Does Ephesians 1:13 Implode SDA "Seal of God" Interpretation?

Does Ephesians 1:13 Implode SDA "Seal of God" Interpretation?

In the last issue of former bi-monthly magazine Proclamation! (turned three-monthly, due to financial constraints), published by former SDA Pastor Dale Ratzlaff with the objective of bashing Seventh-day Adventists and wooing as many as he can to his “new alliance” theology of ambiguity regarding what “law of God” a Christian should now obey (in which it doesn’t match to what Evangelical Christians historically believe and teach), we find a testimony by Carolyn Macomber, former Andrews University employee, who tells a long story, but whose bottom line question would be what is in this segment, of page 4 of said publication:

“In May/June of 2008 I was completely exhausted physically, emotionally, and spiritually. At that time I was attending an interdenominational Bible study called Bible Study Fellowship (BSF). The teaching leader gave out her phone number at the end of the study season, and I called her. We spoke and I shared my exhausted condition with her. Graciously and gently she began to invite me to her home for a meal, for rest, and for conversation. . . One beautiful summer evening, as we sat on her porch, the conversation turned spiritual. Deb spoke of her love of God’s Word, and I responded innocently: ‘I believe in the Bible and the Bible only, to’. Deb replied, ‘No, you don’t’ (She doesn’t fully remember saying that now.) I asked her what she knew of Seventh-day Adventist, and she replied, ‘Not much.’ I left that evening wondering how a woman who definitely loved the Lord and read the Scriptures could miss God’s direct command to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath. Either something was wrong with God, or something was wrong with her. I found out as I began to study that something was wrong with my understanding of God. The Father and the Son in the writings and theology of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were unbiblical. If He had been my example, then sin would have been in Him, and He could not have been the blameless sacrifice for my sin. I began to find that many Seventh-day Adventists teachings were oxymorons.

“From that point I decided I would study the Bible without going to any Ellen G. White writings. If Seventh-day Adventist teaching were truly Biblical, then I should be able to figure out doctrine without the writings of Ellen White. Then came my first ’aha’. According to Adventist teaching, the ‘seal of God’ was the Sabbath; yet I couldn’t find ‘seal of God’ identified as the Sabbath anywhere in the Bible. I did find that the ‘seal of God’ was the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14).

“I felt my foundation for life crumbling, and I experienced a deep crisis of faith. What was true, and how would I know it? Different denominations took the same biblical texts and extrapolate different teachings from them. How would I know what was real and true?

“At this point I began an email dialogue with my friend. I asked her, ‘How do you know what is truth?” her response was interesting. She wrote, ‘Remember Jesus’ words in John 14:6, ‘I am the way, the Truth, and the Life.’ Carolyn, He is the very essence and basis for truth.’ Then I came across a devotional on John 3:16 in a book. “He will take you by the hand and guide you into ALL the truth there is (The Message). I chose to believe I could know what was true about God, Jesus and a salvation, based on the fact that the Holy Spirit had been promised to guide and teach us truth (Jn. 16:5-15).”

She goes on telling how her friend used another text, Mat. 11:28, 29, to point to her that Jesus was the “rest”, concluding that through a “personal study of the Bible” she came to see that “the Old Covenant pointed to Jesus, and the New Covenant verified that He literally was our rest”.

Well, she doesn’t explain what led her to such an “exhausted physically, emotionally, and spiritually” condition she went through. And it was under that mental-confusion condition that she met a lady who, although a religious leader, confessed that knew very little about Seventh-day Adventists’ teachings. That is our first “aha”!

Then she digresses about some “oxymorons teachings” about Jesus having sins to be our example, which IS NOT the understanding of Seventh-day Adventists at all. How about reproducing topics 9 and 10 of the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists to see what OFFICIALLY this church teaches?

9. Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ:

In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)

10. Experience of Salvation:

In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)

Thus, we can see what a big strawman of her own devising Ms. Macomber is fighting against. That shows that her mental confusion that led her to the decision she finally took could have included “forgetfulness”, which we could count as our second “aha”: she “FORGOT” what the SDA teachings really are, and created something of a monstruous idea that doesn’t correspond to what SDA’s really believe and teach regarding both Jesus Christ’s nature and salvation solely by grace.

As to her friend, if Macomber hadn’t forgotten so regrettably what are the REAL SDA views, she could have helped Debbie to know some more of Adventism, especially as she is an educator. But her attitude didn’t help an inch in improving Debbie’s admitted poor knowledge of what are the real views on salvation and on Jesus Christ of the SDA Church. The educator Macomber miseducated her even more conveying to her false notions of 7th-day Adventism, what a shame!

Now, the “seal of God” question deserves a good deal of Bible analysis, so, as God invites: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” -- Isa. 1:18.

Does Ephesians say anything about God’s Spirit REPLACING another seal of God? It doesn’t. By the way, we read in Rom. 4:11:

“And he {Abraham} received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also”.

This text gives us important guidance to understand this question of God’s seal. First of all, it shows that “sign” and “seal” are used as synonyms in the Bible. To have a special “sign” from God is to have a “seal”. Was Abraham destituted of God’s Spirit when he received that “sign” or ‘”seal” of circumcision, which, in his case, is related to his being justified by faith? No way. How come the “father of faith” wouldn’t have been also sealed for salvation through having God’s Spirit? After all it is said regarding him: “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3) had him not God’s Spirit?

Now, Seventh-day Adventists do teach that the Sabbath is God’s seal. That is clearly said in Exo. 31:16, 17 (“Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed”), which is confirmed centuries later through the Prophet Ezekiel (“And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God”— 20:20).

In this context it would be worthwhile to highlight that the Baptists, in their “Doctrinal Declaration” of the National Baptist Convention, of Brazil, quote Exodus 31:14-18 in the footnotes of Topic XV, that deals with the day of observance (in a section they call “Christian Sabbath”) confirming the notion that the commandment related to the rest day, to be totally dedicated to God, is the “sign” between God and His people. That makes very good sense because Atheists, materialists and lax Christians are not characterized as those who dedicate a special period of time to God regularly every week. In the case of the latter, that is done in a way to adjust to their convenience.

[To be concluded in the next thread]

[Conclusion of previous thread]

Regarding the allegation that the “seal of God” is the Holy Spirit, based on Eph. 1:13 and 4:30, there are three considerations to be made:

1 – A document can carry more than one seal to validate it, as any notary office would confirm. Thus, the Spirit is not granted as a divine seal that substitutes another, which is not absolutely indicated in any of these texts.

2 - As the Holy Spirit is granted to all those who accept the terms of the new covenant which God promised to establish with His children who accept Christ [see Heb. 8:6-10 and 10:16] He writes in their hearts and minds what is treated as “My laws” [God’s], and the Sabbath precept enters inescapably in these. Nothing is said that in this process the Lord leaves it out, or maintains it, but changing the sanctity of the seventh to the first day of the week, or leaves the principle of a day of rest as a vague, voluntary and variable practice, that conforms to the conveniences or interests of each believer (or his/her employer).

3 – In Revelation 7:2, 3 an angel is in charge of sealing the servants of God, and angels are not who grant the Holy Spirit.

Could Macomber give us a better explanation to the “three angels message”?

Those who belong to the Adventist faith know how the SDA Church has a very special interpretation of Rev. 14:6-14, which inspires even the Church’s logo. Other day I heard in a religious American TV station a preacher saying, based on these texts, that in the end time three angels will be crossing the skies, preaching the gospel to the Jews! When I heard that I thought in amazement: “How can a preacher of the gospel say such an oxymoron thing?!” I wonder what Ms. Macomber would think of that. Did she become an adherent of such strange view also?

