Collision With Prophecy

Collision With Prophecy #16:
America in Prophecy

Introduction

Well, this evening we've arrived squarely at the core of our series. Our purpose has been to explore the biblical facts about the mark of the beast. Tonight we will plainly identify that mark. If you are here for the first time, then welcome; but I have a caution for you. We have spent, in our fifteen previous meetings, much energy and time laying the foundation for what we are about to share. If you're here for the first time, then you've missed several hours worth of crucial background material. Without it, what you hear this evening may sound quite new. Therefore I want to, now as we begin, suggest that before you finalize your reaction about what we share, that you look at the materials from our previous meetings. And feel free to approach us with any questions you may have.

Review of Interpretational Methods

While we have a lot of material for tonight, it is fitting that we pause as we begin this meeting to remind ourselves of the principles of interpretation that we have discussed. If we want to end right--to conclude our study with a sound conclusion in hand--then we need to begin right. For this reason we have focused on principles of biblical interpretation.

People have said that the Bible is "the book with the answers in the back," but we've seen how it actually is the book with the answers in the front. The book of Revelation refers to the other books of the Bible nearly 500 times in its 22 brief chapters (some of them as short as eight verses in length). If we want to rightly understand the meaning of the book of Revelation, we need to start with its text and then work backward to the originating events in the portions of the Bible coming before it. Those original stories, in their context, give us the background needed to rightly interpret their meaning as presented in the book of Revelation.

We are not interested in the random opinions, or even the learned opinions necessarily, of philosophers, theologians, preachers, or randomly speculative people. We simply wish to know what God has to say about prophecy in His Word--the Bible. Therefore, the historic interpretive method found in the Scripture itself, and used four hundred years ago in the Protestant Reformation, of letting Scripture interpret Scripture is how we discover meaning. We do not let tradition, church leaders or councils, or random scatter-brained or even clever and rational sounding explanations act as the final baseline to determine meaning. The Word interprets itself.

We let the whole Bible have its proper weight in interpretation. We do not subdivide the Bible off into theological pigeon-holes, dispensations, arbitrary reassignment to "Jewish" versus "Christian" sections, etc. One Bible of 66 books, "all Scripture," is the divine base of ultimate authority preserved for us and placed into our hands after 2000 years. There's a reason why God preserved it that way.

When we study the Bible, we are careful to observe context. A Scripture verse is part of a larger whole: a block of Scripture, a chapter, a book, a class or type of Scripture (history, epistle, wisdom literature, etc.). We can focus on a verse--nothing wrong with that. But we ought not to arbitrarily isolate it from the very block of Scripture of which it is a part. Context impacts meaning, but it works both ways; a verse may contain a particular nugget of truth that legitimately interacts with the rest of Scripture. Context has varying levels. Context does not overrule or trump a verse in its specific form. Nor does a verse stand entirely independent of the context in which it is found. Scripture has automatic authority, whether taken in large chunks or small ones. The interpretation of an isolated fragment is an interpretation of an isolated fragment. Scripture is Scripture and interpretation is interpretation. The interpretation of God's infinite Word always comes through the lense of a finite human mind. However, if we obey the Word we will know what is truth.

We seek not necessarily "literal" interpretation, but "sound" interpretation, including symbolic. Care need be taken when interpreting the figurative, symbolic, parabolic, or typological elements of Scripture. Their nature makes them easier to misunderstand. But at the same time, it is nonsense to insist that all Scripture be interpreted literally. All Scripture is not meant to be interpreted literally. A section like Genesis chapters 1-11 gives no hint that it is meant to be understood figuratively--so, we take it literally. A passage like Daniel chapter seven gives no hint that it is meant to be understood literally--so we take it figuratively. We let the Word be the Word.

Prophecy is centered in Christ, not middle eastern oil or micro-technology and computer chips. Jesus said, of all the Scriptures, (thus including the prophetic), "These are they that testify of Me." Interpretations of prophecy that find their focus in various schemes of Middle East war scenarios are suspect.

When we study the Bible's apocalyptic passages, we find that God doesn't shove prophetic fulfillment lock, stock, and barrel, all off into the future or all off into the past. Instead, the image in Daniel chapter two shows that prophecy and history fulfill steadily and sequentially, stretching out through all of time.

