Dale Ratzlaff’s article “Sunday Observance, the Mark of the Beast” (July 9, 2026) powerfully dismantles a core teaching of Seventh-day Adventism: that the seventh-day Sabbath is the seal of God while Sunday observance is (or will become) the mark of the beast. Drawing directly from Ellen G. White’s writings and the central role of the third angel’s message in Revelation 14, Ratzlaff shows how this doctrine functions as a powerful evangelistic lever—instilling fear of God’s wrath and the plagues to drive people into the SDA Church as the “remnant.”
He rightly notes that this teaching is not peripheral but foundational to historic Adventism, often eclipsing the clear gospel message. What many in Armstrongite circles may not fully appreciate is that Armstrongism taught essentially the identical heresy.
Herbert W. Armstrong’s booklet The Mark of the Beast (and related works such as Who Is the Beast?) explicitly identified Sunday observance as “the mark of the beast.” He taught that the mark is the pagan Sunday—Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter, and related observances—which the Roman Catholic Church would ultimately enforce through a revived Holy Roman Empire (the end-time “beast”). Keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, by contrast, was presented as the identifying “sign” between God and His true people, the necessary mark of loyalty that would protect believers from receiving the beast’s mark.
Successor organizations retained this framework with only minor variations. Sabbath-keeping remains the visible sign of God’s people, while a future Sunday law enforced by the beast power is viewed as the mechanism by which the mark will be imposed. The eschatological drama is strikingly similar to Adventism: a final test over the day of worship, with economic boycott (“no one may buy or sell”), persecution, and divine wrath falling on those who receive the mark.
Both movements, despite real differences (Adventism’s emphasis on Ellen White and the investigative judgment versus Armstrongism’s British-Israelism, annual holy days, and Herbert Armstrong), converged on the same fundamental error: reading Old Covenant sign language directly into New Covenant eschatology and making a specific day of the week the decisive test of loyalty to God in the last days.
Ratzlaff’s central contention is biblically sound: Nowhere does Scripture identify Sunday observance as the mark of the beast.
Revelation 13–14 describes the mark as something received in the forehead (mind/allegiance) or hand (action) as a sign of worshiping the beast and its image. The text is silent about any particular day of the week. The mark represents ultimate loyalty to the antichrist system—false worship, satanic deception, and opposition to the Lamb—not a civil law about Sunday rest.
Early Christians, under the inspiration of the apostles, worshiped on the first day of the week (the Lord’s Day) in commemoration of the resurrection (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). They did so without any sense that they were receiving “the mark of the beast.”
Paul’s warnings in Colossians 2:16–17 and Galatians 4:10 concern legalistic judging over days and festivals, not an endorsement of one day as an eternal seal or another as an eternal mark.
Ratzlaff correctly highlights how this teaching has been used to create fear and division rather than to proclaim the finished work of Christ. It turns what should be a matter of Christian liberty and conviction (Romans 14:5–6: “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind”) into a salvific test. Both Adventism and Armstrongism effectively add Sabbath observance as a necessary work alongside faith in Christ—an approach that undermines the sufficiency of the gospel.
Armstrongites who have inherited this teaching face the same chain of fear that Ratzlaff describes among Adventists. Many who have left or questioned the movement cite the legalistic weight of “must keep the Sabbath or risk the mark” as a significant burden. Dale Ratzlaff’s New Covenant emphasis offers genuine liberation here.
Under the New Covenant:
- The old covenant, including its specific sign of the seventh-day Sabbath given to Israel at Sinai, has been fulfilled and rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:6–13; Jeremiah 31:31–34).
- Jesus is the substance; the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and other shadows pointed to Him (Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 4:1–11).
- True rest is found in Christ Himself (“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” — Matthew 11:28). Christians are not under the Mosaic law as a covenant of works but under grace, with the law written on hearts by the Spirit.
- The moral principles behind the Ten Commandments (love for God and neighbor) continue, but the specific ceremonial requirement of seventh-day rest as a binding legal test does not transfer unchanged into the New Covenant community.
