OBJECTION 42. — THE MARK OF THE BEAST

Sunday-keeping, according to her visions, is the mark of the beast, and yet she had visions while keeping Sunday, and was never informed while thus in communion with Heaven that she had the mark of the beast, nor that God was displeased with her therefor; and further, the first and second angels of Revelation 14, “had the mark of the beast; for they were Sunday-keepers. Would God send out two angels with the mark of the beast on them? Just think of two God-commissioned angels, doing the work of God, and all the while wearing the mark of the beast. Dare we charge all this against the God of Heaven, to make a sickly theory look plausible, and to prop up the visions of a modern prophetess?”VEGW 107.3

Thus reasons the objector; and no doubt to the uniformed it all looks very plausible, and will work admirably in stirring up prejudice strong and deep according to its evident design. The fault we find with it is, it is altogether founded in misrepresentation and falsehood; and could we satisfy that it was not done willfully, we should feel more lenient toward it. This objection, as set forth above, appeared a few months since in the Voice of the West; but as far back as 1864, in a little friendly controversy with that paper, we distinctly defined our position on this point, as follows:VEGW 107.4

“In relation to our application of the third angel’s message, the worship of the beast and his mark, we are uniformly misrepresented. We do not make the sweeping application, as above asserted, that ‘this [the doom threatened by the third angel] is the terrible fate of all Sunday-keepers.’ We do not accuse all Sunday-keepers of worshiping the beast or of having his mark, in the sense of that prophecy. What we do say is this: that when the light comes, those who willfully shut their eyes to the truth, and deliberately adopt an institution of the beast in place of one which God has given us, having been fully informed that it is such, thereby transfer their allegiance and worship from God to the beast, and then become subjects of the fearful threatening of that message.” — Review, Vol. 24, No. 14.VEGW 108.1

But notwithstanding all this, we find the charge reiterated in the same paper, that according to our view all Sunday-keepers have, and for years in the past, have had, the mark of the beast. If they will not take our explanation, and without any effort to show that the distinction we make is not just, still persist in misrepresenting us, they must bear the responsibility of such a course. Let our position, here, be distinctly understood. True, we hold Sunday-keeping to the mark of the beast; but no Sunday-keeper, past or present, has received the mark in the sense of the third message, however strictly he may have observed the day, if not keeping it with an understanding that it was such a mark, or as enforced by the power that instituted it, as a sign or token of its authority. The third message pertains to a future test which is to be made on this question. It is given at a time when the first day of the week is, and has been for years, almost universally observed; yet mark its phraseology: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark,” etc. But how absurd to warn people against receiving the mark, if they already have it. The wording of the message, then, shows that it is something which they will be required to receive in the future, and which it is given to guard them against. Man says, Receive the mark, or die. Revelation 13:15. God says, Refuse it, or drink of the my unmingled wrath. Revelation 14:9, 10. And when, with the issue before them, men shall seek to save their lives, by surrendering the truth, and deliberately receive an institution of the beast in place of, and as opposed to, a commandment of God, then they receive the mark of the beast, and expose themselves to the unmingled wrath of God. To say, therefore, that according to our view, Luther, Wesley, Fletcher, Whitefield, or any of the good of past ages, or those who gave the first and second messages of Revelation 14, had the mark of the beast, is simply false, and the objector has only wasted his ink in trying to fix this stigma upon the visions.VEGW 108.2

But why was not this sooner shown to be wrong? We answer, Why was not all truth given to the race in the beginning? Especially at the opening of this dispensation, why was not all truth pertaining to it, at once revealed and placed in the hands of the church? The Lord of truth was personally with his disciples, instructing them in the things of the gospel. Why did he not tell them everything at once? Why let an interview close with errors still resting on their minds? But hear him: “I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.” Light comes just as the people of God are ready for it, and are prepared to use it in the development of character. And light on the Sabbath question, as a matter of prophecy, came forth in its proper time, when the temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament. Revelation 11:19.VEGW 109.1