος). They are the same word. The difference is grammatical. With anthrōpon man is the object, and with anthrōpos man is the subject. The difference doesn't really matter for what we are after. I am going to refer to them both as anthrōpos because that is the root word. It makes life easier for me.

Anthrōpos is singular. It can mean "a man" or "mankind" in general. There isn't a slam dunk here in either direction. The word could technically support either explanation. It's what's missing that makes the bigger difference.

Consider that "humanity" (anthrōpos) is a category, not a quantity. Saying something was made "for man" is not the same thing as saying it was commanded for every human being who has ever lived.
Nature, not scope.

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Imagine going to the store to buy a men’s shirt, and saying, “This shirt was made for men. This must mean every man who has ever lived is required to wear it.” That would be ridiculous. “Men” tells you the nature of the shirt. It does not tell us the scope of who must wear it.

Yet that's the very leap the Sabbatarian interpretation makes. It inserts words like "all," and "every," into a verse that never says those things. Mark 2:27 says the Sabbath was made for humans, but it does not say all humans. It never says every member of mankind is obligated to keep it. If Mark had intended to say, "the Sabbath was made to be binding on all mankind," there were clearer ways to do that. Mark didn't use them. And Matthew says nothing at all.

When we plug anthrōpos back into the larger context, we find that even though it means mankind, Jesus' point had nothing to do with the Sabbath being universally binding from creation on every human being. His point was to defend His disciples and put the law back in its proper perspective versus how the Pharisees had interpreted it.
I appreciate the way the NLT puts verse 27:

[NLT] Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath.

That is what Jesus was getting at.

There is another aspect that we need to see.

WHEN?

It is not just that Sabbatarians interpret this verse as evidence for a universal Sabbath command for all mankind. It is also used to support the weekly Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation. I cannot agree these verses support that claim.

Consider, before we can accept that Mark 2:27 supports a weekly Sabbath from creation, we must already believe the weekly Sabbath was created in Genesis 2.
How so?

Notice how Mark 2:27 says "was made," but it does not say when. Of course the Sabbath was created. But how do we know this refers to Genesis 2 rather than Exodus 16? We don't! Again, this conclusion is imported into Mark from other places.
But what other places? There are no other prooftexts to point to other than Genesis 2. We went over this in detail in "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", but let's skim it again as a reminder.

Genesis 2 says the seventh day of creation was sanctified and blessed. Why? Because on it God ceased from His work of creation, and wished to enjoy what He had made. But it says nothing about every seventh day. The Bible does not say that rest was repeated. Nor does it say the rest applied to anyone at all but God. The Bible does not say Adam rested. Adam had nothing to rest from! He was hours old and had no sin. The Bible does not say the weekly Sabbath started in Genesis 2. We can clearly see the weekly Sabbath pulls imagery from creation, but not that it was literally instituted at creation.

Without Genesis 2 saying there was a weekly Sabbath at creation, where else can we go to prove out this claim? Nowhere! Except Mark 2. And we've seen it isn't here in Mark 2 either. I did not forget to mention Mark 2 in my "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2" post. I left it out on purpose because it has nothing to do with it.

So, Genesis doesn't say this and Mark doesn't say this, yet Mark is being used as evidence for Genesis and Genesis for Mark. We must first assume things into both places in order to get them to point at one another. This flirts with circular reasoning - using something as evidence for itself.
How do we know Genesis 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Mark 2.
How do we know Mark 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Genesis 2.

But if neither of them say that, then how can they both say that together?

Given all that, which makes more sense?

A) The Sabbath was made at creation and the whole world is guilty, including Me. And because of this, therefore I am Lord of the Sabbath, and now everyone must keep the Sabbath in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.
or
B) The reason the Sabbath was created was to bless you; you were not created to bless the Sabbath. And because it was meant to be a blessing, I am Lord of the Sabbath, and I have authority to declare the disciples guiltless.

As for me, I'm going with B.

NEW COVENANT

Lastly, we must consider one more Sabbatarian claim. That being, since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, that makes the Sabbath binding in the New Covenant.
Does that follow? No.

This is a third scope change. First, the scope of the Sabbath was expanded to include all mankind. Second, the scope of the Sabbath was changed so that it began at Creation Week. Now it is being expanded to include all time going forward. I do not agree these few words can support that much doctrinal weight. Notice, nothing in Jesus' statement directly says anything about Covenants or the future. So, where are these conclusions coming from? Not the text.

