Parousia: The Origin of Sunday Blue Laws
Revelation 13:8 contains a profound prediction: A day is coming when “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast – all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.” Two important features stand out in this verse. First, the phrase “all inhabitants of the earth” is inclusive. Every wicked person living on Earth at that time will worship the beast! Second, this text indicates every nation will be divided into two groups. One group will worship the beast and the other will not! When will this division occur? What will cause it? Why will all nations enact laws demanding that everyone worship the beast? Who is this beast that the wicked will obey? God has answered these questions in His Word if we are willing to let the Bible speak for itself. Surprisingly, the answer may be quite different than what you anticipate! So, please take a few minutes to consider this profound topic because this prophecy will be fulfilled very soon.
The story begins about A.D. 1532 in England. King Henry VIII wanted Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. When Pope Clement refused, King Henry retaliated by declaring himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Using his authority as King of England and Supreme Head of the Church of England, the king “persuaded” church leaders in England that it was in their best interests to annul his marriage to Catherine so he could marry Anne.
Anne Boleyn became pregnant and Princess Elizabeth was born in December 1532. A month later, Anne married King Henry even though his divorce from Catherine was not “declared” until May 23, 1533. Anne was the second of Henry’s six wives. King Henry accused her of adultery and had her beheaded on May 19, 1536, although many historians agree that the king’s interest in Jane Seymour (who became his third wife) was the primary cause for Anne’s death.
Later on, Pope Paul III excommunicated King Henry for his rebellious and adulterous ways, but the king was not concerned. He remained a devout Catholic and during his reign, the Church of England mirrored the theology and practices of the Roman Catholic Church – the most notable difference was that the Supreme Head of the Church lived in England instead of Rome.
When King Henry died, his son, Edward VI, came to power. To win the approval of Protestants, King Edward permitted some reforms to take place within the Church of England. A new book of Common Prayer was created in 1552. The Protestants were delighted because it appeared that the Church of England was finally separating itself from Catholic heresy and tradition, but their joy was short lived because King Edward soon died. Since he died without an heir, his half-sister, Queen Mary I (also known as Bloody Mary), ascended to the throne. She was a devout Catholic and she used her authority as the Supreme Head of the Church of England to cancel the reforms that King Edward had permitted. She abruptly returned the Church of England to pure Catholicism. Many people were burned at the stake during her reign because they would not embrace Catholicism and renounce the reformed faith.
Queen Mary also died without an heir and her half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I, came to the throne. Queen Elizabeth I is credited with establishing the Church of England (1558) as we know it today. She negotiated many thorny issues that existed between Protestants and Catholics. Theologically speaking, the Church of England ended up about 80% Catholic and 20% Protestant. During her reign, a grass-roots movement formed within the church. These conservative radicals called for (a) complete separation from the Church in Rome, (b) the abandonment of Catholic rituals, and (c) complete devotion to perfection and piety. For the most part, the people calling for these reforms were considered rabble (uneducated) and they were given the derogatory name, “puritans.” To ordinary laymen, the Puritan Movement appeared to be obsessed with anti-Catholic sentiment and a relentless quest for purity and perfection.
King James I succeeded Queen Elizabeth in 1603. He favored some of the theology of the Protestant Reformation, but he did not like the Puritans. To his credit, King James believed that common people should be able to read the Bible in English and as the Supreme Head of the Church of England, he permitted the Bible to be translated into English. The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible was produced in 1611. After King James died, his son, Charles I, came to the throne. King Charles openly detested the Puritans because he wanted the Church of England to return to its Catholic roots and rituals. When King Charles married a zealous Catholic woman, the Puritans became outraged. Tensions escalated and the Puritans repudiated the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings (a political/religious doctrine of absolutism), and King Charles responded by condemning the Puritans as heretics. Deadly persecution followed and thousands of Puritans fled England to escape death.