Letting the Scriptures interpret themselves brings to light illuminating insights, such as the Biblically exonerated year-for-a-day principle. In apocalyptic time prophecies, a day stands for a year. We see this repeatedly in the books of Daniel and Revelation.

When we let the Bible do the interpreting, we come to a whole different outlook than when we let the Hal Lindseys of this world do it. No, historicism has not produced any New York Times Best-Sellers lately. But this is the real thing we are talking about here. Sensationalism is not our goal, but letting the Scriptures speak for themselves and make sense, is. We want to hear God's Word of truth and His command to us. No other goal is suitable for Bible-believing people.

Review of "America in Prophecy."

Now let us briefly review our presentation from the last meeting, America in Prophecy. We started by reminding ourselves of the Scripture's testimony concerning the first beast (see CWP#8 for that detailed interpretation). There, the evidence of prophecy and history led to the unmistakeable conclusion that the beast of Revelation 13:1-10 was the Roman Catholic Church System.

As we pursued our study then of the second beast, found in Revelation 13:11-18, we worked carefully. We found the second beast rising out of the earth (Revelation 13:11), a sparsely populated area, in contrast to the first beasts rise from the sea, a densely populated area (Revelation 13:1; 17:15). We saw that its governance had two horns, uniquely answering to the United States in that time frame. The United States government is founded upon two key principles (Revelation 13:11): representative government in which the people have a voice, and liberty of conscience in which they have freedom of religion. We saw that this nation begins bearing a lamb-like appearance, but in the end repudiates its own principles, speaking "as a dragon." We saw that the first beast power was responsible for the inquisition, for torture, for persecution; that a minimum of 50 millions (in a world with a much smaller population than the present) died rather than submit their consciences to the whims of the powerful church-and-state mixture prevailing during those years of Papal supremacy.

We saw that the second beast "exercises all the power of the first beast" in its presence--that the deadly wound would, finally, be healed, and the power arising at the time of the deadly wound (A. D. 1798) eventually would command its subjects to worship the first beast. We saw that only one power fits these identifying marks for the second beast. There is one fit only: the United States of America will, after repudiating the principles upon which it was founded, demonstrate through its use of force that it is the second beast of Revelation 13:11-18. It will form, through the speaking of its legislative and judicial bodies, an "image to the beast," and through some observance that will be an act of worship to the first beast, coerce its citizens to accept the mark of the beast, giving their homage to the Papacy.

We were not happy to present this.

That's where we had to stop at the end of our last meeting. But now let's continue. Let's get specific. What is this observance that the United States government will force upon its citizenry, and what, after all, is the mark of the beast?

The Image and the Seal

Turn the pages of your Bible now to Revelation 13:13-15. Let us read together:

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

It should be plain from those verses that the second beast (the United States)--through the "great wonders" that it does ("those miracles" which he has power to do in the presence of the Papacy)--will, as in the original showdown between Elijah and the Baal prophets, lead the people of this country to conclude that what the government (in its role as an agency especially understood to be speaking for God) is doing is God's will. They will think the lamb-like beast is acting as Jesus would want it to. They will see these miracles as evidence that God is on the side of our nation's leaders when they seek to enforce this observance which will be an act of homage to the Papacy.

Now we need to determine what this is. What sign would most especially mark the authority of the first beast? Remember what we've found. There is a competition between the mark of the beast and the seal of God for everyone's forehead. Scripturally, the forehead represents rebellion and firmness. The Bible gives positive incidents (Exodus 28:38; Jeremiah 3:8-9; Ezekiel 16:12) and negative ones (1 Samuel 17:49; 2 Chronicles 26:19-20; Jeremiah 3:3; Revelation 14:9; 17:5). In the end of course, God's people will be firmly for God, and Satan's people will be firmly for Satan. But it is all in the mind. The thoughts and feelings make up the character, and the thoughts and feelings are only expressed through the actions of people. The actions of people come from their brain, and their brain is in their head, with its primary reasoning centers in connection with the "frontal lobe." How apt then the Creator's reference to the forehead.