We know very well that the mission of preaching the gospel was assigned to MEN, not to angels. We, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, are the ones who have this task to accomplish (Matt. 28:19, 20), not supernatural beings.

Moreover, by this fantastic interpretation we have a God who discriminates Jew against Jew! For if He is going to send angels to preach the gospel to the last generation of Jews, why didn’t the previous generations have the same privilege? And who would resist to that preaching, knowing that it came from an angel? All would be converted forcefully, under the influence and impact of the supernatural aspect of this preaching itself.

These three angels of Revelation 14 just represent the human messengers with such a task to carry out. The meaning of the word ‘angel’ is exactly ‘messenger’. Now, I think that the Adventist interpretation is so logic, so coherent, so inspiring, and I wonder HOW OTHERS would interpret it. I would love to hear Ms. Macomber giving me her exegesis of these verses to compare with ours. Would she have something better to say regarding these texts?

On the light of Chapter 13 of the same book we see once more that the final conflict will happen regarding genuine versus false worship, as also highlighted in chap. 14:6-14.

The Three Messages and What They Stand For

What we find in the aforementioned chapter 14 of Revelation is a message that centers on the genuine worship to God as Creator of “heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters” in contrast with the denunciation of the false worship.

Let’s compare now the language of Revelation 14:6 y 7 with Exodus 20:11 to come to an important discovery:

“I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the seas, and the fountains of waters” (Rev. 14:6, 7).

“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” (Exo. 20:11).

Both texts are in undeniable parallel. Christianity Today mentioned a time ago that the precept of the day of rest was “the most neglected” among all the Decalogue’s principles. That is precisely where the “memorial of creation” is located. The Creator and His creation are emphasized in this final warning message.

Thus, the final preaching of the “everlasting gospel” is concerned with awakening the world regarding the genuine worship to God as Creator of memorable works, an aspect of the Christian message distorted by the dominant Church in the Medieval Era, something that the Protestant Reformation failed to correct. The result of that can be seen today with so many Catholic and Protestant religious people, even ministers and priests, adhering to modernist notions of evolution of the species, which contradicts the basic teaching of the Scriptures on the so-called “basic trinomial of the Christian faith”—Creation-Fall-Redemption. And in the face of such a militancy of Atheism as never seen before, how important it is for us to highlight this aspect of the Christian message—God, the Creator of everything, Who deserves our special homage for this aspect of His being in relation to our own lives on this planet.

The Contrast Between the Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast

The prophetic text of Revelation also highlights a denunciation of the false worship:

“If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation” (Rev. 14:9, 10).

As in the context we read about a “seal of God” and a competing sign, or “mark of the beast”, and since in Romans 4:11 we see that “sign” and “seal” are synonyms, one has just to understand two things:

a) What is the “seal of God”.

b) What would be the “mark of the beast”.

We have already seen how Exo. 31:16, 18 and Eze. 20:12, 20 confirm that the Sabbath is God’s seal, which is not annulled nor replaced by the granting of the Holy Spirit as “sealing” element in the process of a Christian’s justification. The “sign” or “seal” of circumcision to Abraham didn’t annul nor replace God’s Spirit in his life experience.

But, don’t the texts of Exo. 31:16, 17 and Eze. 20:12, 20 indicate that this sign is between God and Israel? Yes, God established His pact with Israel, but why was that so? Why wasn’t the divine pact established with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Libyans? Anyone who can answer this question will have half way through to understand the whole question. Can Macomber or Ratzlaff answer that for us? If they do, they will come to their “aha” of understanding the truth of the matter, which now seems so confusing in their minds.

David, the inspired psalmist, declared in language that certainly has universal character:

“The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. His work is honourable and glorious: and his righteousness endureth for ever. He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the Lord is gracious and full of compassion” (Psa. 111:2-4).

God even invites the foreigners to participate of the promises of the covenant that He established with Israel, in accordance to His ideal that “my house shall be called an house of prayer to all people” (Isa. 56:2-7). Now, on that point we notice that there is a great ignorance among Christians in general regarding the real reason of God’s choosing the nation of Israel. Most religious people don’t understand that Israel was not elected just for being privileged, but to have a special mission—be “witness of IHWH” and a “light to the Gentiles . . . until de ends of the Earth” (Isa. 43:10 and 49:6).

Israel was supposed to transmit the message of the true God, His law and His plan of salvation to all nations around. So much so that it was placed in a very strategic region of the world even to this day—the cross point of Europe, Asia and Africa. Had Israel fulfilled its mission, the conditions of this planet would be very different, as pictured in the Psalm 67:

“God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah. That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee. O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee. Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us. God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him”.

[NOTE: To see all the discussions about Mr. Ratzlaff's ministry (from the beginning) and how he is unable to answer a few questions addressed to him directly see: http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=86676 ]

Good point, Elder Azenilto.

When I read this verse, I get the understanding that it was the sign of circumcision which sealed the covenant between Abraham and God. This is further confirmed by being how the verse is translated in my Swedish bible. Unfortunately this removes the basis for your argument which follows, within this post. Will you try again?

Vaster,

I didn't get it. In which way what you said removes the basis for Azenilto's argument?

Azenilto argues that Rom. 4:11 proves that the bible regards seal=sign as synonyms. I point out that it is a mere feature of translation that those two words both occur in the same sentence in the KJV translation. Without the sign=seal synonym connection, Azenilto does not have an argument in this thread. To save his point, he will therefore have to substantiate this connection with some additional data which does not hinge upon one verse in one specific translation.

There is little doubt that the words sign (semeion) and seal (sfragis) are closely related in meaning in Rom. 4:11. The sign of the circumcision was the seal of the covenant.

Here is how the three words - sign (semeion), seal (sfragis) and mark (charagma) - are used:

In Revelation we have the seal (sfragis) of God and the mark (charagma) of the beast being put in the foreheads of men.

In Ezekiel 9, the mark which should be put on the foreheads of men is rendered in the LXX as semeion.

So what I see is that the three words - semeion, sfragis and charagma - are closely related in meaning, and all of them refer to the imprinting of a mark of property.

Wow Rosangela,

You have just proven that sign and mark are synonyms, thus further proving (using the same reasoning as in this threads initial posts) that every verse which use the word "sign" can at will be replaced with the word "mark". I am unsure of whether this connects Ezekiel 9 to the mark of the beast or the other way around though. Further study will have to show if it is the angle in Ezekiel who administers the mark of the beast to the righteous or if it is the beast who gives his worshipers the mark of the angle in Ezekiel 9.

Seriously, do you see how ridiculous this way of doing "biblestudy" is? Or do you fail to do so on the basis that the first (Azenilto) "proves" what you already regard being true whereas this second example does not do so? The method is exactly the same in both cases so any difference must be rooted in your preconceived understanding of the points being made.

Vaster,

Semeion in Ezekiel 9 is translated as "sign" in our Portuguese version. The way the words are translated - mark, sign or seal - is irrelevant. It's obvious that the three words, as I said, refer to the imprinting of a mark of property. God has His own mark and Satan has his own mark. The writer of Revelation just uses a different (although synonymous) word in order to make a clear distinction between the marks. It's obvious that the meaning of the three words is closely related. It seems to me your preconceived ideas prevent you from seeing this.

Rosangela,

The core issue here is, of course, if Pauls sentence in Romans give you free leave to read "seal" where Moses writes "sign". Both words occur in Romans in the same sentence, but is the sentence constructed in such a way that Paul is in effect saying to us "seal and sign are always interchangeable in the bible, irrespective of who wrote the particular book or when it was written". Would you or Azenilto at least try to prove that this is in fact what Paul is saying here?

