Will Sunday Worshippers See the Kingdom of God?

Here are some thoughts on this:

The "mark" is propbably directly related to one of the commandments of God because Rev 14:11-12 contrasts those who took the mark to those who keep the commandments:




Consider Daniel 3: Shadrach, Meshack and Abneggo were under the decree to worship the golden image. They refused to break the second commandment about not bowing down and worshipping idols.

Consider Daniel 6: Daniel was under a decree to pray only to the king of Babylon. He refused to break the first commandment about not having any other gods before Me.

These appear to foreshadow the future mark of the beast- a decree to break one of God's commandments. Commandments 1-4 are the commandments directly related to our relationship with Him. The fourth commandment does seem to be the most logical candidate for a future decree.

Once someone is aware that the Roman church "changed" the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, and they choose to observe Sunday rather than the Sabbath, this is an act of recognizing the authority of the man over the authority of God. This IS a spiritual issue.

Daniel 2-7 is a written in a chiastic structure:
Daniel 2 and 7 outline the series of 4 kingdoms: the rise of spiritual Babylon.
Daniel 3 and 6 are decrees of false worship.
Daniel 4 and 5 are the fall of Babylon

A parallel with true versus false worship preceding the fall of Babylon is found in Rev. 14:

7 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 sea, and the fountains of waters.


8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

The fourth commandment seems to be alluded to in Rev. 14:7, above.

Further evidence is that a harlot in the Old Testament always described God's people in state of apostacy and idolatry- it never was used to represent a heathen religion. The harlot in Revelation is "Babylon the Mother of Harlots". Rome considers herself to be the mother church and there are many protestant churches that unknowlingly keep her pagan traditions: Sunday observance, Halloween, etc.
Side note: Ever wonder what rabbits and painted eggs have to do with the death and resurrection of the Messiah? Or, why do we not celebrate on Passover and Firstfruits? Those feasts coincided with the exact days of His death and resurrection. 

The Papacy does deny Christ and the Father in that they say that grace is dispensed by the Pope through his "Treasury of Merit" (Good works of Jesus, Mary, "Saints"), they claim the Pope is Vicar of God, the Head of the Church, and many other blasphemous statements. It is a counterfeit that appears to be Christian but in reality, denies Christ.

The Roman church fits the Biblical attributes of Babylon. Islam does not: 

Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 8 show the sequence of 4 literal kingdoms that precede the Little Horn:
1. Babylon
2. Medo-Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome

The Roman Church directly descended from the series of kingdoms in Daniel. Islam did not not come after Rome, the Roman Church did.

Revelation, Daniel, and elsewhere describe an end time spiritual Babylon. All of the attributes of Babylon, Little Horn/Beast fit the Roman Catholic Church Papacy:

• Makes war with the saints: During the dark ages, millions were slaughtered during the Inquisitions in Europe.
• Blasphemous: "“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, ” Cities Petrus Bertanoushe
• Seeks to change times and laws: The Papacy "changed" Sabbath to Sunday, Passover to Easter, etc. Islam did not do that.
• She is a Harlot: Every time Harlot is used to describe a people in the Bible, it is always when God's people adopt pagan idolatry. Islam does not fit that. 
• Rules over the kings of the earth: World leaders seek audience with the Pope at the Vatican, not with Islamic leaders.

Sept 15, 2024, the Pope said this:

"What Francis said was: Tutte le religioni sono un cammino per arrivare a Dio. “All religions are path[way]s to reach God.” Msgr. Christopher Washington of the Secretariat of State’s English Section did an admirable job rendering the off-the-cuff remark in the moment, offering: “Every religion is a way to arrive at God.”"

source:https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/09/15/what-and-why-did-pope-francis-say-about-religions-as-paths-to-god/

Is this not a denial that Yeshua is the only way, truth and life and no man comes to the Father except through him?

You say that the antichrist must deny Christ, correct? I agree. He also blasphemes God and claims to be God.

“The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary.” Pope Pius IX


“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism

He changes times and laws..

“The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ.” Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. ‘The Pope can modify divine law.’ Ferraris’ Ecclesiastical Dictionary

“The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed…the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority.” Canon and Tradition, p. 263

Given the involvement of Russia with Iran, is it possible that the Russian Orthodox church could end up being entangled with the Islamic empire? I'm not claiming it will be - just thinking outside the box.

New Jerusalem vs Old Jerusalem/Israel (or The Bride Versus the Harlot)
Revelation is full of “yin/yang” style contrasts, including the Lamb versus the Dragon, the Father’s name versus the beast’s name on people’s foreheads, and, here, the image of the bride versus the harlot, or, New Jerusalem versus Babylon/Old Jerusalem/Israel. It is not a great leap from the apparent background of Jeremiah 3 (which includes Yahweh’s “divorcing” of Israel for harlotry) in our Babylon passage to the estimation that the harlot in Revelation is being dismissed by God as an unfit wife for Christ. There is clearly a deliberate literary contrast present between the bride of chapter 21 and the harlot of chapters 17–18 in the language of their respective (and closely parallel) introductions, characterizations, and environments.

Jerusalem/Israel’s rejection of her Messiah, who had come as her husband, sets the stage for the Messiah to take another bride. And if this new bride is called the “New” Jerusalem, a likely corollary is that the former, unfaithful woman is the Old Jerusalem/Israel This ties the two sections together perfectly and logically, and suddenly creates a very natural harmony of purpose and flow of thought for the Apocalypse in broad strokes. Old Jerusalem/Israel/Babylon then represents the current commonwealth of Israel (Judah & Ephraim, the two stick/trees - all believers) that have gone apostate (sunday worship, christmas, easter etc celebrations). Come out of her my people (the manchild/the elect). The remnant goes through the greater exodus (the woman of rev 12). The beast is then 10 muslim nations that the harlot rides. Israel will initially defeat them (Hamas, Hezbollah etc), she is riding that beast at the moment. But ultimately will be defeated by them.

Anyway this is just a theory that I am currently exploring. Not everything fits, but then again, I think that Revelation is all symbolic. Some people pick some items as literal and some as symbolic to fit their point of view. The horses are symbolic and then the saints under the altar are not, etc.