It seems plain that Satan wants to put a "do-it-yourself" salvation scheme into the mind, while God wants to put an "I'll-provide-the-power, you-choose-to-believe" salvation plan there. The salvation plan that you or I finally personally accept will be concretely demonstrated in our life. Our actions will show to whom we are being faithful: to our Creator, or the one desiring to substitute as our object of worship.

We saw that God is sealing His people, a process involving our acceptance of His salvation plan, our becoming settled into a habitual reliance upon His power for change. For this purpose He has provided a day unique among all days, which the Bible calls the seventh day Sabbath. This day, the first thing called holy in all the Bible (Genesis 2:3, "sanctified"), is a day to remember our relationship with Him. He is our Creator, we are His creatures. We are His by creation and His by redemption. Thus the Sabbath is the holy day of a holy God designed to help a needy people to become a holy people. It cannot be changed, substituted, adjusted, revised, switched-around, tweaked, or cavalierly set aside. Made for man (Mark 2:27-28), it remains still God's holy day (Isaiah 58:13-14).

This point of God's Ten Commandment law is the only one directly dealing with time. Satan, through the "little horn" power of Daniel seven, was prophesied to press his attack upon God and His people by taking away the daily (Daniel 8:11) and by attacking God in regard to time (Daniel 7:25). The Sabbath commandment contains in its lines the explicit reference to God as our Creator along with reference to His ownership of the earth. Let's look at this part of the Ten Commandments again:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:8-11).

That's quite plain; quite plain indeed. The seventh day is God's holy Sabbath day. It's the day containing His seal. It is the last day of the week too, the one with which He seals each and every week. It is a day that also as a moral matter, God's law requires our refraining from common secular labor upon. Thus, it is a benchmark for us, an outward revealer of what is on the inside. When we know it is God's will for us to observe His day, we cannot violate it. It's just that simple. It is our God's day. It is Jesus' day. Therefore, it must also be our day.

Put simply, very simply, in the end of time, God's holy people will keep His holy day. Those undergoing sealing, will be observing also the day of His seal. Their inward worship in Spirit and truth (John 4:23), will find its expression outwardly in their observance of His Sabbath. Those finally sealed will be keeping the Creator's seventh day.

In sharp contrast to this, we've already seen that those refusing to give their worship to God will not just walk away from Him, but will be deceived into accepting the worship of a counterfeit observance. The "mark of the beast" is in competition with the "seal of God." It will be a counterfeit observance issuing from an origin point in the first beast of Revelation thirteen. And what could that be?

I'm going to share now with you some important statements. I want you to hear them loud and clear.

Quotations From Catholicism About Her Mark

"Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles . . . From the beginning to the end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900.

"Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the [Roman Catholic] Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath." John Gilmary Shea, in the "American Catholic Quarterly review," January 1883.

"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church." Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ "News," March 18, 1903.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the [Catholic] Church has power to institute festivals of precept [to command holy days]?"

"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her: she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 176.

"Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping of Sunday. Compromise is impossible." "The Catholic Mirror," December 23, 1893.

"God simply gave His [Catholic] Church the power to set aside whatever day or days, she would deem suitable as holy days. The church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy days." Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, p. 2.

"Protestants . . . accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change . . . But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that in accepting the Bible, in observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope." "Our Sunday Visitor," February 5, 1950.

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter, dated June 20, 1894.

"Not the Creator of the Universe, in Genesis 2:1-3,--but the Catholic Church 'can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days.'" S. C. Mosna, "Storia della Domenica, 1969, pp. 366-367.

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." "The Catholic National," July 1895.

"If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church." Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See [the Vatican] and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world." A Decree of the Council of Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, The Most Holy Councils, vol. 13, col. 1167.

"It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest [from the Bible Sabbath] to the Sunday . . . Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church." Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

"We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." Peter Geiermann, CSSR, A Doctrinal Catechism, 1957 ed., p. 50.