Extrapolating a grammatical point from one sentence to make the foundation for one of the SDA unique points of doctrine, can you at least admit that you understand why I find this a very weak foundation, even a sandy beach?

Vaster,

No, seal and sign are not always interchangeable in the Bible. Not even the same word has always the same meaning in the Bible. "Seal" in Rev. 7:2 represents one thing, in Rev. 8:1 another thing, and in Rev. 20:3, still another thing. So the key is looking at the context.
The word "sign," either in Hebrew or in Greek, is "a distinguishing mark." The Sabbath was a distinguishing mark of the children of God, showing that they belonged to the Lord. The same was true of the circumcision. The same was true of the blood on the doorposts on the occasion of the Exodus.
The New Testament also speaks of a distinguishing mark of the children of God in connection with the Holy Spirit.
And in Revelation it is also clear that the seal is a distinguishing mark of the children of God in the last great crisis. It is also clear that it is opposed to the mark of the beast, which will be the distinguishing mark of the enemies of God at that time.
What is very questionable, which Azenilto correctly points out, is the argument that, since the New Testament says that the seal of God is the Holy Spirit, the seal mentioned in Revelation can be nothing else. To begin with, the New Testament doesn't say that the Holy Spirit is the seal, but that the believers were sealed with the Spirit, or in the Spírit. Maybe the Spirit is not the seal itself, but a sealing agent; or maybe both the manifestations of the Spirit are a seal and He is a sealing agent.
Going back to the seal of God in Revelation. I think the clue for us to understand what the seal of God is in Revelation is the message of the third angel:

"Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.' Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."

The ones who are mentioned in contrast with them that receive the mark of the beast are "those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." It's on this basis that we can conclude that the mark of the beast is related to the keeping of the commandments of God. And, since we know that almost the totality of Christendom keeps Sunday, it's probable this will be the point of truth especially controverted. And when we add the fact that God calls the Sabbath a sign between Him and His people, things begin to fall into place.

AgreedEven though a sign and a seal both have a distinguishing purpose, it seems they are thus in quite different ways. As the following example shows, the sabbath is a sign which is maintained by both parties taking part in it together. Exodus 31:16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever;

A seal on the other hand, while being a distinguishing mark, is so through the authority of the one who does the sealing. Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[a] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Both thus distinguish the people of God but in fundamentally different ways. The sign through the partaking of the covenant and its promises and stipulations, while the seal is entirely founded on the authority and power on the part who bestows it. This is further support for the sabbath being a sign of the people of God while the Holy Spirit being the seal of the people of God. Incidentally exactly what the bible teaches. Unfortunately removing the base of interpretation for one verse of apocalyptic prophecy. I agree that there may be several different seals, the revelation itself uses the imagery of the seven seals to one document. So the question arises, which seals does the bible speak about. Having established that sign does not mean seal, there is no biblical foundation (at least any that has been presented here, which I am convinced it would have been had it existed) for identifying the sabbath as a seal. The Holy Spirit is mentioned as a seal of the righteous. Ephesians 1:13 has been mentioned, but Ephesians 4:30 is even more clear and to the point. 2 Timothy chapter 2 suggests that the gospel may be a seal when it says:

14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"[a] and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Setting the solid foundation firm against false doctrine, and identifying as its seal two phrases from the law and the prophets, ie the bible as Paul knew it.
The two seals thus seem to be the Holy Spirit and His collected teaching throughout the ages.
First we may want to widen the definitions a little. In Johns first letter, we can read a clear definition of what he meant by Gods commands:

1 john 3:21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

and

1 john 5: 1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

We thus see that identifying "commandments" with the verses of exodus chapter 20 is in fact limiting the verses in revelation. Or to hear it in Jesus own words, in Matthew chapters 5-7.

Lastly, and digressing from my own point made above, concerning the widespread view that sunday is the christian sabbath, I would ask, which of the 10 commandments is widely kept in our world today?
No Gods before the Lord? Was worship given to things or beings other than God ever as widespread as it is today? Even those who claim to have no god worship at some altar, of commerce or communism or something else.
Such worship of course takes its form from idols.
Misusing the name of God? All who claim to be christian but show no fruit of the Spirit are daily misusing Gods name, dragging it in the dirt.
The sabbath commandment..
Giving honor to ones parents; maybe this is the best kept of the 10, though rapidly decreasing where family structures disappear I image.
Murder, is part of daily life in all to large parts of our world while adultery barely seem regarded as immoral any longer.
Stealing and gossiping lies about others are huge problems in society, now recognized to be measurable on GDP scale.
Finally the last of the ten, coveting what we do not have. Capitalism would cease to work tomorrow if all or even a qualified majority of the world population began to honor this command.

Good point Vaster. I don't have much time to elaborate, but through my studies of the sanctuary, the epods that the high priest wore on his shoulders where made of Onyx(H7718) which means "to blanch".

Anyway, what was interesting was that the names of the 12 tribes of the COI was engraved on the two ephods. Ex 28:11; 39:6,14 And it was to be a "SIGNET"(H2368) meaning "a signature ring" like a kings wears and seal up any laws or important papers with it.

H2368(Signet 9x, Seal 5x) comes from the root word H2856 "SEAL"(18x) which means "to close up, esp. to seal".

From these, my understanding is that we are the Fathers "SIGNET" that Jesus Christ wears on both shoulders. Or we are the Kings ring that seals up all things on earth and in heaven.

The “Mark of the Beast”, End Time Sign Competing With the “Seal of God”

Since in my last article we demonstrated clearly that Ephesians 1:13 does not “implode” SDA interpretation concerning God’s seal (the Sabbath), let’s analyze the “mark of the beast” feature of these end time prophecies.

If there is a “seal of God”, which has to do with genuine worship of God, we all know how the devil along the centuries and millenia of human history especialized in devising counterfeits for everything God establishes. Thus, we can see how his agenda is being fulfilled. It is not an agenda of any particular Church or religious organization, rather the Enemy uses them as he pleases, always intending to deviate God’s people from genuine worship.

That has been his modus operandi. How many times in Israel’s history the people, even their kings, were distanced from God through idolatry! Who was behind all that, but Satan? He even created a “queen of heaven” to whom the people burnt frankincense (Jer. 44:18). And don’t we have in recent times a revised “queen of heaven”, with even campaigns to make her a “co-Redeemer”?!

Would the devil be less active today? Wouldn’t he exert even greater power to distance people from the genuine worship and, if possible, even diminish the glory of the Savior, as he always attempted to accomplish? Didn’t he resort to appealing to be worshipped, in place of God, by Christ Himself, in order to have the Savior worshipping him in the temptation desert? (see Matt. 4).

Before discussing the competing “mark of the beast”, it is important to know that thus far nobody is a bearer of it. Nowhere in the world people are impeded to buy or sell for not having such sign, or mark. But it is predicted that there will be this economic boycott against those who are not willing to participate in a global plan that will involve a decision as to being a bearer of either one of these mentioned signs (see Rev. 13:16, 17).

Characteristics of God’s Seal and the Identification of the “Mark of the Beast”

An imperial seal had three things: the name of the legislator, his function, and the territory of his jurisdiction. For example, Julius Caesar [name], Emperor [position he occupies] of Rome [territory on which he rules]. In the Sabbath commandment we find these three characteristics: the name of the Legislator—God, His position—Creator, and the territory on which He exerts dominion—the heavens, the Earth, the sea and the springs of waters:

“. . . 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” (Exo. 20:10 e 11).