Consider that this encounter did not happen in the New Covenant. New Testament, yes, but not New Covenant. They aren't the same thing. There was no New Covenant at that time. Chances are good that no one there besides Jesus had any idea that a New Covenant was imminent. Claiming that Jesus' lordship binds a law to the New Covenant makes absolutely no sense at all without quite a lot more explanation.

On top of that, the claim is inconsistent with other Sabbatarian beliefs. Jesus did not present Himself as Lord of the Sabbath alone, to the exclusion of everything else. He had always been Lord of the Sabbath. He had always been Lord of the entire Old Covenant.
Why is that important? Because if Christ's lordship over the Sabbath proves the Sabbath continues, then by the same reasoning His lordship over the rest of the Covenant would prove that all of it continues. Every law; even the ceremonial laws. (For example, Jesus was Lord of the Levitical Priesthood, therefore the Levitical Priesthood is binding in the New Covenant. Or circumcision. Or exclusion of the Gentiles.) There can be no New Covenant because the Old Covenant cannot end because Jesus is Lord of it. And that simply is not in line with most anyone's beliefs.
We cannot say, "The Sabbath continues, but not those other things. Oh! And the rest of the Ten Commandments. And meats laws. And tithes. And holy days, too. But not those other things."

So why did Jesus say He was Lord of the Sabbath? It was part of His defense. In the context of the conversation, I believe He was asserting His authority to put the Sabbath in its proper perspective and to declare the disciples guiltless. His statement was not particularly about the Sabbath but about Himself. Therefore, He was not saying anything about the scope of the Sabbath.

CONCLUSION

We’ve looked at the context, the Greek, the synoptic parallel in Matthew, as well as similar passages. Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring His disciples innocent, or the world guilty? 

The disciples were in need, not acting in careless disregard. Jesus responded with mercy, putting the Sabbath into proper context. This falls directly in line with other places where Jesus repeatedly taught it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He did not weaken the covenant law by showing mercy, but neither did He turn this moment into a declaration that the whole world was under indictment. And most certainly, He was not indicting Himself in the process.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding from creation? No. That must be assumed in from other places.
Mark 2 and Genesis 2 do not show the weekly Sabbath was created on day 7 of Creation Week nor that all men were bound to it. So, if they do not say this separately, they cannot be evidence for one another. All that Mark 2 says is that it was created. And Matthew says nothing about it at all.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding into the New Covenant? No. That large of a claim is not supported in the text.
Nothing about this conversation was particularly about the New Covenant. The same reasoning intended to bring the Sabbath into the New Covenant accidentally brings every law, and ultimately prevents the New Covenant in the first place. We know that is not what happened.

The Sabbatarian position does not come from a straight reading or a study of the underlying Greek. It comes from predetermined conclusions and is being read into Mark. This position requires critical details to be assumed into the narrative in a rather circular fashion.

What was the definition of eisegesis again? Oh yes, "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

I find it ironic that the Sabbatarian position ends up siding closer with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

Further reading:

Your Life Is Worth More Than The Sabbath
Law of Moses - Law of God - part I
Jesus Was Not Against The Law
Jesus and The Sabbath
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?

Other articles in this series:

The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Answering Trent Horn On Justification By Faith Alone

This article serves as a refutation of claims made by Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether Jesus Christ taught justification by faith alone. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique of said claims:

"Protestants usually claim that Jesus means our words are indicative of the content of our hearts, and so it is our hearts (and the faith they contain) that will be judged rather than our words or actions. But in Revelation 2:23, Jesus says, “I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” Jesus does not render a judgment based solely on what our hearts deserve but also on what our works deserve."

Good works are not the cause but the result of having been justified before God. The heavenly rewards which He bestows upon us are dependent on our good works. The author seems to conflate the terms gift and reward. Justification before God is not something we can earn on the basis of good works that we perform, even in part. It is an unmerited grace of God.

"But this parable doesn’t teach the sufficiency of faith for justification; it teaches the necessity of repentance...When Jesus explains this parable, he does not say the tax collector was justified rather than the Pharisee because the former did not rely on works for his justification. Instead, the Pharisee was not justified because he was guilty of the sin of pride, whereas the tax collector was humble and recognized his need to repent. Jesus even explains why the tax collector rather than the Pharisee was justified: “For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14)—indicating it is the tax collector’s humble, repentant attitude that is the distinguishing factor."