Jean Bodin (1530-1596) initiated a concept called “The Divine Right of Kings” based on a doctrine of sovereignty. Bodin was a devout Catholic, a French jurist, and a member of France’s House of Parliament. Bodin was appalled at the abuses of the Catholic Church in general, and the pope in particular. His investigation into the question of human authority led to the conclusion that kings were not subservient to the Church. Of course, the Catholic Church condemned his conclusion. The doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings teaches that monarchs are not subject to anyone but God because they are appointed by God and they serve at God’s pleasure. (See Romans 13.) Therefore, a monarch rules over church and state. Since a monarch rules according to divine authority, no one can question a monarch’s decisions or judgment without blaspheming God. As you can see, the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings opposes the doctrine of Petrine Succession. Petrine Succession exalts the authority of the head of the Church over heads of state. Catholics believe the doctrine of Petrine Succession is based on Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Catholics believe this action by Jesus (who is King of kings) places the pope’s authority above any earthly king. At that time, the Catholic Church held anyone rejecting the doctrine of Petrine Succession was a heretic and subject to excommunication, and where possible, death. Conflict over this doctrine explains why Pope Paul III excommunicated King Henry VIII.
Hopefully, this brief history on the formation of the Church of England helps you understand who the Puritans were and why they left England. Even though their exodus to the colonies of New England began during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Puritans fled England in large numbers when King Charles began to vigorously pursue and kill them. One could say that the Puritans lost their homeland when they concluded the king of England and the Church of England would no longer tolerate their beliefs. So, the Puritans arrived on the shores of North America having a strong resentment against Catholics and a rigid devotion to purity and perfection, and an eagerness for freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.
Life in colonial America for the Puritans was harsh. Illness was rampant, food supplies were inadequate, and the Indians were often hostile. These challenges forced the Puritans into a stark way of thinking and living. The Puritans viewed life in terms of black and white, and the laws by which they lived were simple: Right was right and wrong was wrong. They regarded themselves as “godly” and everyone else, especially Catholics, as “ungodly.” The Puritans did not associate with the ungodly for fear they would contaminate their quest for purity.
The Puritans established Sunday laws in their colonies because they wanted to protect the holiness of Sunday from worldly compromise. To them, anything less than perfect obedience to God’s law was sin. Their Sunday laws varied somewhat from colony to colony, but the result was the same. The Puritans obligated themselves to honor and respect the holiness of “the Lord’s Day” through mandatory church attendance. Puritans could not work in the fields, make a bed, cook, sew, or even kiss their own child on Sunday. All business activities (for example, discussing business, buying, or selling) and various forms of casual pleasure were outlawed. Consider the severity of the Sunday law that Lord De La Warr, the first governor of Virginia, enacted in 1610: “Every man and woman shall repair in the morning to the divine service and sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to the divine service, and catechizing, upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision and the allowance for the whole week following; for the second, to lose the said allowance and also be whipped; and for the third to suffer death.” (C. Gary Hullquist, Sabbath Diagnosis, Brushton, NY, Teach Services, 2004, p. 379.) Ironically, the Puritans came to North America searching for religious freedom, yet they were the first to enact and enforce laws limiting that freedom.
The Second Coming of Jesus: What are Blue Laws?
Sunday laws are sometimes called “blue
laws.” One story about their
origination is that Reverend Samuel Peters claimed in 1781 the Puritans wrote
the laws on blue paper or they were bound in books with blue covers. (Peters,
Samuel, General History of Connecticut, 1781) No evidence has been found
to support this claim, but history suggests there may be a simple explanation
behind the phrase “blue laws.” The color blue is often associated
with coldness and rigidness. For example, when a person dies, the body loses
oxygen, cools, and then turns blue. When a person enters cold water, his limbs
and lips will turn blue. Blue was often used in a number of early American
colloquial expressions to indicate coldness, such as “bluenoses”
which refers to people who live in the north or in cold climates, or “I’m
feeling blue” which can mean one feels depressed or feels cold, or “a
blue norther is coming” which means a bitter cold weather front is coming.