Ratzlaff’s critique therefore has direct merit for Armstrongites:
- It exposes the shared root error: both groups misapply Old Covenant Israel’s sign/seal language to the New Covenant church in the end times.
- It calls believers back to the sufficiency of Christ rather than Christ-plus-Sabbath-observance as the protection against the mark.
- It removes the unbiblical fear that has bound many sincere people, allowing them to focus on the clear gospel: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus alone, with the Spirit producing obedience from the heart.
- It aligns with the apostolic pattern of Christian liberty regarding days (Romans 14) while still affirming the value of regular corporate worship and physical/spiritual rest.
The mark of the beast is about allegiance to the beast system; the seal of God is ultimately the Holy Spirit and faith in the Lamb (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; Revelation 7:3; 14:1–5).
For those still influenced by Armstrongite theology, Ratzlaff’s work invites a return to the rest that is in Christ alone—not a rest earned or maintained by keeping the right day under threat of the mark, but the finished rest purchased by the blood of the Lamb. In Him we find true freedom, true worship, and true security. “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). That remains sound New Covenant counsel for all who trust in Jesus
26 comments:
In Acts 5:29 Peter declared “We must obey God rather than men.” In the broadest sense, the mark of the beast is the opposite. It means obeying man rather than God. It's a common experience for new Christian converts to have their prayers answered by God. Yet they eventually come across a church teaching that they realize clashes with their bible. When they choose the church over the bible, they are guilty of the mark of the beast, and God stops answering their prayers. Not putting God first means a person will eventually become a demon, so it's a fundamental life or death issue.
If you go back and list the predictions, prophesies & proclaimations of HWA, Flurry and Pack, they have to be close to a 99%rate failure rate. That would pretty much qualify them as FALSE APOSTLES/ FALSE PROPHETS.
"The early church did not treat Sabbath-keeping as a salvific requirement or as the seal that distinguishes true believers from those destined for the mark. They enjoyed freedom in Christ while maintaining regular worship and rest. Sunday observance among Christians arose naturally from the resurrection, not from compromise with paganism or the beast."
It was a given. If you worship The Creator you keep the seventh day Sabbath. There was never any debate about it. One would not defile the Sabbath any more than they would steal, lie, cheat on their spouse, etc, etc. And besides that, "Sunday keeping" did not exist. The sun was worshiped by the pagans for as long as anyone could remember and no member of The Church would ever consider getting involved in that.
Also, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not on Sunday (which is easily shown from scripture), so there goes your argument for switching to Sunday.
Subtle twists in logic deceive many. Your argument sounds good, and even better to a willing mind, so it's quickly accepted without doing the research to prove it.
Ratzlaff's work is directed toward Adventism because he is an ex Adventist minister who has an ax to grind like many here do. He is right about the MARK. It isn't about Sunday but loyalty and allegiance to a false system that has power and control over people's minds and actions. Sounds like Armstrongism doesn't it?
While we are focused on the post's contention of NOT believing things where Scripture is silent, and NOWHERE SAYS such n such, let's apply this same standard to Acts 20, 1 Corinthians 16 and Revelation 1. Apparently our friend Scout has also adopted this new standard in evaluating what Scripture says and doesn't say.
On a recent post, I made the logical inference that, if the sabbath was made for man the day after man was made, then it logically included that first man. Scout said noooo! His reasoning, Because Genesis does "not mention" people resting, or "give instruction" that people should rest, or even connects the 7th day to Adam and Eve. Okay. So let's apply this new set of rules of scrutiny to Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and Revelation 1:10 as a legitimate basis for Sunday observance. I'm not going to write them out but you can look them up.
1). All 3 texts say NOTHING about "worship" (emphasis, this post).
2). Only 1 of the 3 even mentions a "gathering", which has also been interpreted as being Saturday night and not Sunday day.
3). Revelation 1:10 does NOT MENTION a specific day of the week at all or Sunday by name, the church, or church practice.
I am familiar with the traditional " orthodox " spiel and extra-biblical sources, but hey, we have new rules and everybody needs to live by them!