Once it is clear what the “seal of God” is—the Sabbath commandment—it becomes easy to understand what would be the “mark of the beast”. It is certainly the false Sabbath, that institution that the Roman Catholic Church says clearly to have altered by its authority, changing the day of observance from the seventh to the first day of the week and that the Protestants render a homage to her as they dedicate that day to their main worship activities, or sanctify it (which has been rarer lately, since the majority has adhered to the more “user friendly” nodayism/anydayism/everydayism. . .)

That the Roman Catholic Church claims to have been the responsible for that alteration, can be exemplified by some official statements of that Church, such as:

“The Catholic Church . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” – The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

“You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”.—James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.

Another Catholic document confirms it:

“Ques. How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?

“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church”. – Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (same in the Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. By Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p. 67.

Five End Time Scenarios

As we study carefully the prophecies of Revelation 13, 14, 17 and 18 one thing is made clear: the final clashes between good and evil will have to do with genuine versus false worship.

Some time ago I composed an article analyzing five end time scenarios--that of Humanists, Spiritists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Dispensationalists and the last and the one that most clearly is being fulfilled, even after over one and a half centuries of being exposed--that of Seventh-day Adventists.

Even though the data presented is somehow outdated, the gist of what is exposed in said articles, written a few years ago, still demonstrates their total validity. Let’s see:

1st. – Humanistic Scenario. This scenario refers to a pinkish and prosperous future for all, thanks mainly to human developments in the field of science and technology. One can remember the amazing promises of the 60s and 70s for the year 2,000, when it was envisaged that everybody would work less hours, many would remain at their homes working with their computers, going to their workplace only once in a while for socializing, people would retire much sooner, home robots would do most tasks for housewives, the more adventurous ones could have a holiday on the Moon, or perhaps undertake excursions to Mars . . .

However, today the scientists seem the most dismayed people regarding the future of humanity. Despite their scientific and technological achievements having brought so many benefits to the world, they also created terrible conditions in which the very future of the planet is threatened. Just think about New Orleans’ Katrina, caused by climate change due to human activity in confrontation with nature. A story on the CBS TV network, USA, a time ago highlighted how Alaskan villages by the sea must move to higher ground, at a cost of billions of dollars, because of unexpected defrosting of the Poles. As the “greenhouse effect” warms ocean waters. the sea is invading the areas where they had their homes.

Human selfishness is the same and does not change on the face of scientific and technological development. Hence, man himself threatens the survival of the human race. And that to not mention the old threat of nuclear war globally destructive, seen today as reduced with the end of the cold war. But the former threats are being revived by other emerging nuclear powers. . .

In certain scientific panel of around 600 scientists from around the world surveys were publicized on the conditions of our planet, at the request of the UN, concluding that if urgent and comprehensive measures are not taken, we will be marching towards a global catastrophe. The ecological imbalance is an increasingly acute problem everywhere. Several bacteria not existing in certain territories are now advancing to vast areas due to changes in climate and temperature, which affects men, animals and plants. The July 2006 issue of the National Geographic magazine showed widespread contamination of the US coast, and another recent edition of Time magazine presented a scary scenario of mercury pollution affecting wild animals and fish in alarming proportions, not only in North America as also in other continents. But if we leave the land to check what happens at sea, the situation does not look like more encouraging.

These data above are not updated, but does the present conditions show improvement of the crises pointed out? Anyone can tell that the answer is NO!

2nd. – Spiritist’s Scenario. The Spiritists’ worldview shows many similarities with the Humanists’ in their also pinkish scenario of the future of mankind. There is, however, a significant difference--it views the development and progress of mankind thanks to the endless “law” of reincarnation. But, as we cannot see this supposed moral, ethical and spiritual progress among men, and the scientific-technological progress is a double-edged sword, as stressed above, the pinkish future vision that Spiritism promotes is not confirmed at any rate.

Not to mention how, biblically, the notion of reincarnation is not substantiated by facts, and is even a terrible error of these last days, preparatory to other larger predicted errors when there will be those bringing down fire from heaven before men. Moreover, the biblical picture of the future, as presented by Jesus, Paul and other Apostles, is that people in general would  go “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3: 13).

Christ stated that in the last days immorality and departure from good would make society very similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah, and stressed that “because of the increase of wickedness the love of many will grow cold” (Matt. 24:12). Such words are far from representing a positive and optimistic scenario for men in the future (or would that be in the present?!).

3rd. - Scenario of “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. These religious people preached that Armageddon would occur due to the shock between the forces of the Communist world vs. the Capitalist one. The Watchtower Society organization’s book Thy Will Be Done on Earth (1958), had a scenario of the end time highlighting the struggle between “the King of the North” and “the King of the South”, according to Daniel chapter 11. The modern “King  of the South” was seen as a combination of Great Britain/United States (p. 263), and the “King of the North” was, as the book teaches, “the Soviet Union, the Communist power that since seized power in Russia in 1917 has maintained as its goal until now the dominion of the entire world” (p. 278).

The book continues predicting: “Until the time of the end, during the Armageddon, there will be competitive coexistence between the two kings” (p. 297). And declares on pg. 300: “the Angel of Jehovah predicted additional attacks by the Communist King of the North before its end IN THE ARMAGEDDON” (emphasis in uppercase added).

In the well-known “witnesses’” publication Watchtower, dated April 1, 1984, p. 20, it is highlighted that the Soviet Union is an Atheist, materialistic nation. However, if this would lead to Armageddon it seems that this direction was permanently lost. Actually, today the “cold war” not only ended, but that former Communist and Atheist regime no longer exists.

On the other hand, religion is in full ascension in the lands of the former USSR and other ex-Communist associate republics. Such “prophetic anticipations” proved a failure for the Watchtower folks. The tremendous strength of Communism, led by USSR, dissolved itself almost overnight, without the firing of a single shot! The toppling of the Berlin wall symbolized this historical and surprising turnaround, and we know that everything came to occur thanks to the close collaboration between the CIA and the Vatican. No doubt, that was a “test” of other future collaborations between the beast that climbs from the land and the one that rises from the sea . . .

4th. – Dispensationalist’s Scenario. Arising at the end of the 19th century, these Bible interpreters preached a future in which a Jewish Antichrist would persecute the Jews, Russia would invade  Israel, and that nation would expand its territories until reaching the proportions of the area under Solomon’ rule. But nothing has been confirmed in that direction. Although there was a significant return of large contingents of Jews to Palestine, with the formation of the State of Israel, other predictions have failed entirely. Israel is not expanding its territories and, on the contrary, has been returning land stretches to the Palestinians, as is the case with the Gaza Strip.

There is minimal possibility that Russia would invade Israel, and the failure of this Israel-centered eschatology was demonstrated for good with the prediction that 40 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, i.e. in 1988, the “Rapture” of the Church would occur. Books were published and sold by the millions around the world with such predictions, as The Great Late Planet Earth, by the dispensationalist author Hal Lindsey. And all that led to nothing.

The big interpretation problem of these scholars of biblical prophecy is that they can’t realize the conditional nature of divine promises and threats, both for Israel and for any other peoples (see Deu. cap. 28 and Jer. 18:7-11). The promise to Abraham (Gen. 12: 1-3) is not “unconditional”, as interpreted sometimes, since he had to effectively leave his land and relatives so that the divine plan were fulfilled from his action (he had total freedom not to obey the divine order).

[To be concluded in the next thread]

[Conclusion of previous thread]

5th. Seventh-day Adventist Scenario, the Most Clearly Being Fulfilled

For over one and a half century, Seventh-day Adventists claim that the final conflict will have to do with the Sabbath/Sunday question. The Adventist expectation for a global “Sunday Law”, beginning through initiatives from the US, is well known. Although this notion has been often the target of mockery by opponents, signs pointing in that direction can be seen as never before in different ways, both in the US and other parts of the world.