"We Catholics, then, have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday holy instead of Saturday as we have for every other article of our creed, namely, the authority of the Church . . . whereas you who are Protestants have really no authority for it whatever; for there is no authority for it [Sunday sacredness] in the Bible, and you will not allow that there can be authority for it anywhere else. Both you and we do, in fact, follow tradition in this matter; but we follow it, believing it to be part of God's guardian and interpreter; you follow it [tradition], denouncing it all the time as a fallable and treacherous guide, which often 'makes the commandments of God of none effect' [quoting Matthew 15:6]." The Brotherhood of St. Paul, The Clifton Tracts, vol. 4, Tract 4, p. 15

"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant." "The Catholic Universe Bulletin," August 14, 1942, p. 42.

"Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [ of the Sabbath to Sunday] was her act . . . And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power." From the Office of Cardinal Gibbons, through Chancellor H. F. Thomas, November 11, 1895.

Those references from a variety of sources speak completely for themselves. The situation is completely plain. The Roman Catholic Church itself claims to have changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday on its own authority. This is beyond disputation. But now you might ask, what of Protestantism? Do they have anything to say in the matter? Oh yes, they surely do . . .

Quotations From Protestantism in Regard to the Sunday Change

Baptist: "There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament--absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week." Dr. Edward. T. Hiscox, author of The Baptist Manual, cited from his own report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in the "New York Examiner", November 16, 1893.

Congregationalist: "It is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath . . . The Sabbath was founded on a specific divine command. We can plead no such command for the observance of Sunday . . . There is not a single line in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday." Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, pp. 106-107.

Lutheran Free Church: "For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday, then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has had the right to do it?" George Sverdrup, A New Day.

Protestant Episcopal: "The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day . . . but as we meet with no Scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church." From an explanation of the Episcopal Catechism.

Presbyterian: "There is no word, no hint in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. The observance of Ash Wednesday, or Lent, stands on exactly the same footing as the observance of Sunday. Into the rest of Sunday, no divine law enters." Canon Eyton, in The Ten Commandments.

Anglican: "And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh, but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day." Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pp. 334.

Methodist: "It is true that there is no positive command for infant baptism. Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week. Many believe that Christ changed the Sabbath. But, from His own words, we see that He came for no such purpose. Those who believe that Jesus changed the Sabbath base it only upon a supposition." Amos Binney, Theological Compendium, pp. 180-181.

Southern Baptist: "The sacred name of the seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument. [Exodus 20:10 quoted] . . . On this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages . . . Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week.--That folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh." Joseph Judson Taylor, The Sabbatic Question, pp. 14, 15, 16-17, 41.

American Congregationalist: "The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament." Dr. Lyman Abbot, in the "Christian Union," June 26, 1890.

Christian Church: "Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath is changed, or that the Lord's day came in the room of it." Alexander Campbell, in "The Reporter," October 8, 1921.

Disciples of Christ: "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day 'the Lord's Day.'" Dr. D. H. Lucas, in the "Christian Oracle," January 23, 1890.

Baptist: "To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' discussion with His disciples, often conversing with upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false glosses [Jewish traditional practices], never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject.

Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a saced legacy to Protestantism."

Dr. Edward. T. Hiscox, author of The Baptist Manual, cited from his own report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in the "New York Examiner," November 16, 1893.

The Mark of the Beast Is . . .

Can there be any question? The mark of the beast is the observance of the first day of the week. This mark distinguishes those who acknowledge the supremacy of the papal authority from those who acknowledge the authority of God. The first day of the week is a substitution for the true Sabbath, a pagan counterfeit not commanded in the Bible, Old Testament or New. Not a one of the heroes of the Bible every kept it--not a one! They kept the seventh day Sabbath, from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night.

When the Sunday observance is enforced by law, the United States will have formed an image to the beast. The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the first beast of Revelation thirteen. Those who, understanding the claims of the fourth commandment, choose to observe the false Sabbath in the place of the true, are paying homage to that power by which alone it is commanded. The mark of the beast is the papal Sabbath, which has been accepted by the world in the place of the God's holy day.

Don't misunderstand me. No one yet has received the mark of the beast. The final testing time has not yet concluded. There are true Christians in every church, including the Catholic. Until people have had opportunity and understood this issue about the fourth commandment, they are not so accountable. But when the decree shall go forth enforcing the counterfeit Sabbath, and this warning against the worship of the beast and his image is heard more forcefully, the line will be clearly drawn. Then those who continue to violate God's law will receive the mark of the beast.