BP8, Sunday, July 12, 2026 at 7:57:57 AM PDT, wrote:
"Ratzlaff's work is directed toward Adventism because he is an ex Adventist minister who has an ax to grind like many here do. He is right about the MARK. It isn't about Sunday but loyalty and allegiance to a false system that has power and control over people's minds and actions. Sounds like Armstrongism doesn't it?..."
******
Whether it sounds like Armstrongism or not, it certainly may be evident of one being driven by some spirit, something like James had in mind back in his day:
"Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" James 4:5
That is not God's Spirit. It is another spirit:
2 Cor 11:4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]."
Paul understood the control by principalities:
Eph 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]."
Are Satan and his devils today still interested in the power/control (not mere influence) over the minds (1 John 3:8 first 8 words; 2 Cor 4:4; 11:13-15) of human beings, just as they were back in the days of the scribes and Pharisees (Eph 2:2)?
Is Armstrongism really the thing to blame and judge, or should we look elsewhere?
After all, we are also told the following by Paul:
2 Cor 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
Lots of wrestling (Eph 6:12) of flesh and blood continues on physically and spiritually worldwide in so many ways among human beings, so are human beings of this present evil world the ones with that ax to grind, or might it be those evil spirit beings?
Time will tell...
John
This Dale Ratzlaff article also raises awareness as to why British Israelism is the actual central core of Armstrongism, and those who follow HWA will never give it up, regardless of the facts.
What if you had grown up in, and were living in the mid-century culture of the 1950's, and you were made aware by some "talking head", who popped in on the radio, of the fact that thousands of years ago, a culture which has nothing to do with us today, one that the talking head had carefully selected from the hundreds of other cultures, kept a set of customs, customs he insisted that we ought to be keeping today? You probably would have laughed, right?
The prevailing culture in the USA of 1956 was 180 years old. Antisemitism during the Spring and Summer of HWA's life was still very prevalent. Many Christians used terms such as "Christ killers" in reference to the Jews. After all, the contemporary Romans of those times (Italians) had become Catholic Christians. Although there was sibling rivalry between Catholics and Protestants, both were based on belief in Jesus Christ. The Jews, with very few exceptions, had never accepted Jesus Christ. Their holy days were often ridiculed and reviled by Christians. So, Herbert W. Armstrong had to develop a plausible and fail-safe explanation to tie his contentions together and to make Jewish customs from thousands of years ago relevant and vital to his times. He was also, after all, back-revising everything that was commonly believed about Jesus Christ!!! Quite a job!
British Israelism, if believed, made a large subset of the colonists who founded our melting pot into descendant relatives of the Jewish tribe. Allegedly, this brought culpability and responsibility to recapture national identity, to impose that over the melting pot, and ultimately to make the citizens of modern English-speaking nations responsible to obey elements of the Sinai Covenant, commonly known as the Old Covenant, or else receive national punishment. It based our national prosperity upon the blessings promised to Abraham, rather than upon the birth of an empire on a continent which had untapped national resources, and the ingenuity of the wide diversity of nationalities of the founders, much of that gleaned from their own distinct cultures. But HWA went further. He brought the theories of Alexander Hislop, a rabid anti-Catholic, to the forefront, which not only dismissed the Catholics, but simultaneously the Protestant daughters of that church as well. Reference the miscreants of World War II, and the first man-made existential threat (the bomb), and blab it all over the world via radio, and you've got a very compelling package. Well, until it wasn't! (Failure of 1975, 1990's mapping of the human genome, availability of factual information via the proliferation of the internet, and the breakup of the WCG).
To my knowledge, the Adventists have not poisoned their gospel with fear mongering and pain compliance to the extent that we endured. That was the calling card of failed advertising executive HWA who understood fear motivation! I believe that with the continued accumulation of history, the fear-mongering elements of Armstrongism will eventually diminish and pass by the wayside. There is already the advanced PIMO factor, and as it progresses while British Israel based prophecies continue to fail, there will be a marked dichotomy within the Armstrongism splinter movement. Some smaller groups will never accept the obliteration of the BI Theory, and will become more and more like the concentration camps they visualize in their prophecies. The majority in the larger groups will become benign, and somewhat like the mainstream Seventh Day Adventists. Both will still be using terms such as Laodicean and Philadelphian, because the theory of church eras is also held in high regard amongst the SDAs.