The Parable of the Rich Man and Tax Collector has more than one aspect to it. Further, if faith is not enough to bring about our right standing before God, then it would not make any sense for Jesus to say that the tax collector ended up justified. The only thing that he had was faith. The path of faith is the path of humility. The rich man trusted in his own good works to be pleasing before God. That was the basis of his righteousness. He went away condemned, despite having thought that he was thriving spiritually, rendering his true state all the more delirious and perilous. Therefore, the Pharisee is an ideal illustration of the ultimate failure of a system of righteousness by works. Such efforts get to one's own head and thereby insult God Himself.

"In fact, in the next chapter an actual tax collector, Zacchaeus, repents of his wrongdoings and seeks forgiveness from Jesus. It is only after Zacchaeus declares he will pay back everyone he defrauded that Jesus tells him, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9)."

The desire of Zacchaeus to make restitution to the people that he previously stole from serves as evidence of him having truly repented of his sins. Good works are a consequence or product of a saving faith.

"Finally, MacArthur cites John 5:24, because Jesus said, “He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” But just four verses later Jesus says that, at the final judgment, “All who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

John 5:24 speaks of having eternal life in the present tense. It is said to be immediately in one's own possession at the moment of conversion. John 5:28-29 contrasts the lives of people who placed their trust in Jesus Christ and those who rejected Him. Those who fit into the later category will stand eternally condemned at the last judgment. They never repented of their sins in this life.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Grace Of Growing Days

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

Luke’s closing line on Jesus’ youth is quiet, yet it carries a depth that invites slow reading. It gathers years of hidden life into a single sentence, portraying growth that is steady, harmonious, and whole. Nothing here is hurried. Nothing is dramatic. Yet everything is essential. The verse suggests a life unfolding with a grace that is both deeply human and quietly radiant.

Jesus increases in wisdom, and this growth reflects more than the sharpening of thought. It is the deepening of understanding that comes from living faithfully within the world He Himself sustains. His wisdom unfolds within the quiet fabric of His earthly life, shaped by the steady rhythms of learning, observing, and inhabiting the world He once spoke into being. The mind that will one day speak with unmatched clarity grows here in silence, shaped not by urgency but by the gentle patience of a life fully aligned with the Father.

He increases in stature, and this simple phrase reminds the reader that the incarnation is not symbolic. Jesus grows as every child grows. His body strengthens, His frame expands, His hands learn the weight of tools and the texture of wood. The physical life He assumes is not a disguise but a genuine participation in human experience. The one who upholds all things by His power allows Himself to be upheld by nourishment, rest, and care. His humanity is not diminished by His divinity, nor does His divinity eclipse His humanity. Both move together in quiet harmony.

He increases in favor with God and man. This favor is not the result of public miracles or dramatic displays. It is the natural fruit of a life lived in perfect alignment with the Father’s will and expressed with gentleness among others. Jesus becomes someone whose presence draws trust, affection, and respect. His relationship with God deepens in the way a human life can deepen, through prayer, obedience, and love, and His life within the community reflects that deepening. The favor He receives from others is not accidental; it is the earthly echo of the delight the Father has always had in Him.

Luke’s summary suggests that the most profound preparation for Jesus’ ministry occurs far from public attention. Nazareth becomes the quiet workshop where wisdom, strength, and favor gather in perfect balance. The verse reminds the reader that spiritual formation often happens in seasons that appear uneventful, through the steady faithfulness of ordinary days. In Jesus’ hidden years, divinity does not bypass humanity; it fills it, dignifies it, and reveals its capacity to bear the weight of glory.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Assuming A Sunday Law

Claims of a prophetic Sunday Law are widely accepted within Seventh-Day Adventism, but are unfamiliar to outsiders, including SDA split-off groups. Is Sunday Law inevitable or assumed?

---

Raise your hand if you believe the prophetic mark of the Beast is a mandatory Sunday Law.
I bet if you raised your hand then you've had contact with the Seventh Day Adventist church.
Why?
Because it was originally given by Ellen G White.

An SDA meme supporting Sunday Law

ABD is an Armstrongist blog, but I need to go on a side quest today. I had a brief chat with ABD author Child Survivor on a certain SDA page on social media and now the algorithm thinks I'm SDA. Ever since, I have been inundated with AI-generated graphics like you see here.

