Mark of the Beast

Revelation

{13:16} And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads
{13:17} And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
{13:18} Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is
the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Excerpts from Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith


The Mark of the Beast.--


The two-horned beast enforces upon its subjects
the mark of the first beast.
We have now in the prophecy three agents introduced, which we must carefully distinguish from one another to avoid confusion.


The papal beast is the power designated as "the beast," "the first beast," "the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live," and "the beast whose deadly wound was healed."


These expressions all refer to the same power, and wherever they occur in this prophecy, they have exclusive reference to the papacy.


The two-horned beast is the power introduced in Revelation 13: 11, and is represented through the remainder of the prophecy by the pronoun "he."


Wherever this pronoun occurs, down to the seventeenth verse (with possibly the exception of the sixteenth verse, which perhaps may refer to the image), it refers invariably to the two-horned beast.


The image of the beast is usually called in the following chapters of Revelation, "the image;" so there is no danger of confusing this with any other agent. The acts ascribed to the image are speaking as a dragon and enforcing the worship of itself under the penalty of death. This is the only enactment which the prophecy mentions as enforced under the death penalty.


The mark of the beast is enforced by the two-horned beast, either directly or through the image. The penalty attached to a refusal to receive this mark is a forfeiture of all social privileges, a deprivation of the right to buy and sell. The mark is the mark of the papal beast. Against this worship of the beast and his image, and the receiving of his mark, the third angel's message of Revelation 14: 9-12 is a most solemn and thrilling warning.


(((({14:9} And the
third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any
man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his]
mark in his forehead, or in his hand, {14:10} The same shall
drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out
without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall
be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the
holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: {14:11} And
the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:
and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast
and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his
name. {14:12} Here is the patience of the saints: here [are]
they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of
Jesus.)))


This, then, is the issue which according to this prophecy we are soon to be called upon to meet. Human organizations, controlled and inspired by the spirit of the dragon, are to command men to do those acts which are in reality the worshipping of an apostate religious power and the receiving of his mark.


If they refuse to do this, they lose the rights of citizenship, and become outlaws in the land. They must do that which constitutes the worship of the image of the beast, or forfeit their lives.


On the other hand, God sends forth a message a little before this fearful crisis comes upon the people, as we shall see in remarks on Revelation 14: 9-12, declaring that all who do any of these things "shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation."


He who refuses to comply with these demands of earthly powers exposes himself to the severest penalties which human beings can inflict. He who does comply, exposes himself to the most terrible threatenings of divine wrath to be found in the word of God.


The question whether they will obey God or man is to be decided by the people of the present age under the heaviest pressure, from both sides, that has ever been brought to bear upon any generation.


The worship of the beast and his image and the receiving of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God, to call down so severe a denunciation of wrath against it. This is a work, as has already been shown, which takes place in the last days.


As God has given us in His word most abundant evidence to show when we are in the last days, that no one need be overtaken by the day of the Lord as by a thief, so likewise He has given us the evidence whereby we may determine what it means to receive the mark of the beast, that we may avoid the fearful penalty so sure to follow its reception.


God does not so trifle with human hopes and human destinies as to pronounce a most fearful doom against a certain sin, and then place it out of our power to understand what that sin is, so that we have no means of guarding against it.


We therefore now call attention to the important inquiry, What constitutes the mark of the beast? The figure of a mark is borrowed from an ancient custom. Thomas Newton says:


"It was customary among the ancients for servants to receive the mark of their master, and soldiers of their general, and those who were devoted to any particular deity, of the particular deity to whom they were devoted. These marks were usually impressed on their right hand or on their forehead, and consisted of some hieroglyphic characters, or of the name expressed in vulgar letters, or of the name disguised in numerical letters, according to the fancy of the imposer." 33


Prideaux 34 says that Ptolemy Philopater ordered all the Jews who applied to be enrolled as citizens of Alexandria to have the form of an ivy leaf (the badge of his god, Bacchus) impressed upon them with a hot iron, under pain of death.


The word used for mark in this prophecy is {GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT}, charagma, and is defined to mean, "a graving, sculpture; a mark cut in or stamped."


It occurs nine times in the New Testament, and with the single exception of Acts 17: 29, refers every time to the mark of the beast. Of course, we are not to understand in this symbolic prophecy that a literal mark is intended, but the giving of the literal mark, as practiced in ancient times, is used as a figure to illustrate certain acts that will be performed in the fulfillment of this prophecy.


From the literal mark as formerly employed, we learn something of its meaning as used in the prophecy, for between the symbol and the thing symbolized there must be some resemblance. The mark as literally used, signified that the person receiving it was the servant of the person whose mark he bore, acknowledged his authority, and professed allegiance to him. So the mark of the beast, or of the papacy, must be some act or profession by which the authority of that power is acknowledged. What is it?