And the beat goes on!
BB
Sooooooo much is read into scripture that is NOT THERE. Like......3rd tithe is for the poor; seven feasts; Jacob and Abraham tithed by command (where can I read that law??)........
1). All 3 texts say NOTHING about "worship" (emphasis, this post).
2). Only 1 of the 3 even mentions a "gathering", which has also been interpreted as being Saturday night and not Sunday day.
3). Revelation 1:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) does NOT MENTION a specific day of the week at all or Sunday by name, the church, or church practice.>>
Acts 20:7 does describe a worship gathering as “breaking bread” is Luke’s standard term for the communal Christian meal (Acts 2:42, 2:46). Whether one argues for Saturday night or Sunday morning, it is still a first‑day Christian assembly. Luke seems to use Roman time keeping and is writing for a Gentile audience so the “Saturday night” claim is not the mainstream reading more something seemingly concocted by .those who don't like the possibility a sabbath is not enforced.
1 Corinthians 16:2 assumes a regular first‑day gathering. Paul would not instruct believers to set aside contributions on a day when they did not meet. The instruction presupposes a weekly first‑day pattern.. Paul assumes a regular, weekly first‑day practice. You don’t tell people to set aside offerings on a day when they don’t gather. This is indirect evidence, but strong evidence.
Revelation 1:10 uses the term “the Lord’s Day,” which every early Christian writer identifies as Sunday. No early Christian source ever uses “Lord’s Day” to mean the Sabbath. No early Christian writer ever uses “Lord’s Day” to mean Sabbath. John is writing to Gentile churches, not a Jewish synagogue audience and a claim that Revelation 1:10 “does not mention a specific day” is technically true but historically misleading.
Early Christian writings from as early as around 70 AD show that Sunday observance wasn’t a later medieval development at all, but an early, widespread first‑ and second‑century Christian practice. I’m not going into detail here, but anyone interested can easily look up the sources.
So overall, the point is pretty simple: when you look at what these passages actually say and how the earliest Christians actually lived, the first‑day gathering wasn’t a later invention it was just the normal Christian pattern from the beginning.
I would say Christians adopted Sunday because it was the Roman day off and fitted in well for the day most had time off (Col 2:16)
A reasonable thought . Although Sunday it appears was not special in Roman civil life, it became a legal rest day only in AD 321, under Constantine this being two centuries after Christians were already meeting on Sunday.
Most interesting that every early Christian writer who explains the practice gives theological reasons, such as Justin Martyr (c. 150): - Christians meet on Sunday because Jesus rose on that day.; and Sunday is the day God began creation.; Ignatius (c. 110): Christians “no longer observe the Sabbath” but live according to “the Lord’s Day.”; and Didache (c. 70–100) - gather on “the Lord’s Day” to break bread.
At the time they wrote, there were no denominations.There was simply the Christian church, spread across the Roman Empire. These writers were the leadership and teachers of the early Christian communities. One can say they were in the same church that preserved the New Testament and shaped the faith for the next 2,000 years.
I find it odd some readily accept Armstrong's corrupted rewrite of European history via his BI theories yet try to disregard this well established early church history.
The last sentence conveys an interesting thought as your comment belies a Armstrong defence response.
Yet Armstrongism depends on subtle twists all the time including rewriting European history (British‑Israelism); rewriting early Christian history; rewriting resurrection chronology (as his sabbath eve resurrection is poorly grounded); rewriting the meaning of “Lord’s Day”; rewriting the development of Sunday worship; rewriting the apostolic church into Armstrong’s church as he is the alleged only one true church. Armstrong followers accept massive historical rewrites without evidence, yet reject the actual documented history of the early church.