We are rapidly approaching this point. When our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact laws to bind the consciences of men in regard to their religious privileges, enforcing Sunday observance, and bringing oppressive power to bear against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law of God will, to all intents and purposes, be repudiated. When the state enforces its false observance, the papal "Sabbath" will be commanded. This is the final national apostasy that will end in our national ruin. May God help us all.

An Event Line, Part I: 1700s to 1961. (Note: Part II, 1962 to the present will be covered in the first half of CWP#18, "The Last Night on Earth")

Now I told you in our last meeting that tonight we would walk down through a line of events and give you more evidence for what we are saying. Here we go.

Our Earliest Years: Persecution of dissenters. Believe it or not, the early American Colonies, while they were populated so largely by those fleeing religious intolerance in England and on the Continent, did not yet understand well themselves the principles of religious freedom. In fact, in many communities, Sunday observance was commanded by law. The colonies had yet to unite as states, and the Constitution did not yet exist.

Early colonists adopted the idea that only church members should have a say in what happened in civil government. The citizenry were required to contribute financial support to the clergy. The judges of the colonies were authorized to suppress heresy. Persecution was inevitable. Laws in the Massachusetts Colony, for example, enforced church attendance. In the Virginia Colony the legal code also made attendance at Sunday services compulsory. The famous Minister Roger Williams was driven into exile in mid-winter because he opposed mandatory attendance of the citizenry at worship. He finally found refuge with an Indian tribe. Eventually he founded a colony that became the state of Rhode Island.

Deism Among Our Early Statesmen. When the nation was forming and onward for another century, many of our leaders believed in God, but not so clearly as we have been led to believe. Many were deists: those who believe that God did make the world, but that He no longer interferes with it in any strong manner. Many of the earliest American heroes held to varying degrees of deism. But those early Constitutional principles I shared with you in our last meeting were forged and upheld by these men.

Oxford Movement and Protestantism's Slide Back toward Rome. Don't forget what we learned about the Oxford Movement. Between 1833 and 1844 Protestants began to turn their backs on their historic stand on the Antichrist. It was so much warmer and more comfortable to be on friendly terms with Rome!

Events of the Middle 1800s. In the mid-1840's the nation was in a turmoil. We already saw in our earlier meetings that the 2300 day/year prophecy of Daniel chapter eight reached its fulfillment in 1844 and that in heaven the cleansing of the sanctuary then commenced. What you may not be aware of is that in 1844-1845 many churches split north-south. The Baptists split in 1845, the south becoming the Southern Baptists, the northern believers becoming the American Baptists. Most of the churches or denominations you can name experienced similar splitting. Having forsaken obedience to God, denying heaven's prophecies and their fulfillment, stepping back from the requirements of obedience to God's Ten Commandments, they lost their footing and their spiritual power.

Congress and National Sunday Law Debate in 1880s. Some might find this hard to believe. But just stop and think for a moment about what we've found through this series. God's Sabbath was brought to the forefront at this time by a staunch group of Bible-believers who read in the Bible about keeping God's commandments, holiness, and the end-time church stepping out to obey Jesus. But the other churches split north and south, the southern groups upholding slavery, the northern standing against it. But liberalism soon crept into the north and has continued to impact the American Baptist denomination. The lie of futurism also began to take root and soon was gaining massive strength. By the 1880s and 1890s Protestants themselves were pushing the United States Congress to enact a national Sunday law. Fast now was America turning away from following God.

Emergence of Pentacostalism. At the turn of the century Pentecostalism emerged with its emphasis on so-called tongues speaking and experience, so often treate as being of greater authority than Scripture. The influence of the rapidly changing worship practices of people in America through the last two decades of the 1800s is still being felt today in churches embracing rock and roll music in their worship services!

Scofield Reference Bible Influences Millions. By 1909 Cyrus Scofield was publishing his Scofield Reference Bible through Cambridge Press. Futurism was running riot through Christendom. The liberals were swept into Preterist prophetic interpretation while the conservatives swallowed Futurism.