The proof text in this image, Revelation 13:11-17, shows up over and over again in Sunday Law claims. But this selection only talks about a Beast and a mark. The Bible is not precise about what either of those two are. Few details given. If it were precise, we would not need anything else; we would just point to the verses and there you go. Nothing in the Bible directs us when to go to church, or that Satan is the Lord of worshipping the true God on a certain day, or anything like that.
My point is, Revelation 13 is not evidence but the end of a long line of conclusions that must be accepted first.

Being an Armstrongist background and not SDA, I have never been exposed to that line of conclusions. I've never had Sunday Law explained to me before. So, I asked for someone to explain it to me like I'm a Sabbath-keeper who isn't from the SDA church. The only response came from a woman who said (and I paraphrase), prophecy tells of a little church who keeps the Ten Commandments and is persecuted because they won't accept the mark of the Beast.
That's pretty much all she said.

Now, do I believe that was genuinely a good explanation of it? No. Judging from other material the algorithm forces in front of me, I am certain someone else would explain it differently, certainly in more detail, maybe including Ellen G White's prophecies. However, what I do believe is that these were the core highlights, the bare minimum that this woman accepted and thought I needed. And I do believe this will be enough to work with.

But let's stop and think a minute.

Is it true that little church + Commandments + mark of Beast = Sunday Law? So true that everyone should preach this wherever they can and all across social media, with hundreds of AI-generated memes? There are entire "ministries" whose whole message is, “Sunday Law is coming.” Is there really no other reasonable conclusion one could reach from stringing together these three ideas? For example, should I doubt my own sanity if I propose little church + Commandments + mark of Beast = Friday Law?? (Who is the Lord of Friday?)
"Little church + Commandments + mark of Beast" is straight in line with Armstrongism. They even believe they will be persecuted for observing Sabbath. Yet they have no general teachings about Sunday Law. How can other groups accept every detail but still miss the conclusion?
(The answer is Ellen White, of course. But don't jump there yet or we can't investigate the claim.)

Something is not adding up. Let's deconstruct the claim.

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER

The conclusion has been constructed from layers of assumptions:

We assume the little flock Jesus spoke of is an end-time prophecy. →
We assume we are that little flock. →
We assume the little flock is the same as the 144,000 of Revelation 7 & 14 →
We assume the little flock is little because of some unpopular difference in doctrine. →
We assume that doctrinal difference is specifically a keeping of the Ten Commandments →
We assume the key difference is with the Sabbath Commandment in particular →
We assume the way to keep the Sabbath Commandment is to go to church on Saturday. →
We assume going to church on Saturday is that doctrinal difference. →
We assume going to church on Saturday is the mark of God in the New Testament. →
We assume the opposite of church on Saturday is church on Sunday. →
We assume anyone who goes to church on Sunday will be in league with the Beast. →
We assume church on Sunday is the mark of the Beast. →
We assume the Beast persecutes Saturday worship. →
We arrive at the conclusion that the way the Beast persecutes Sabbatarians is by a Sunday Law.

Someone might say to me they do not affirm every one of these steps. But some version of each step must be assumed somewhere along the way for the conclusion to hold. If anything, I've left several steps out (I'm purposefully ignoring Sabbath seal given to Israel).
Another might say to me these are proven points not assumptions. I disagree. Just because you strongly believe a point does not mean it's proven. Us humans have a hard time telling the difference between facts and familiarity. Our emotions tend to override our rationality (feel trumps real). Many of these points are about prophecy; prophecy that has not come to pass yet. And that makes them speculative at best. If the proofs for these individual steps are built on the same kind of reasoning as the Sunday Law they lead up to (and they are), then I wouldn't agree we should use the word "proof".

Here's a little secret. Today's post is not really about Sunday Law, it's about assumptions, evidence, and proof, and being able to tell the difference.

I stand by my claim Sunday Law is built on a chain of assumptions.
It's not explicit in the Bible. It's not taken from history. It's not in early church teachings. It's not something a person would typically come to completely on their own. It often ignores as much as it includes. It's rarely taught in other churches; even Sabbatarian churches; even Sabbatarian churches with a strong focus on Pre-Tribulation end-times prophecy. It doesn't take any other possibilities into account. It's predictions keep failing. And, frankly, it's not particularly logical.
In places it's circular. (How do you know you're part of the little flock? Because I keep the Sabbath. How do you know you're supposed to keep the Sabbath? Because I'm part of the little flock.) In other places it's non sequitur. (How do you know the little flock and the 144,000 are the same? Because both are little.)

