p. 194 | THE MARK OF THE BEAST by G. V. Kilgore

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 21, 1877

THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

By G. V. Kilgore

We believe and teach that the mark of the beast, spoken of in Rev. 14:9, is the willful violation of the fourth commandment, in compliance with earthly rule. Any one can easily see, by reading verses 9 to 12, that the mark is something directly contrary to the commandments of God. But when we show that it has its place in the “very great things” spoken by the “man of sin,” the papal church; and then preach that it is nothing more nor less than the old festival of Sunday, which the pagans set apart to a false god, and which the Church of Rome commanded instead of the holy Sabbath of our God, we are met with what some seem to think serious objections. I never heard anybody try to offer scriptural objections; but the conclusion to which nearly all opposers come is, “If Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, then all Christians who have kept Sunday have been lost; and all the Christians who keep it now will share the same fate.” But none can be said to have the mark of the beast, until they do as the beast has done in regard to the fourth commandment.

That God has a sign in his law to show his authority, is very certain. Speaking of the Sabbath, in Ex. 31:17, he says, “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever [that is, as long as God has an Israel]; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” In the fourth commandment he gives the same reason: “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.” Thus we see the Sabbath is the sign of God’s almighty power: it is the seal of his law. In that law, God has written his name, not in a form that can be applied to heathen gods, but in such a form that none can mistake the author; and besides his name, he has placed his Sabbath there, to be a sign (or seal, which is the same, Rom. 4:11) in his unchangeable law. In Eze. 20:12, he says he gave the Sabbath to be a sign that his people might know that he is the God that sanctifies them. And what would God’s law be worth without his name and seal? It would be like the laws of any governor, who neglected to affix the seal to his edicts: it would be of no force, for we should not know who commanded it. But God made no such mistake. He placed both his name (the Lord that made all things) and his seal (the Sabbath that he set apart at creation) in his law—both in the fourth commandment.

Now what power has a right to change that law or alter that sign? No power but God himself. Have we any record in the Bible of his making any alteration? None at all; but he does say, “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” No power has ever claimed to change any part of God’s ten commands, except the Roman power. The Church of Rome says she changed the fourth commandment by “changing the Sabbath into Sunday”; and she declares that that “very act” shows her power to command other institutions. See the “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” a Catholic work.

That this beast of Rev. 14:9 is Papal Rome, all Protestants will admit. And as the mark of that power is directly contrary to the commandments of God, it is natural to conclude that that institution which Papal Rome commanded instead of God’s sign, is the sign (or mark) of the beast. And how certain it is, when that power claims “the very act of changing the Sabbath [God’s sign] into Sunday, which Protestants allow of,” as the sign of their authority! They have torn out God’s signature, and inserted one of their own.

If all Christians had known this, and still willfully disregarded the Lord’s holy day, and offered to him the first day, which he never sanctioned, but which the Church of Rome appointed, then they would have been sinners before God; but they did not know what Rome had done: they were worshiping God, but had a false impression in this matter.

An illustration that Bro. Canright uses sometimes, makes this point clear, and shows the difference between our responsibility when we have light on a subject and when we have no light: A certain man had a ten-dollar bill, which he thought was good, and went to buy goods. He offered the money to a merchant; but the merchant refused to accept the bill, saying it was counterfeit. The man had not thought of such a thing, and declared he never would pass bad money if he knew it. So they both went to the detector, and proved the bill to be counterfeit. Then the man gave the merchant good money instead. Would anybody condemn that man for trying to pass bad money? Would he be arrested? No; but all would say he was honest, and did just right, the best he knew. But now suppose that man should take that same counterfeit bill across the street to another store, and try again to pass it for good money. Would people condemn him this time? Yes; and they would have good reason for it, too. Why? Simply because the man had knowledge that he did not have before; he knew he was doing wrong.

Just so it is with the people who have been keeping the first day of the week. Before it was suggested to their minds that that day is a counterfeit, they honestly thought it was genuine. But when they see it tested by the detector—the fourth commandment—they are accountable if they keep it as genuine any longer.

“But why did not our good fathers see this?” says one. Many ask the same question wherever we go. And the same might be asked in regard to the man with the counterfeit bill: “Why did that man not see before that he had bad money?” It was because he did not look to see: he did not think of looking. But a harder question to answer was never thought of than the following one will be when men appear before God in judgment: “Why were you not willing to obey God when you did know his will?” G. V. KILGORE.