Nowadays we witness a very significant emphasis on Sunday sanctification, most significantly highlighted in the Pastoral Letter Domini Dies, proclaimed by late Pope John Paul II, but clearly composed by the present pope, Benedict XVI. In his apostolic trip to Austria, he recalled in a mass on the 9th of September (2007) that Sunday is “the weekly celebration of creation: celebration of gratitude and joy for God’s creation” (see: http://zenit.org/article-20574?l=english).

Among other things said to exalt the Sunday institution, the Pope repeated the words of a Catholic leader of the past, pleading: “Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul”. Establishing a connection between Sunday sanctification and nature’s preservation, unheard of before, Benedict XVI highlighted the threat that hovers upon the environment and Creation in general, stressing the necessity to pay greater attention to the “ecological dimension of Sunday”, the day when the Church thanks God for the Creation. He said: “At a time when creation seems to be endangered in so many ways through human activity, we should consciously advert to this dimension of Sunday too”.

This “ecological dimension” of Sunday is a new language by which the Pope tries to show the Vatican’s leadership in a global campaign to “save the planet” (see http://zenit.org/article-20450?l=english). Wouldn’t that be what some are calling “ECOmenism”?

But in a theological perspective, we see in the papal discourse a clear distortion of the real meaning of the Sabbath institution: he points to Sunday as a day to celebrate creation, which doesn’t match the biblical teaching, for that role is assigned to the seventh-day Sabbath as being the “memorial of creation”.

According to the Genesis creation record, on the first day God was acting in His work, as Creator, and only on the seventh-day He rested, blessed and sanctified the day (Gen. 2:2, 3). So, this twisting of meanings is certainly a subtle change of the Bible’s teaching and symbolism on the subject of what constitutes the institution to remember the Creator and His creation.

In the USA, on the other hand, campaigns stressing greater respect for Sunday and the 10 Commandments are under way. A “10 Commandments Commission” was formed to promote a “10 Commandments Day” (which is being set for the 1st Sunday of May) under the command of influential Evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, Benny Hynn, Charles Colson, Pat Robertson, Don Wildmon and a good number of others (see: http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/).

The promoters of these significant campaigns understand that the moral and spiritual decline of the great North-American nation (and all over the world) is due to the failure of society to consider seriously these divine principles, which seems a good thing, but that implies serious dangers for religious freedom. Such initiatives could lead to having religio-political systems influencing the government to dictate norms according to the expectations and interpretations of these leaders. History teaches us a sober lesson that when there is a mix of religion and politics, minorities are always hurt. . .

In an interview on May 18, 2005 to the program “Fresh Air”, of the NPR network (National Public Radio), that covers practically the entire country, Dr. James D. Kennedy, influential minister and evangelist who had an intense radio and TV activity before passing away in September, 2007, said openly that the principle of separation of Church and State in the USA is an error that goes against the ideals of the Christian founders of the nation, and should be simply discarded. This is a very worrisome notion. His interview can be heard through the following link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4656600).

As aforementioned, the final events will have much to do with the Sabbath/Sunday question. It will be the definition of who will bear the seal of God, and who will receive the “mark of the beast”. And that the obligatory character of total suspension of activities on Sundays is not a new idea we can see just recalling the “rehearsal” of that during a very serious crisis in recent decades—the oil embargo of the 70’s. What day in the week was affected by those politico-economical developments of the time? The older ones remember the gas stations closing on Sundays in many countries throughout the world.

The Increasing Ecological Link

In an entire last page article, journalist Nancy Gibbs writes to Time magazine (Aug 2, 2004 edition) suggesting that it would be a good idea to bring back the old “blue laws” of rigorous closing of shops, stores and other establishments on Sundays in the USA. The article had as title “And in the Seventh Day We Rested?”, and as subtitle, “Maybe those old blue laws weren’t so crazy after all”.

Voices have been raised in different places, asking that all commercial, industrial and recreational activities are suspended one day a week to save energy and to reduce the emission of pollutant gases, which seems to make good sense in the perspective of an ecological catastrophe scientists have been warning humankind about lately. Wouldn’t the Pope’s recent homilies linking respect for Sunday with respect for nature suit perfectly this type of vision?!

A significant article in British newspaper The Guardian stresses the idea of halting activities on Sunday to undo the global warming effect. The article has as title ”Slow Sunday: The simple solution to global warming”. It refers a certain movement supported by the publication, that proposes “a wonderful way to empower ordinary people to participate in the great movement of mitigating global warming.”

The article goes on: “We cannot wait until governments are enlightened enough to legislate and cap the carbon emissions. Matters are urgent. We have to act now, without any delay. The power of public opinion and citizen action will have a strong impact on the climate conference taking place in Copenhagen.

“One thing we can easily do to achieve this goal: we can declare Sunday to be a fossil fuel-free day or a low-carbon day or at least an energy-saving day. We can start this week, this month or in 2010. We can start individually and collectively. The long journey to cut carbon dioxide emissions can start in the here and now.

“Not long ago Sunday used to be a day of rest, a day of spiritual renewal, a day for families to come together, but we have changed Sunday from a day of rest to a day of shopping, flying and driving. However, in the context of excessive carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, which are bringing catastrophic upheavals, we can and should restore Sunday to a day for Gaia, a day for the Earth.

“There will be no great hardship in cutting down all non-essential and non-urgent use of fossil fuels for one day a week. We can easily close supermarkets, department stores and petrol stations. . . . At a stroke, we can reduce 10% of our carbon emissions into the atmosphere by making Sunday a low-carbon day and at the same time make ourselves healthier and happier. So, let us make Sunday a day of rest and renewal rather than a day of travel and toil.

“Global warming or climate change is only a symptom of our deep-seated desire to consume, consume and consume. The external problem of carbon emissions is connected with the internal problem of desire. If we stay in the rat-race 24 hours, seven days a week, we are bound to pollute our inner space as well as the outer space. Speed is the curse of modern civilisation. The solution to global warming is simple: slow down. Slow is beautiful. Even if we cannot slow down every day, at least slow down on Sunday.” -- The Guardian, 17-09-09. [see original text in:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/17/low-carbon-sunday]

Once more, Sunday would, undoubtedly, be the day chosen, in a global campaign to “save the planet”, and if emergency situations arise—since nobody has any idea of how all this immense quantity of pollutants thrown into the air all over the world would effect nature—how much obligatory this measure couldn’t come to be?

If in a boat there are five passengers, each belonging to a different religious or philosophical orientation, all debating enthusiastically their ideas, individually defending their views, and one of them spots a hole in the bottom of the boat, which begins to fill with water, won’t they all forget their differences and see a way to fix the common and threatening problem? In the face of emergencies, the tendency is everybody to unite to look for immediate measures that help achieve a common route of escape.

To Unite is Necessary, But. . .

The union of humankind has been attempted through divers campaigns, but none seems more efficacious for that end than “ecumenism”—the global religious union. And the “supernatural factor” could be part of this final scenario. “Mary’s” message, when of her “apparitions” before millions of Christians and Muslims in Egypt some years ago, was—”Unite”, “Unite”, “Unite”! As we witness such a tremendous political, ethnical, social, economic and religious divisions among the inhabitants of this planet, doesn’t it make much sense to look for such union? Of course to unite is necessary, but the crucial question is—to unite under what leadership?!

Only those who are very well prepared will discern the truth from the error in these final stages of human history. We are pleased that, in several Christian forums we have participated of, the discussions involving the Sabbath/Sunday and the law of God’s validity questions are the ones that hit records of visitors and participation. This shows the great interest that exists in understanding the Sabbath/Sunday/nodayism-everydayism-anydayism and the validity of the Ten Commandments as God’s moral law issues once and for all.