The Puritans may have been delighted with their stringent regard for the
holiness of Sunday, but their rigid ways and legalistic regard for Sunday
observance left observers cold. Thus, the expression “blue laws”
became associated with the Puritans’ laws regarding Sunday observance.
After the Civil War (1861-1865), several southern states (in the “Bible belt”) enacted Sunday laws. Legislators claimed that a day of rest would be beneficial for the well-being of society. Keep in mind that even though the war was over, attitudes towards slaves and slavery remained largely unchanged in the South. Many former slaves were forced to work seven days a week to survive. Lawmakers argued that Sunday laws were good for everyone because every human being should enjoy the benefits of a common day of rest. Most Protestant pastors agreed. They argued that since Sunday was the “Lord’s Day,” the Sabbath should be observed by attending church and resting from work. Church leaders also favored Sunday laws because business interests would not compete with attendance at worship services; therefore, most religious and non-religious people alike considered the “blue laws” a win-win situation.
There seems to be a truism that says, “Every time a new law is created, unintended consequences occur.” History affirms that blue laws have caused unintended consequences. During the late eighteenth century, non-religious people were arrested for playing games on Sunday, working in their own fields, or for doing menial work around the farm, such as repairing a wagon. During the nineteenth century, blue laws changed focus by becoming more business oriented. This transition was necessary because personal freedom and civil rights became increasingly important in the United States. Currently, some cities still enforce blue laws. They allow grocery stores and drug stores to remain open on Sunday, but only certain items can be sold. (Only items defined as necessities can be purchased on Sunday. Nonessential items cannot.) Liquor stores are permitted to open on Sunday in some states, but only during certain hours. The state of Texas permits a car dealer to open his business on Sunday, but only if it is closed on Saturday. So, while blue laws may seem harmless to most Christians today, Jews, Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims and other religious groups that do not worship on Sunday often face the unintended consequences of Sunday blue laws. For example, a Seventh-day Adventist may close his businesses on Saturday due to religious principles. Because blue laws also restrict business opportunities on Sunday, his businesses is limited to operating five days per week instead of the six that Sunday observers would typically enjoy.
With today’s understanding of the “wall of separation between church and state,” it seems amazing that in 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Maryland’s blue laws did not violate the First Amendment or the free exercise of religion. The court approved the state’s restriction of commercial activities on Sunday because the judges determined that Sunday blue laws were designed “to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens on a secular basis and to promote the secular values of health, safety, recreation, and general well-being through a common day of rest. That this day coincides with the Christian Sabbath is not a bar to the state’s secular goals; it neither reduces its effectiveness for secular purposes nor prevents adherents of other religions from observing their own holy days.” (McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), italics mine.)
Even though the Supreme Court does not acknowledge the sacredness of Sunday, it justifies Sunday blue laws for the same reason that legislators justified Sunday blue laws in the South after the Civil War. The justification was that everyone benefits from a common day of rest. I have wondered if the Supreme Court would have reached the same conclusion if the state of Maryland had selected Tuesday as a common day of rest.
Many Christians Anticipate a National Sunday Law
For the past 155 years, Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) in the United States have anticipated the enactment of a national Sunday law, and to a great extent, they believe this event will initiate a worldwide “time of trouble.” They also believe “the time of trouble” will end with the outpouring of the seven last plagues and the appearing of Jesus. To understand the origin of this anticipation and their keen interest in a national Sunday law, a short review on the prophetic beliefs of SDAs is necessary.
Many of the pioneers who would later form the SDA Church grew up within the Puritan influence that permeated New England Protestantism during the early nineteenth century. Most Protestants living in the United States were gratified by news that the pope had been imprisoned and no longer had papal authority over Europe (1798). In 1831, William Miller, a licensed Baptist evangelist from New York, concluded that the Lord would return “around 1843.” (Later, he corrected the date to 1844.) Based on his preaching, a movement (largely centered in New England) attracted between 50,000 and 100,000 of his followers. After the bitter failure of the Millerite Movement in 1844, prophetic interest within Protestantism generally waned. However, a tenacious group of Millerites went back to the Bible to see why Jesus had not appeared in 1844. After twenty years of regional conferences and various campmeetings to determine Bible truth, a group of people organized a new church body in Michigan and named it the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The year was 1863 and war between the states was raging.