It’s odd some readily accept Armstrong’s corrupted rewrite of European history via BI, yet try to disregard the well‑established early church history. Indeed , chafe at the thought of doing so.
But this isn’t the time to get into why the false apostle needed Jesus to rise before sunset on the Sabbath that’s a long subject on its own. Suffice to say, Armstrong’s claim that Sunday worship is “pagan” doesn’t stack up either.
Every Gospel places the resurrection discovery at dawn on the first day of the week. Armstrong tries to push the resurrection back twelve hours earlier into the previous evening, but the text simply doesn’t support it. Yet another never‑ending twist of things by Armstrong who was the master of rewrites and false information. .
psinteresting re three points above how the Armstrong practice of using CAPS frequently rubs off on his followers or sympathisers or friends as it shows the mind that the matter is now settled and the final truth has just been expressed. and that no further thinking is required. Unfortunately, Armstrong’s CAPS‑heavy approach to “truth” was riddled with falsehoods and ends up revealing more about his vanity than about any actual biblical or historical insight.
"Every Gospel places the resurrection discovery at dawn on the first day of the week."
Exactly. The discovery was before sunrise on the first day of the week. But when did it occur? It clearly happened just around sunset on the Sabbath, when everyone was at home, because it was the Sabbath.
So, that's your refutation of 4:30's content 11:41? The best you can come up with? He used too many caps? Good thing we can't see the writer through our screens. If he had longer hair, you'd probably use that to invalidate what he has shared with us.
I'm surprised that you sabbath guys no longer seem to quote Bacchiochi. He was Adventist, but back in the early 2,000s, when his book was fresh and he was still alive, he was the darling of the COGlodytes.
430
You did not disappoint. You gave the traditional extra biblical interpretations I expected but they do not change anything.
Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16 are both one time events centered around the travels and itinerary of Paul. They are not examples of Christian practice carried forward into perpetuity.
In 1 Cor.16 we read, "now concerning the " special" (see Rom.15:25-27) collection for the saints, upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store THAT THERE BE NO GATHERINGS WHEN I COME!". Notice that Paul is an integral part of this scenario. Is he going to be there every Sunday thus making this a weekly event? No. Just the once.
We are told in Acts 2:42-46 that "breaking bread" was just a common meal which was part of their DAILY fellowship. Even if one wants to interpret the term as a communal service, it does not establish a weekly tradition. Why not? Some Christian churches take communion daily, some weekly, others monthly, quarterly, and some once a year. If a weekly tradition was meant to be established, many churches didn't get the memo. True, they all are still observing Sunday but the "breaking bread" connection is apparently not the reason.
The overall context and conclusion of the book of Revelation is the Lord's day, the great Lord's day of his coming wrath (6:17). That's what John saw in vision. Days of the week, whether Saturday or Sunday add nothing to the story flow or context of the book, regardless what Christian writers say.
Sunday observance is here to stay but its authority is based far more on Christian writer opinions and arguments than on the meaning of the actual Biblical texts, which are few to begin with (3).
546
I always appreciated Bacchiocchio's books. I found them knowledgeable and enlightening, He always provided a multitude of footnotes and research sources for further review and follow up. Quoting him would be difficult on a site like this because of his deep lengthy content style of writing, and the bias his name generated. Just mentioned his name and regardless of what he may say that is true, people stop listening.
Agree with him or not, people were not lining up at the door to debate him!
Re July 13, 2026 at 6:41:07 AM PDT ''You did not disappoint. You gave the traditional extra‑biblical interpretations I expected, but they do not change anything.''
Since you responded as above, I note you did not disappoint either, as you repeated the standard claim that Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16 are “one‑time events,” but that doesn’t actually change what the texts depict.
Yes, both passages occur within Paul’s travel itinerary, but the context doesn’t erase the fact that Acts 20:7 describes a first‑day Christian assembly and 1 Corinthians 16:2 assumes a regular first‑day pattern. The circumstances may be unique, but the practices they presuppose are not.
It is most interesting how even basic issues remain unable to be resolved regarding the scriptures.