This interest in defining clearly the question of the polemical 4th precept of the Decalogue is very timely, for in the near future we will actually have more and more debates on these themes. And such debates will prove foundational to define who will be on God’s side in the final crisis, and who will accept the imposition of an evil agenda by those who want to deviate God’s people from the genuine worship. In the crisis that soon all inhabitant of the Earth will face everyone will have to choose what side he/she will take.

As the three faithful Hebrews of old, who had to decide between the genuine worship to God and the worship to the false god of Babylon (Dan. 3), those who remain faithful to God are described as the ones who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12). This is additional evidence that the final conflict will have to do with obedience to some aspect of God’s law.

In the past these deviations from God’s Word meant the most abject idolatry, which still occurs in the present, but in more subtle ways, notwithstanding no less deceitful. That involves the despising of one of God’s commandments, the Sabbath, and the valuation of its poor imitation—the false Sabbath enforced upon society, even the so-called Christian world, by religious powers that long ago departed from the correct view of the divine law.

On the other hand, in an evident revival to the genuine worship to God, more and more congregations and pastors all over the world have been accepting the Sabbath truth, becoming “repairers of breaches and restorers of paths” (see Isa. 58:12). This is said in the context of a divine appeal for a faithful observance of the Sabbath day (vs. 13, 14).

Recently in Brazil a traditional conservative Pentecostal denomination had o a charismatic leader adopting the seventh-day Sabbath keeping, which caused his defrocking, but he was supported by many of the members who studied the subject and concluded that they also wanted to be “restorers of paths”. They had to leave that church, but started a new one stressing the same “seventh day” feature that characterizes those at the end time who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12). That is the origin of the newly formed Congregação Cristã do Sétimo Dia (Seventh-day Christian Congregation), that little by little is growing across Brazil.

Like in these cases?

Matt 16: 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Matt 18 15"If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Azenilto,

I take it that you dont bother reading what anyone else writes in the threads you start?

Oh, I do read. . . But I don't think anybody gainsaid the points I made. By the way, there is another forum, similar to this, and there are also good comments in it. I think it would be worthwhile to reproduce here what a brother said:

The seal of God "on the Law of God" is found in the Sabbath. The seal of God on the believer is found in Ephesian 1. If you think you are going to retain the Eph 1 seal of God at the time of the Loud Cry by telling the Holy Spirit to not talk to you about God's Commandments - then guess again. Matt 16 shows us that there never was such a thing as a time when it was "ok" to tell the Holy Spirit of truth "not to talk to you about sin" or not to "convict the World of Sin".

Thus all the non-Sabbath keeping saints today who truly are SEALED by the holy Spirit - will one day be "Keeping the Commandments of God" (as Rev 12 and 14 point out) when NSL issues surface and they are called out - in the Loud Cry.

For as Paul says in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Christ said "my sheep hear My voice" -- if they really are sealed by the Holy Spirit - then at the time God calls them "with a loud cry" -- they will answer.

in Christ,

Bob

My reaction:

Hi Bob

Very good points. I would say that the Sabbath is the external "sign of God", while the Holy Spirit is the "internal sign of God".

The promise of the New Convenant is that God would write His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the Gospel (Heb. 8:6-10 and 10:16). Nowhere in these texts, which are the most important to deal with the transfer of the Old to the New Covenant, it is minimally hinted that in the process of God writing His laws on these hearts and minds, He a) leaves the Sabbath commandment out of the picture; b) maintains the Sabbath commandment, but transfering the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week; OR, c) leaves this question of the day of rest as a vague, voluntary or variable religious practice, which can be adjusted to the believer's convenience or necessities (or that of his/her employer).

Best regards

Now, what was said above,

2 Timothy chapter 2 suggests that the gospel may be a seal when it says:

14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"[a] and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Setting the solid foundation firm against false doctrine, and identifying as its seal two phrases from the law and the prophets, ie the bible as Paul knew it.
The two seals thus seem to be the Holy Spirit and His collected teaching throughout the ages.

Yes, this confirms what I said: all is part of the same experience—the gospel motivating a Christian to keep God’s commands, which ARE NOT LIMITED to believing in Christ, but also to keep his commandments.

Jesus Himself said: "If you love Me, keep My commandments" which include, not exclude, those belonging to the law that God writes on the minds and hearts of those who accept the Gospel, as is the promise of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10).

I think John Calvin presented a wonderful view of how that works as he comments Heb. 8:10:

In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. . . . . Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xiv.ii.html

Regarding your second article, does the sabbath command require you to work on the sunday? If it does, many adventists may be breaking it even now in this way. And if it does not, then what is the problem if the economy shuts down one day of the week?

I also commented on Jesus and Johns teaching on these commandments. What would you say regarding that?

Yes, we are required to work and do all that pertains to our own interests six days a week and to rest on the seventh day. So, Sunday is a regular day for work and any other secular and/or recreational activities.

Now, we don't know all the details of a probable future Sunday law, what kind of global commitment it could bring. It could come as part of a "package" with many features, because ecology is not the only big preocupation of the world leaders today. These days I learned that the American deficit is around 1.5 trillion dollars, something that could implode not only the US, but the entire world economy. And everybody has heard different world leaders, including Pres. Obama (and the pope) speaking of the necessity of setting a "new world economic order". What could be involved in that? We know that the prophecy speaks of some measures that will represent a boycott to whoever won't accept the "mark of the beast" (Rev. 13:17). So, we just have got some hints of the potential of problems that this could entail to the faithful ones who won't accept the agenda of this economical/political/ecological/religious dictatorship which will unite the entire world under a same "save the planet" umbrella.

As to what Jesus and John said, remember that when Jesus expressed the "new commandment", based on love to God/love to the neighbor He was simply quoting Moses (compare Mark 12:28-34 with Deut. 6:5 e Lev. 19;18). So, the "new" commandment is basically the same as always, because Christ's law is not different from God's law.

So much so that for centuries the confessional documents of Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians and Anglicans state that the first 4 commandments of the Decalogue have to do with our duties towards God, and the last 6, the same towards the neighbor. Before the Protestant Reformation that was already basically taught by Catholics and Ortodoxes.

And the commandment to love Jesus doesn't replace the ones related to both our commitment to God or to our neighbor. On the contrary, that is the basis of it all, for whoever really loves Jesus will show in a practical way--by keeping His commandments--"If you love Me, keep My commandments".

So, if there is one day a worldwide law that says you may not use anything with an engine on sundays, how exactly would this be the mark of the beast, which as you pointed out earlier is likely about worship? You cant go to work, you cant mow your lawn and you cant go shopping, but does that mean you are by doing this worshipping someone other than God? How does such a law as you describe relate to a conflict in worship?Jesus: You have heard it said... but I say to you... Ticking the boxes next to the ten words is adhering to the first while failing to appreciate the second.
You have heard it said, dont commit adultery... I didnt commit adultery today, tick.
But I say to you, when you look at someone lustfully... Oups...

Christs law differs from the law of Moses by removing the loopholes of eye-service.So Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox are sealed by the Spirit and the gospel together with Adventists. I am positively surprised. Usually when an Adventist starts discussing Revelation 13 and the seal/mark, he or she intends to show how Adventists stand out among the Christian churches by having an exclusive claim on being sealed. Actually it is, "Believe in Jesus and Love one another" in Johns letter. As far as being sealed is concerned, thats all there is to it. The rest is fruit of the Spirits working in us.

I partly agree. But the main distinction I see between sign and seal is that, although both are closely related, “seal” is a stronger word than “sign.” In Revelation the sign becomes a seal, that is, it becomes an open and public mark of allegiance to one of the two opposing powers, and divides the whole humanity into two classes.