Characteristics of Papal Power.--


It would naturally be looked for in some of the special papal power. Describing that power under the symbol of a little horn, Daniel speaks of it as waging a special warfare against God, wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws.


The prophet expressly specifies on this point: "He shall . . . think to change times and laws." Daniel 7: 25.


These laws must certainly be the laws of the Most High. To apply the expression to human laws, and make the prophecy read, He shall speak great words against the Most High, and think to change human laws, would be doing evident violence to the language of the prophet. But apply it to the laws of God, and let it read, He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and laws of the Most High, and all is consistent and forcible. For the word "law" the Hebrew has {HEBREW CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT}, dath, and the Septuagint reads, {GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT}, nomos, in the singular, "law," which more directly suggests the law of God.


The papacy has been able to do more than merely "think" to change human laws. It has changed them at pleasure. It has annulled the decrees of kings and emperors, and absolved subjects from allegiance to their rightful sovereigns. It has thrust its long arm into the affairs of nations, and brought rulers to its feet in the most abject humility. But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do what it was not able to do, but could only think to do. He sees it attempt an act which no man, nor any combination of men, can ever accomplish, to change the law of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.


The apostle Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thessalonians 2. He describes it, in the person of the pope, as "that man of sin" "sitting as God in the temple of God" (that is, the church), and exalting himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped." According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God.


We ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself above God. Search through the whole range of human devices, go to the extent of human effort, and by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but as long as God had requirements which the people felt bound to regard in preference to his, so long he would not be above God. He might enact a law, and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God; then he would only make himself equal with God.


But he is to do more than this; he is to attempt to raise himself above Him. Then he must promulgate a law which conflicts with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own law in preference to God's law. The most effective way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy would be for him to change the law of God. If he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in the place of the original enactment, then he, the law changer, puts himself above God, the lawmaker. This is the very work that Daniel said the power represented by the little horn would think to do.


Such a work as this the papacy will accomplish according to the prophecy, and the prophecy cannot fail. When this is done, what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding obedience--one the law of God as originally enacted by Him, an embodiment of His will, and expressing His claims upon His creatures; the other, a revised edition of that law, emanating from the pope of Rome, and expressing his will. How is it to be determined which of these powers the people honor and worship?--It is determined by the law which they keep. If they keep the law of God as given by Him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed by the papacy, they worship that power.


But further, the prophecy does not say that the little horn, the papacy, should set aside the law of God, and give one entirely different. This would not be to change the law, but simply to give a new one. He was only to attempt a change, so that the law that comes from God and the law that comes from the papacy are precisely alike, excepting the change which the papacy has made. The two laws have many points in common. But none of the precepts which they contain in common can distinguish a person as the worshiper of either power in preference to the other. If God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given in by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that precept whether he designs to obey God rather than the pope, or the pope rather than God. But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. In no other way can the two classes of worshipers be distinguished.


From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent, but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" The answer is simply this: The mark of the beast is the change which the beast has attempted to make in the law of God.


Change in the Law of God.--


We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation. Defining the term "law" according to the sense in which it is almost universally used in Christendom, Webster says, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."


In our comment on Daniel 7: 25, in regard to the prediction of the prophet that the papacy would "think to change times and laws," we produced evidence from the Roman Catechism based on the unquestioned authority of the Council of Trent, and published by order of Pope Pius V by the Vatican press in Rome, that the church changed the day of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. While that catechism records the full wording of the fourth commandment as it reads in the Bible, and while it is retained in full in the official Catholic Bible in Latin, the Vulgate, and in its official translation into English, the Douay Bible; yet the teaching catechisms provided for Roman Catholic priests and teachers in modern times omit all that commandment but the first sentence, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." and add extended testimony that the change of the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday was made on the authority of the Catholic Church and apostolic tradition." Whatever may be said on the text of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and that of the Roman Catholic Bible about retaining the entire commandment as it reads in the Scripture, nevertheless the practice of the prelates and priests is to teach only observance of a Sabbath institution, but locate it on the first day of the week instead of the seventh, by the authority of the church.



Let it be borne in mind, that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and hence should not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the tenth they claim that there is no plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments; so they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth command, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.


In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as professedly intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. How these later catechisms, with their ecclesiastical imprimatur, read, is illustrated herewith.


Some of the simpler catechisms make no mention of a change in religious days, but state categorically that the Sabbath commandment teaches Sunday observance:

"Q. Say the Third Commandment.

"A. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

"Q. What is commanded by the Third Commandment?

"A. To sanctify the Sunday." 35

Others say that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. In A New Catechism of Christian Doctrine and Practice, we find the following under the subject of the third commandment:

"What day was the Sabbath?

"The seventh day, our Saturday.

"Do you keep the Sabbath?

"No: we keep the Lord's Day.

"Which is that?

"The first day: Sunday.

"Who changed it?