Acts 20 is indeed tied to Paul’s travel, but Luke still describes a first‑day Christian assembly in which believers gather and break bread. Whether Paul was travelling or not doesn’t alter what the text actually depicts.
1 Corinthians 16 is also connected to Paul’s itinerary, but Paul’s instruction assumes a regular first‑day gathering. You don’t tell people, as previously noted, to set aside contributions on a day when they don’t meet. There seems to be a pattern here.
Acts 2 shows that early Christians shared meals daily, but Luke uses “break bread” both for ordinary meals and for the communal Christian meal. Acts 20:7 is clearly the latter, not a casual supper.
Revelation 1:10 uses “the Lord’s Day,” and every early Christian writer who uses that term identifies it as Sunday. None use it for the Sabbath. Saying the phrase “doesn’t name Sunday” is technically true but historically irrelevant.
And the broader historical picture is straightforward: from the late first century onward, Christians across the Roman world gathered on the first day of the week. This wasn’t a medieval development or a later invention. It’s simply how the earliest Christians lived.
So the point remains when you look at what these passages actually say, and how the earliest Christians actually practised their faith, first‑day gathering wasn’t imposed later it seems pretty clear it was the normal Christian pattern from the beginning.
So, that's your refutation of 4:30's content 11:41? The best you can come up with? He used too many caps? Good thing we can't see the writer through our screens. If he had longer hair, you'd probably use that to invalidate what he has shared with us.>>
One needs to click on the comments at the end so the sequence of the various comments appear in proper order. Doing that makes it clear the caps remark was simply a PS or an afterthought to a more substantive immediately preceding comment. My point was that overuse of caps is not helpful in discussion, and also that Armstrong made it an unfortunate life long habit. That’s all I was noting. So the comment about hair has no relevance.
As an aside, one chooses to remain anonymous here in most cases, as it is apparent there are some who dislike other opinion especially in cases when it bears down on Armstrong and his unusual theories, so having a bit of a shield is simply practical. Cheers.
I believe that by caving into the government forbidding meeting on the Sabbath during the covid lockdown, Weston and the other leaders of these COGs were in a sense giving into the thin edge of the mark of the beast. its not yet but getting closer. So if they give into government restrictions on being able to worship together now on the sabbath, or on anyday including sunday for that matter, then what will they resist when it comes time to stand up and be counted? Sure weston and others justified not meeting on a sabbath by saying that a prudent man sees danger and hides himself. just an excuse. what about the verse that says ten thousand may fall at your side and so forth. i know of sunday keeping believers that refused to cease meeting together, and they are stronger and more dedicated in worship than is weston and these others. almost makes the question of which day immaterial don't it.
455
Christians can assemble on the first day or any day if they have a good reason. In the case of Acts 20, a traveling apostle was coming through and that happened to be a good time to come together and hear him. Also, a one time special offering does not establish a pattern. Read again 1 Corinthians 16:1-3. We are not told when the offering pick up would be, only that it should be made ready on that first day, "THAT THERE BE NO GATHERINGS WHEN I COME". It was all very carefully planned out.
Like I previously said, if Acts 20:7 is the pattern for taking communion every Sunday, why isn't everyone now doing it instead of following their own traditions? The text is silent. It was just another common meal like in Acts 2.
In Revelation 1:10, I don't really care how every Christian writer uses the term the Lord's day, I only care how the apostle John uses it and how the term fits into the context of the book. Days of the week do not fit at all.
The history of the church after the resurrection and implementation of the new covenant shows that the apostles continued to observe the sabbath and dietary laws. Most here acknowledge that but insist it was a matter of cultural compliance, which I reject. History after the apostles and later on is hazy, but it was not the glorious walk in the park some imagine. Instead It was one of Jewish and Christian bias, continuous controversy, persecution, division, schism, councils, inquisition, reformation, and political strife, all which has led to this modern age of 45,000 Christian denominations. That's your real pattern!
We are all personally accountable for what we believe and do. We can either trust the plain revelation of Scripture or be persuaded by Christian writers and teachers who want to tell us what they think it says and what we should be doing.