Deadly Wound Begins to Heal. But the Papacy was not silent. The deadly wound received in 1798 began a slow healing process soon after that. Pope Pius VI had been taken prisoner by Berthier in Vatican City in February of 1798. (He was moved three times and finally died in prison on the 29^th of August, 1799. Incidentally, his body was returned to St. Peter's Cathedral in 1802 and then moved to the Vatican Crypt in 1983.) The Papacy was without a Pope until Luigi Baranaba Chiaramonti was elected Pope in 1800 and took the name Pius VII. He had much trouble with Napolean, eventually imprisoned as was his predecessor, but in the end he outlived Napolean by two years, dying in 1823. In the closing years of his Papacy he made progress restoring the Papal states.

The Lateran Treaty Heals the Wound. After Pius VII came Leo XII, then Pius VIII, followed by Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, and then Pius XI. In 1929, after over two years of negotiations, Pius XI signed the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini. In this treaty Rome recognized the Kingdom of Italy, which reciprocated by making its state religion Catholicism. Italy also ceded Vatican City back to Rome. The Vatican was recognized as a sovereign, independent state, separate from Italy. Four years later, in 1933 Pius XI signed a treaty with Germany and Adolph Hitler. In all fairness it must be noted that he turned away from Hitler in 1937. But the pivotal nature of the Lateran Treaty has to be mentioned. The deadly wound seemed greatly healed. But we hadn't seen anything yet!

Supreme Court Fails to Uphold Constitutional Principles. In our last meeting we mentioned the Gobitis children and forced pledging to the American flag. We saw how the Supreme court of the United States ruled that the state could enforce that practice in spite of the Gobitis' religious conscientious objection. But then we saw the highest court in our land, just seven years later, reverse itself and rule that mandatory flag salutes were a violation of the Constitution. The Gobitis's were vindicated, but we learned something tragically true: we cannot count on even the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold our Constitutional freedoms.

Supreme Court Decision on Sunday Laws. I want to take you down now twenty years closer to our day, to the year 1961. At that time the Surpreme Court of the United States ruled on a case that had reached its halls: McGowan v. Maryland. Maryland was enforcing a Sunday closing law against the McGowan's, who were caught buying and selling on Sunday. Here is the official indictment from the text of the Supreme Court decision:

"They were indicted for the Sunday sale of a three-ring loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler and staples, and a toy submarine in violation of Md. Ann. Code. Art. 27,521."

The law of the state of Maryland (a state with a strong Catholic background, hence its name, "Maryland," after the mother of Christ) prohibited the sale on Sunday of many items, although there were several exceptions. Apparently however, there was no exception for staplers or a toy submarine. The violators were charged. The case made its way up through the courts, finally arriving at the United States Supreme Court. Its decision was issued May 29, 1961.

What do you think they decided?

"Held: Art. 27,521 does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or constitute a law respecting the establishment of religion, within the meaning of the First Amendment, which is made applicable to States by the Fourteenth Amendment." The Sunday closing law was upheld, and the conviction was upheld. What is interesting is that the text of this decision is some 75 pages long, and there are an abundance of issues regarding the First Amendment discussed. However, at the very end of the decision we find the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Douglas. His words speak more plainly and eloquently than anything I could share with you tonight. consider with me at some length powerful words from his dissenting opinion:

"The question is not whether one day in seven can be imposed by a State as a day of rest. The question is not whether Sunday can by force of custom and habit be retained as a day of rest. The question is whether a State can impose criminal sanctions against those who, unlike the Christian majority that makes up our society, worship on a different day or do not share the religious scruples of the majority."

"I do not see how a State can make protesting citizens refrain from doing innocent acts on Sunday because the doing of those acts offends the sentiments of their Christian neighbors."

"The 'establishment' clause [of the First Amendment] protects citizens also against any law which selects any religious custom, practice or ritual, puts the force of government behind it, and fines, imprisons, or otherwise penalizes a person for not observing it."