SDAs believe they are the heirs of the
Protestant Reformation that began centuries earlier in Europe. Like the
Puritans before them, they believe it is their divinely appointed duty to point
out the heresies that originated within Catholicism by teaching Bible truth. To
this end, SDAs believe that a time is coming when everyone in the United States
(and ultimately the whole world) will be forced to recognize Sunday as a holy
day. Once a national Sunday law is
enacted in the United States, SDAs believe that all who obey the fourth
commandment will be persecuted for refusing to recognize the sacredness of the
first day of the week. In some cases, they believe there will be torture and
even death. (White, Ellen G., The Great Controversy, Mountain View:
Pacific Press, 1911, pp. 591-92)
This conclusion is arrived at in four steps:
Step 1 – The Catholic Church Is the Beast in Revelation 13:1
SDAs believe the Roman Catholic Church is the first beast mentioned in Revelation 13. (White, p. 439) Since the Bible states this beast will make war on God’s saints and impose false worship on the world (Revelation 13:5-8), SDAs conclude the Roman Catholic Church (the beast) will someday wage war against those who observe God’s seventh day Sabbath. (White, p. 579)
Step 2 – The Mark of the Beast Is Mandated Sunday Observance
SDAs teach that the Roman Catholic Church altered the Ten Commandments by eliminating the second commandment. Moreover, the Catholic Church has tried to change the holiness of God’s seventh day Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. (White, pp. 446-447. Compare Exodus 20:3-17 with any Catechism published by the Catholic Church) SDAs interpret these actions as blasphemy and this blasphemy is regarded as the mark (as in a trademark) of the Catholic Church’s presumed authority. (White, pp. 447-448) Therefore, SDAs conclude that the mark of the beast is Sunday observance and this mark of papal authority will be imposed on everyone when a national Sunday law is enacted. This anticipated law, they teach, will require everyone to respect Sunday as a holy day. (White, pp. 604-605)
Step 3 – The Second Beast in Revelation 13 Is the United States
SDAs teach that the second beast in Revelation 13 is the United States. (White, pp. 439-441) They believe the Roman Catholic Church and the United States government will “join hands” in the future to enact a national Sunday law. (White, p. 578 and White, Ellen G., Testimonies to the Church, vol. 5, Mountain View:Pacific Press, 1948, 712) United, these two superpowers will impose a universal Sunday law on every nation. The church’s prophet, Ellen White (1827-1915), wrote: “As America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor the [Catholic Church’s] false Sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example.” (White,Testimonies to the Church, vol. 6, p. 18
[insertion mine]
) She also wrote: “The decree enforcing the worship of this day [Sunday] is to go forth to all the world. . . . Trial and persecution will come to all who, in obedience to fourth commandment, refuse to worship this false Sabbath.” (6 White, Ellen G., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Washington D.C.:Review and Herald, 1970, 976 [Italics mine])
Step 4 – A National Sunday Law in the United States Signals the Second Coming of Jesus Christ
SDAs teach that the enactment of a national Sunday law in the United States will usher in a worldwide “time of trouble.” (White, Ellen G., The Great Controversy, p. 615) They believe that God will test the world through persecution to see who will honor Rome’s false Sabbath and receive the mark of the beast. They believe God’s saints must resist a Sunday law by standing firm in their faith and obeying the fourth commandment which declares the seventh day of the week holy. (White, Ellen G., The Great Controversy, p. 625)
Special thanks to Larry W. Wilson. This material was excerpted from his study on National Sunday Law- Revisited
Don’t forget to visit our website www.secondcoming.org and YouTube Channel SecondComing.org