3.50 July 13, 2026 ''Exactly. The discovery was before sunrise on the first day of the week. But when did it occur? It clearly happened just around sunset on the Sabbath, when everyone was at home, because it was the Sabbath.''>>
In one sense none of this matters, but because Armstrong rewrote the resurrection away from Sunday because he disliked the implications some response, albeit brief, is warranted.
The angel’s descent is tied to the dawn moment because in Matthew we read the time marker (“at dawn on the first day of the week”) and then immediately the narrative links it with γάρ (“for”), which signals that the angel’s descent, the earthquake, and the stone’s movement occur at that time, not earlier. Nothing in the text places these events at Sabbath sunset; Matthew’s grammar anchors them firmly to dawn.
Also, we need to recall that the resurrection was bodily, not an invisible spirit‑event. Every Gospel presents Jesus rising in a physical body that could be touched, seen, and interacted with.
Armstrong’s view requires Jesus to rise as an unseen spirit, because a bodily resurrection would demand a physical exit from the tomb and Matthew places the stone’s movement at dawn, not at Sabbath sunset. In this Armstrong is like the JW who also demand a spirit resurrection not a bodily one.
If the resurrection were pushed back to Sabbath sunset, because of Armstrong's need to have an exact 72 hours, then the physical nature of the event creates a major problem as a bodily resurrection is not invisible. Someone would have noticed and the only people the text explicitly places at the tomb are the guards. Matthew reports no earlier disturbance, no earlier collapse, no earlier movement of the stone. Everything happens at dawn, not the previous evening.
Some try to get around this by claiming the sunset‑resurrection theory is Jesus rising as an unseen spirit, but this is contradicted by the entire resurrection narrative. This workaround only highlights how far the sunset theory must move away from the plain reading of the text to survive.
In short, the sunset‑resurrection theory does not hold well when the textual timing, the Greek grammar, and the bodily nature of the resurrection are considered together.
Recall all the events : Matthew’s narrative is the angel descends at dawn; the earthquake happens at dawn; stone is rolled at dawn; guards collapse at dawn; women arrive just after dawn. .There is no earlier event at Sabbath sunset . In brief Armstrong's incorrect 72 hour theory is deficient.
I liken Christianity to cigarettes and beer. They are all cigarettes and beer, but there are lots of different brands. People usually have a favorite, but we don't go around researching the ingredients for the originals hundreds of years ago, or insisting there is only one true brand, or ever attempt to pressure the manufacturers to alter the formula. Some people consume a lot, some moderate, and some just a little or none. The only prophecy involved relates to medical pathologies surrounding the lungs and liver, so the doctors become the prophets. There aren't any apostles or evangelists any longer because the movie stars all realize that it has become uncool to endorse or become a spokesman for such things. What else? I don't know, do the gentiles smoke and drink more?.
I recently came across a view that “the Lord’s day” in Rev 1 is referencing the anniversary of Christ’s resurrection day or the wavesheaf day during the festival week of Passover and that it was this specific Sunday each year that was called such by early COG Christians like John etc. It’s an interesting view and one that I am inclined to agree with or at least consider seriously.
604
You say it is an interesting view and one you are inclined to agree with. I am curious to know why? Does this view add any meaning to the book of Revelation's context and story flow? Is it a mere calendar reference as to when John fell into his trance, being some kind of homage to the resurrection? I don't see it.
There are several calendar references in the book of Acts that most here would say has no relevance other than a time stamp (see Acts 12:3, 20:6, 27:9). I still feel that the Lord's day (of His wrath, ch.6:17) is what John saw while "in the spirit". It fits!
BP8 11:05 the view re "the Lord's day" in Revelation 1 being a reference to the annual resurrection day of Christ and not each Sunday is from, I think, a Messianic publication I read a while ago, but only recently was going through its sections on Weeks/Pentecost. If you want feel free to check it out. The aforementioned reference is on page 48 footnote 62 of the book "The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh" www.yahweh.org/publications/fsdy/festivals.pdf
Post a Comment