And, unspoken in all of this is one more assumption: it is anti-Catholic. Not anti-Islam, nor anti-Orthodox, not anti-Progressivist, nor anti-atheist, but anti-Catholic. That thread runs throughout the entire chain. Why can't Friday Law be a possibility? Because Sunday Law is at heart anti-Catholic, and the Catholics don't go to church on Friday. It is a polemic from the 1800s that has not adapted to 150 years of time.

I fully grant that there have been laws enacted in the past regarding Sunday. Who would deny it? But past Sunday laws merely demonstrate Sunday legislation is possible, not inevitable. They do not come remotely close to proving that “mark of the Beast = Sunday Law" is correct.

(For more on Sunday laws in the past, see "Constantine vs The Sabbath".) 

LITTLE FLOCK

Let's dig into that "little flock" a bit (LUK. 12:32). 

The SDA church (and many besides) adopt biblical terms for themselves, like "remnant". When we boil it all down, the idea is to get the prophecies to refer to themselves; to make themselves the star of the show. But how can they? There is absolutely no way to prove this out before it happens.

First, we have to assume terms like "little flock" are prophetic. As if Jesus never intended the mustard seed to grow (LUK. 13: 19).
Second, not just prophetic but end-time prophetic. When I read Luke 12, I don't see Jesus intending to skip 2,000 years of time and speak only about the Father caring for some end-time church.
Third, we have to assume the SDA church is that end-time church. But what of all the other Sabbatarian (and non-Sabbatarian) churches who make this same claim about being the little flock? Armstrongism claims to be the 144,000, and they claim the SDA are a false church led by a false prophetess. Which is right? Armstrongism is a lot smaller!
Fourth, we have to assume little flock and the 144,000 are the same. I see nothing in the Bible to support this.
Fifth, we have to ignore stated details. The 144,000 are associated with Israelite tribes. We have to ignore almost everything about it except the number to reach this conclusion. The Messianic Jews are a much better match than the SDA.
Sixth, we have to ignore that the SDA church is not little. Let's be honest. You can't just barely miss a list of top ten churches in the world by size and still call yourself little. There are thousands of denominations and most of them are smaller than the SDA.
Seventh, 25 million people cannot all claim to be the 144k. Do the math. 144 thousand is one half of one percent of 25 million. The odds of any single SDA member making that number are slim. "We are the true church because 99.5% of us won't make it," is neither convincing nor hopeful.
Eighth, we have to completely ignore the innumerable multitude from Revelation 7:9. One church cannot be a little flock and an "innumerable multitude" at the same time.

I think that list is long enough. Do you see what I'm driving at here? Everything here is concocted; nothing is proved. The conclusion was reached at the start, then verses had to be found to make it look like they did the math. This illustrates why I personally do not trust prophetic interpretation. It cheats. It's a game. Not surprisingly, it always ends up with exactly what the person doing the speculating wanted to begin with. Seriously, have you ever heard of a church who claimed, "We looked into it, but we feel we aren't that church"?

I'll say it, then.
I've read Revelation 7, and seeing as I am not at all descended from Israel, I feel I am not one of the 144,000.
Was that so hard?

TWO FINAL ASSUMPTIONS

I want to drive this home with two more critical assumptions.

The deepest and most fundamental assumption for today is: Ellen G White is a prophetess of God. Sunday Law depends upon this, whether you recognize it or not. 

I am not going to attack Ellen G White. This is a blog about Armstrongism. However, you will find that the ultimate source of the claim is Ellen White, and the ultimate refuge of the claim is Ellen White. Before Ellen, many tried to identify the Beast and its mark, but it was Ellen who first popularized the Sunday Law within Adventism (whether it was originally her idea or not). So, it all stands and falls with her.
Ellen + prophet = Sunday Law.

The last assumption is the always near but never realized future. Or, put another way, kicking the can down the road and moving the goal posts.

In the mid-1800s, this Sunday Law was supposed to be very soon. "Sooner than you think." Unlike Herbert Armstrong, Ellen had learned the lesson from William Miller's failure about the danger of setting hard dates. She preferred to stay more vague. However, for the past 170 years this Law has been immediately about to occur. Sunday Law may not have been tied to hard dates, but it was tied to time and events.