Explained above.


OK, I agree. However, it’s clear that there will be a point of truth, a point among the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which will be especially controverted. And the view that this point will be the Sabbath/Sunday issue is very, very plausible.


Vaster, this sincerely is a kind of reasoning I don’t understand. Any Christian should know better than trying to put the 10 commandments in opposition to the 2 commandments of love to God/love to neighbor, or to the simple commandment of “love.” It’s more than clear that the first four commandments have to do with our love to God, and the last six, with our love to man. The 10 are the unfolding of the 2, and the 2 are a summary of the 10. “Love” unfolds into the 2, which unfold into the 10.

“The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:9, 10).

“And now I beg you, lady, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love” (1 John 1:5, 6).


Nominally, 9 of them. Like the rich young ruler, people don’t consider themselves transgressor of these commandments. But there is a general consensus as to one of the commandments having been abolished or changed.

If you could only make this last point through biblestudy alone..
Ad it is, we might not come to agreement on this question. DitoIt is possible, but certainly not the only nor the strongest candidate for the honor of being breaking point doctrine. Well, you could have quoted the last sentence in this paragraph of mine also, where I make reference to Jesus sermon on the mount, which speaks on the last 6 of the 10. That reference was important for avoiding the issue you noted.The interesting thing with this letter is that John gives us his definition of commandment. Taking verses as prooftext, you can show anything, but taking the letter as a whole, there is little room for misunderstanding what he means to say. People dont generally consider themselves transgressors of 10 of the commandments simply because they are found irrelevant as the Lawgiver is found irrelevant. There may be a consensus about the sabbath command by the subgroup of people who interest themselves in such questions within the much smaller subgroup of people who find the Lawgiver relevant. In Sweden, I believe there are less than 10% christians. For 90 % of the population this is a non-issue by default. Out of those christians, maybe 10 % care about the sabbath/sunday question. Assuming these numbers to be correct, there is interest in the question for 1% of the population. As this includes Adventists, there isnt even consensus among this subgroup.

I suppose we have agreed that the seal of God is the truth, or a special point of truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, while the mark of the beast is a false doctrine.
Please bear in mind that a seal of God placed on the forehead obviously means the person accepted the whole body of truths revealed by the Holy Spirit. If, at the end of time, light is brought upon the whole world about a particular point of truth which most of its inhabitants weren’t aware of before, it’s obvious that those who accept it will receive the seal of God, while those who reject it will receive the mark of the beast.
And please, bear also in mind that the point of truth related to the seal of God/mark of the beast must be something easily visible, not something general as loving God and loving your neighbor – otherwise, how will it be known on which side you are? The side taken by every person must be clearly known if people are going to be persecuted and threatened with death for following true doctrine instead of false doctrine (Rev. 13: 15-17).


What you are claiming is that John gives a definition of his own to the word “commandments”? And when he defines sin as the transgression of the law, do you also claim he gives a definition of his own to the word “law”?


Accoding to Wiki, an article on Sweden's official website lists the following facts about religion in Sweden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
I’m not sure if the information is contradictory, or if Swedens are contradictory. Still according to Wiki:

Is the percentage of atheists 46%, 85% or 17%? If such a large percentage of Swedes are atheists, how come 7 out of 10 children are christened in the Church of Sweden? And how come 9 out of 10 Swedes have Christian burials?
It seems to me most of them are nominal Christians.


You are speaking in terms of now. You can’t judge what will happen then by what happens now.

That would actually be a mix of the two seals found, but so far so good. I am thinking that since it is the beast who does the marking, what is marked doesnt necessarily have to be clearly visible to human eyes. John grew up in a society where "the law" referred to the entire corpus of the books of Moses, there were 613 laws recognized and lots of auxiliary laws to hedge in the 613. He then walked with Jesus throughout His years of ministry, seeing the auxiliaries abolished and the 613 reformed. He often heard Jesus tell His disciples, [John 13:34 John 14:15 John 14:21 John 15:10 John 15:12 John 15:14 John 15:17] He then sat through the council of Jerusalem where the question apparently was raised, which of the signs given to Israel relate to non-jewish believers? Maybe he even saw the destruction of the temple, making a whole bunch of the 613 obsolete.

Adventists on the other hand grow up in a subculture where any reference to "law" or "commandment" means the contents of exodus chapter 20.

I am not saying John gives a definition of his own to the word "commandment", I am saying he defines the word so that we non-jewish believers will know what he is talking about. Most of those members of the church of Sweden would not describe themselves as believers in the God of christianity. They will go to a church service for baptisms, weddings and funerals. Questions such as "who wrote the gospels", giving alternatives to choose from with only one set of names being the correct one give mid-range points at televised pop quizzes. Are they christian in any meaningful sense of the word, when they wont even identify themselves as such?You were judging the relative importance of the 9 vs the 1 based on the present situation.

Dear friend

First, what you ask me about details of the "Sunday law" I explained clearly that we don't have the complete picture as yet. It is like a jigsaw puzzle, with pieces still missing, but with the ones already in place giving us a good idea of the basic landscape pictured in the complete set.

Remember that in Matt. 5:21ff Jesus is not giving any NEW LAWS, but stressing the ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of the law that had been lost sight of by His hearers due to the bad instructors they had. It was always wrong to look at a woman lustfully, as Job already knew (Job 31:1). That was not a new rule to start at that point, just created by the Christ to His followers.

See that when Jesus refers to the tithing practice of the Jewish leaders, He confirms that technically they were right in doing what they did, but they missed the "justice, mercy and faith" (Matt. 23:23). That BELONGED TO THE LAW, but they lost sight of. So, He was not adding to the law those virtues as He said that. They were already there, but were missed by the religious leaders of Israel.

At the end of His ministry Jesus recommended that His disciples and the "multitudes" followed strictly ALL that was taught by their religious leaders, except for theit hyppocrital attitudes (Matt. 23:1-3). This "ALL" includes inescapably the Sabbath commandment (see Luke 13:14). If Jesus had in mind to limit God's law to nine commandments, He would have mentioned that the Sabbath was out of the picture. Remember, that was His last public address.

As to the confessional documents of the different churches, yes, they OFFICIALLY teach that the 10 Commandments is God's Moral Law, which contrasts with the "Cerimonial" and "Civil" laws, these last two no more applicable to the Church. But in practical terms, there is a tremendous ambiguity regarding the 4th commandment. So much so that I have been highlighting among Brazilian Evangelicals the dilemma they face as the World Cup (soccer championship) is approaching.

By their own rules, they are not supposed to watch sports on TV (or a stadium) on the "Lord's Day". Even the more recent "Doctrinal Statement" of the two most important Baptist conventions in Brazil, say that on the "Christian Sabbath", which would be Sunday, no secular or recreational activity should be engaged in by a Christian Baptist.

However, nobody takes this seriously. I doubt of any Brazilian Baptist (or Presbyterian, who have about the same rule clearly defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith) who would miss the games on their TV sets on Sundays, especially if the Brazilian team is playing, knowing how Brazilians are crazy regarding soccer.

A faithful 7th-day Adventist would not see any games on the Sabbath day. The priority on this day is God's will, not man's accomplishments.

I would say that the lack of importance attributed to this "keep Sunday" question is lack of CONVICTION that there was really any change of the sanctity of the Sabbath to Sunday, for the "proofs" provided in these documents are not convincing at all. I think that even the members of these Sunday-keeping churches don't believe what they hear their leaders say, according to what their confessional documents allege about that.