[Justice Douglas quoting Chief Justice Terry of the Supreme Court of California in ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502,509]: "The truth is, however much it may be disguised, that this one day of rest is a purely religious idea. Derived from the Sabbatical institutions of the ancient Hebrew, it has been adopted into all the creeds of succeeding religious sects throughout the civilized world; and whether it be the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian, it is alike fixed in the affections of its followers, beyond the power of eradication, and in most of the States of our Confederacy, the aid of the law to enforce its observance has been given under the pretence of a civil, municipal, or police regulation."

[Douglass writing more now in regard to the Mcgowen v. Maryland case]: "The Court picks and chooses language from various decisions to bolster its conclusion that these Sunday laws in the modern setting are 'civil regulations.' No matter how much is written, no matter what is said, the parentage of these laws is the Fourth Commandment; and they serve and satisfy the religious predispositions of our Christian communities."

"It seems to me plain that by these laws the States compel one, under sanction of law, to refrain from work or recreation on Sunday because of the majority's religious views about that day."

"There is an 'establishment' of religion in the constitutional sense if any practice of any religious group has the sanction of law behind it. There is an interference with the 'free exercise' of religion if what in conscience one can do or omit doing is required because of the religious scruples of the community. Hence I would declare each of those laws unconstitutional as applied to the complaining parties, whether or not they are members of a sect which observes as its Sabbath day a day other than Sunday."

"When . . . the State uses its coercive powers--here the criminal law--to compel minorities to observe a second Sabbath [Sunday in addition to the day they conscientiously observe], not their own, the State undertakes to aid and 'prefer one religion over another'--contrary to the command of the Constitution."

"I dissent from applying criminal sanctions against any of these complainants since to do so implicates the States in religious matters contrary to the constitutional mandate."

"Why should my faith be favored by the State over any other man's faith? With all deference, none of the opinions filed today in support of the Sunday laws [in the Supreme Court's majority opinion upholding Maryland's case] has answered that question."

There you have it. Our government--speaking through its own Supreme Court, if Mr. Justice Douglass is correct, and I hold that he is--has again, as it did in the Gobitis case, acted in a manner to repudiate its constitutionally foundational principles. According to Justice Douglass, in 1961 the United States Supreme Court spoke quite wrongly, in his words, "implicat[ing] the States in religious matters contrary to the constitutional mandate," and in his opinion decided "contrary to the command of the Constitution."

In fact, I would say it more plainly.

Our nation spoke as a dragon.

And will do so again, on a much broader scale. A national Sunday law will be enforced upon this country through its legislators and its Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has in fact already done its part toward this, by deciding that Sunday laws can be considered constitutional. All that's needed now is for such laws to be legislated and enforced.

By the way, we've done some checking, and we still have to finish following through on this, but the best that I can determine, the State of Utah still has Sunday laws on its books which are just not being enforced. I need to verify that.

Remember the Scripture that we worked with tonight, Revelation 13:13-15:

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

How I wish there were some other legitimate explanation. But there is isn't. And sticking our heads in the sand won't help. Its coming on toward us like a freight-train. It is time to take stock of the situation and see where we are going. Where are we spiritually? Are we ready to bow down to the state, to submit to its mark of authority? May God help us.

Conclusion and Preview

Well, our time is more than used-up tonight so I will have to stop. But we still have two meetings to go. In our next, we continue with Jesus and the Last Generation, and then we close with a meeting I've called "the last night on earth." As far as our event-line goes, there is yet more to share, but we'll have to finish the event-line in our last two meetings as we take up where we left off in 1961 with 1962 and on out to our present day. There are more ccrucial developments to review, even in recent years and right up to recent days. The beasts are stirring.

In summary of tonight's meeting, Sunday observance, enforced by the State is the mark of the beast. It is a counterfeit day from a counterfeit religious system antagonistic to God's Ten Commandment law. Those receiving God's seal will observe His holy day (Isaiah 58:13-14), while all the world around them follows the beast. And my appeal to you tonight--the strong thought that I want you to take home and think on--is, which will you have? The mark of the beast, or the seal of God? God has set before us cursing and blessing, death or life.

Choose life.

Let us bow our heads in prayer . . .

Larry Kirkpatrick, Last modified 18 December 2000