As for the time --
"Soon" is not a date but it is a time. I don't see how not having a hard date which comes and goes makes it any better than saying "soon" which comes and goes ...multiple times. To whom else would this kind of leeway be given? If your kids said they would clean "sooner than you think" but 150 years later the house wasn't clean, how would you feel about the accuracy of their statement? Or let's say you get a fortune cookie that predicts you will come into a large sum of money "sooner than you think", but 150 years later you're still broke, how would you feel about the predictive abilities of that cookie?

As for the events --
"Blue Laws" in the United States, development of the European Union, statements from the Pope, movements in Protestantism, religious debates in the West, wars, and many other things have all been said to be the event that has started the initiation of Sunday Law. ("Has started", past tense.) All of this was supposed to be in motion already ...150 years ago. More recently, it was supposed to begin in earnest under Pope Francis. Well, he's dead now. Time to update the memes to Pope Leo. And they have! There were SDA all up in arms about Donald Trump encouraging a national Saturday Sabbath for the Jews in honor of America's 250th birthday. How'd that turn out? Here is a comment I saw in response to the Trump's proclamation: "People it's happening, wake up! Prophecies are being fulfilled..." Yeah. That must have been it.

You can literally do the opposite of a Sunday Law and it's proof of a Sunday Law. If everything is evidence, then nothing is.

What was it God said about prophecies (DEU. 18: 20-22)?

All of the predictions come and go. This is not unique to Sunday Law by any means. It is the same pattern across the board with end-times predictions. But at some point, the number of times "it's beginning right now" has been claimed and failed to come about must be considered. "It has failed a hundred times but it hasn't been proven wrong yet," is just kicking the can down the road. It's an intellectually dishonest way out. Moving the goal posts and trying again is not noble.

When I pointed out these manifold failures to one person, they quoted I Peter 3:1-9 at me, then finished it up with, "You’re saying the same thing that many people have said, but God knows the timing he’s wanting All to repent… And become part of his good kingdom and not have to experience the hell of the second death!"
God is wanting all to repent. But pointing out the undeniable fact that predictions of Sunday Law have failed over and again is not even remotely the same as denying Jesus will return. And I think this reveals the heart of the problem. Some people can no longer tell the difference.

Or perhaps they can but they refuse to, because they need Sunday Law to make them feel special. That would explain much. Perhaps Sunday Law isn't about the future at all, it's about the self. Legalism has a way of making a person feel inadequate. One needs something to latch onto to bring the self back up again. Sunday Law could be the vehicle the ego craves. Just a thought.

CONCLUSION

Does Revelation 13 say Sunday worship is the mark of the Beast? No.
Is Ezekiel 20 an end-times prophecy intended for a general audience? No. It says who the message was for. Seriously, have you read it? It's mainly a recap of the Exodus.
So, do proof-texts like these prove a Sunday law? No. One must already accept a Sunday law in order to think they do, which is why so many don't think they do. Sunday law is being forced into these verses, not taken from them.

The Sunday law teaching is doing so very much, yet it's so fragile. If any one of the major assumptions fails, it could topple the entire structure. What if some other group is the little flock? Or what if it's Tuesday Law?

How many prooftexts taken completely out of context do I need in order to prove a thing? 1? 5? 20? Can I say, "Sure, these verses have almost nothing to do with my conclusion, but I have several of them, so I'm right!" ??   No.
There is a 144,000, but we haven’t proven who they are, we’ve only assigned who they are. There is a mark, but we haven’t proven what it is, we’ve only asserted. There is a persecution, but we haven’t proven what form it will take, we’ve only projected.
Those points should reveal that in the end of the matter we haven’t genuinely proven Sunday Law or its underlying assumptions.

Am I saying there will be no Second Coming or end times or mark of the Beast? On the contrary! What I argue against is eisegesis and presenting prophetic speculation as settled truth. Is the mark of the Beast a mandatory Sunday Law enacted to torment the true church right where they are most vulnerable? No one but God knows for certain, but I sincerely doubt it based on the evidence provided and the track record so far.

Today's post isn't really about Sunday Law. Today's post is about thinking. It's about proper Bible study, logic, and standards of evidence. It's about assumptions and beloved traditions. And it's about knowing the difference.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************