In effect reforming the law, similar to how Francis of Assisi or Martin Luther did later with the church. Absolutely so. I dont deny that the Sabbath is in the law when I question some peoples assertion that it would be the centerpiece of the law. Would you say the situation is any better in the SDA church? That there is no difference between official teaching and on the ground practice among us?Id say this statement would ensure that the ratio of member to faithful member is about the same in SDA churches as it is in Baptist churches in Brazil.

Hello, my friend.

I wouldn't establish any 'index' of faithful/unfaithful members in any Church. What I am stressing is the OFFICIAL TEACHING and the OFFICIAL ATTITUDE. Nobody would deny that as a Church, Seventh-day Adventists do everything to highlight the importance of ALL the commandments of God's law, and there is no ambiguity regarding the relevance of the 4th commandament and how to keep it faithfully, which is not what we see with the other Christians.

One example of that we had recently in Brazil, when there were entrance exams that are to be taken by all those who want to enter any college across the country. These exams were slated to two days--Saturday and Sunday.

SDA authorities made arrangements with educational authorities that the members of the SDA Church were assigned a special room where they waited, reading their Bibles or other Christian literature, while the Sabbath hours were past. Only after sunset they got their exam sheets to start filling out their answers.

I don't know of any religious leader of other denominations that had the same preocupation regarding having the members of their churches respecting the Sunday principle. . . And the funny thing is that even a "Baptist Newsletter" that I regularly receive brought news about the arrangement of these SDA authorities regarding respect to the Sabbath principle. They never did anything similar to that, as far as I know, regarding their Sunday.

Of course the seal and the mark themselves are an internal (intellectual, spiritual) setting into the truth or into error, and this cannot be seen. But obviously there must be some external evidence or choice which will give the beast (a human persecuting power) a basis for it to persecute.


It may be in order to recapitulate some things here. Long before the 613 were given to Moses, in fact before the entrance of sin, God gave moral rules of conduct to humankind. These rules of conduct, given to Adam, were obviously the 2 commandments of supreme love to God (disobedience to Whom would bring death) and love to neighbor, but they included also the Sabbath commandment (a day which God blessed and hallowed – set aside for holy purposes – for humankind; see Gen. 2:3, Mark 2:27). Just after the Fall, of course God had to unfold the 2 into the 10 in order to define sin more clearly to sinful human beings. Thus, Cain knew that anger/hate/murder was a sin (Gen. 4:7), Abimelech knew that adultery was a sin (Gen. 20:9), and the same is true of Joseph (Gen. 39:9), and other examples could be cited. All of this before Sinai and the 613. So, whatever happened to the other 603 of these commandments (although I disagree with your conclusion that all of them have become obsolete), we know that the 10 existed long before them, and will continue to exist as long as the earth lasts.
And, as to the 2 being new commandments, they are not new at all – they were given to Adam, but of course they existed long before him, for they both were transgressed by Lucifer (John 8:44). Christ was just expressing that the second one – love to neighbors – acquired a new meaning through His sacrifice.


I’m glad you are not saying John gives a definition of his own to the words “law” and “commandment,” otherwise he would be contradicting what James, Jesus’ brother, says in his letter:

“8 If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.
9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.”


Most Christians, in any part of the world, do not live as Christians.


Ok, but we were discussing about my previous statement: “And, since we know that almost the totality of Christendom keeps Sunday, it's probable this will be the point of truth especially controverted.” My point was that people don’t consider themselves as transgressors of 9 of the commandments, and if confronted about the fourth, what they say is that it was either abolished or changed. This is what most Christians think, the general idea which prevails. But their attention, and the attention of everybody else in the world, will be called to this commandment if some kind of persecution arises against those who observe the Sabbath.

Like Daniel was persecuted for refusing to change his prayer habit and his friends for refusing to worship the statue. Both wore a sign of their covenant with God, one through positive action and one through refusing negative action..."A whole bunch" does not equal "all of them" IMO. In this case, it is the sizeable part which relate to the temple service and the levitical service. "New" only occurs here because Jesus says He is giving them/us a new commandment. Maybe Jesus (and/or John who is the one quoting Jesus) is wrong?

Still, this history does not conflict with the context of first century Palestine/Jerusalem. John did not write from Adams context, or Abrahams context, or Moses context, but from the context of his own time. Azenilto is making some progress in showing that Christendom does not keep Sunday. Why make a big spectacle of something then that you barely care about now?

Sure, and if you define who the beast power is, it becomes easier to define what the sign will probably be.


Agreed.


No. John understood correctly what Christ meant:

“Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining” (1 John 2:7, 8).

What is new in the commandment is its meaning.


What do you think people care enough about now for it to become the seal of God or the mark of the beast in the future?

So, who is it? Can we presently know?And its meaning is the most important part of it, right? With a new meaning, you are basically saying that the commandment has been redefined. I dont think there is any one thing that makes the cut for all people. Some care very much about making right political wrongs, so much that they put their lives on the line. Other people invest their lives in helping other people. Some invest their lives in hedonism. Most I would think invest their lives in the lives of their children.

The similarities between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the sea beast of Revelation 13 leave no doubt that both symbolize the same earthly power (see attachment below).*

The little horn:
- would arise on the head of the fourth beast (the Roman Empire), suggesting it would be a part of the Roman Empire (v. 7-8, 24).
- it would be clearly a religio-political power; it would be “different” from the other horns (v. 24)
- it would put down 3 kings (v. 24)
- it would speak words against the Most High and wear out the saints of the Most High (v. 25)
- it would think to change the times and the law (v. 25)
- the saints would be given into his hand for a time, two times and half a time (v. 25)

Many Protestant students of prophecy interpret the little horn to represent an end-time antichrist. However, this leaves a gap of some fifteen-hundred-plus years between the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 and the final events of earth's history. But there were no long historical gaps between any of the nations represented by the previous beasts. Each one immediately replaced its predecessor. Similarly, the papacy immediately replaced the Roman Empire; no long, historical gap occurred between its rise and the empire's fall.
The papacy grew out of Rome and was a part of the empire just as the little horn grew out of the head of the 4th beast and was a part of that beast. When Rome fell, the papacy stepped into the political void.
The papacy is the only religio-political power that arose after the barbarian tribes overthrew the Western Roman Empire. The papacy also fulfills all the specifications of the little horn that are recorded in verses 24 and 25. Thus, it is very reasonable to understand the little horn as a symbol of the papacy. And Adventists have historically identified the first beast of Rev. 13 as the papacy on the basis of the similarity between the sea beast and the little horn of Daniel 7.


It's not a new meaning in the sense of being something completely different from the previous meaning. It's a new meaning in terms of renewal and deepening, not of redefinition.


I don't think any of these are likely to bring a religious persecution upon those who invest in them.

* The table below is from Marvin Moore's book Could It Really Happen?, p. 33.

I came late [again] but thought of something I learned in government class over 40 years ago.
A seal os the mark of authority for the one giving instruction/orders [also known as commandments] and in order for it to be authentic, it needs to contain 3 things, the name of the authority [who], the title of the individual [what] and the dominion over which they rule.[where]
Only the fourth commandment of the Decalogue.
First who: the LORD thy God
second what: made
third: heaven and earth,
The president has his seal, you see it every time he speaks on the Television.
The seal of authority, notice SEAL, what is being talked about here. There is no doubt in my mind that the Sabbath is the seal of God. It bears all the essential requirements of being one.

Actually, I think the most crucial law is the 10th - thou shalt not covet. It is the one against making self our guide. And, it is the only one that has no outward manifestation - it all happens in the thoughts and feelings.

While the 1st commandment tells us to abstain from other gods, the 10th commandment shows us which god we use to break the 1st.

Good point Arnold.