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 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 the difference in the Sabbath Commandment →
We assume going to church on Saturday is the mark of God. →
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 means the Beast uses to persecute Sabbatarians is 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.
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. 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 end-times prophecy and Pre-Millennialism. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? (I wrote this post months ago.) 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 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!"
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 the part that remains unspoken: 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
************
No comments:
Post a Comment