"The Catholic Church." 36

In the well-known Baltimore catechism, we find this explanation:

"Q. What it the third Commandment?

"A. The third Commandment is: Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

"Q. What are we commanded by the third Commandment?

"A. By the third Commandment we are commanded to keep holy the Lord's day. . . .

"Q. Are the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same?

"A. The Sabbath day and the Sunday are not the same. The Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week, and is the day which was kept holy in the old law; the Sunday is the first day of the week, and is the day which is kept holy in the new law.

"Q. Why does the Church command us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath?

"A. The Church commands us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday He sent the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles." 37

In The Catholic Christian Instructed we read:

"Q.--What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferably to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?

"A.--We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.

"Q.--Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?

"A.--The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18: 17; Luke 10: 16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles (2 Thess. 2: 15), but the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath." 38

In A Doctrinal Catechism we find further testimony to the same point:

"Ques.--Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Ans.--Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her--she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." 39

In An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine we find this testimony:

"Q.--How prove you that the church hath power to command feast and holy days?

"A.--By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

"Q.--How prove you that?

"A.--Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin." 40

In The Catechism Simply Explained, are these questions and answers:

"What is the third commandment?

"The third commandment is, 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'

"What are we commanded by the third commandment?

"By the third commandment we are commanded to keep the Sunday holy.

"The Jew's Sabbath Day was the Saturday; we Christians keep the Sunday holy. The Church, by the power our Lord gave her, changed the observance of the Saturday to the Sunday." 41


This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no Scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church. They claim as a token, or mark, or the authority of that church the "very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday," and set it forth as proof of its power in this respect.


"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so, for they have been so taught. We would remind such persons, however, that according to the prophecy the only change ever to be made in the law of God, was to be made by the little horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; and that the only change that has been made in it is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, He filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul--a conclusion that is repulsive to any Christian.


Why should anyone labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. No truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted it should do, that the prophecy has failed, and that Scriptures are unreliable. The matter would better stand as the prophecy has it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth better be granted.



When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and in due time that very power arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and that out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the the theology of our day has come. Would it, then, be strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded before the Reformation will be complete? Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ church, speaking of the different Protestant sects, says:


"All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastical organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands." 42


The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of God is worthy of notice. True to his purpose to exalt himself above God, he undertakes to change that commandment which, among them all, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the lawgiver is, and contains his signature of royalty. The fourth commandment does this; no other one does. Four others, it is true, contain the word God, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord God of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment it is impossible to tell, for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the multitudinous objects of their adoration. With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false god are annulled at one stroke. The God who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created all things. The Maker of the earth and the sea, the sun and the moon, and all the starry host, the Upholder and Governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who from His position has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object. The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power which designed to exalt itself above God, would undertake to change. God gave the Sabbath as as a weekly reminder of Himself, and as a memorial of His work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against heathenism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal of the law. This the papacy in its teaching and practice has removed from its place, and has substituted another institution, which the church sets forth as the sign of its authority.


Issue Is Between Sabbath and Sunday.--


This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points, and the Sunday sabbath must be the mark of the beast! Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion. We have not space, nor is this perhaps the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution, and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church--is not the change from Sabbath to Sunday inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative. They hypotheses just set forth are all certainties.

*******


People everywhere would tell you the the world is so secularized that forced worship on any day is impossible.


Deception.


When people do not believe they are being deceived they are most happy aren't they? No one wants to imagine being deceived. Too smart for that, right?


Logically we like to believe that we live in such an enlightened world that we in the FREE world, we who have rights, who have laws, who have protections from dictatorial forces would NEVER succumb to any forced marking of any sort.


Let's review for a moment. Are American's forced to do anything under the law? Or are they allowed to run wild and rampant having to answer to no one? Certainly there is a law that all have to follow, in fact, many laws. Our prisons are overflowing with law breakers aren't they? So to say that we would never succumb to any forced anything is a huge fallacy. We are duped into believing all the laws enacted are for our own good, our protection and the protection of our loved ones.


One of the key points in the mark of the beast is this--


Revelation
{13:15} And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
{13:16} And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
{13:17} And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
{13:18} Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.


NO MAN MIGHT BUY OR SELL SAVE HE THAT HAD THE MARK, OR THE NAME OF THE BEAST, OR THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME.


The key point regardless of any and all fanciful and not so fanciful theories on what the mark of the beast is, is this hugely important fact- no man will be able to buy or sell without having the mark ... or the name of the beast... or the number of his name.


Three markers all of which result in being UNABLE to buy or sell.


No matter what happens if ANYTHING comes into existence that can take away our power to buy and sell- take away our freedom to make a living and to exist by buying things, we have to look closely at this and remember the words of prophecy.


Could there be a false mark of the beast? Most likely because the devil works by deception. A false mark would lull people into believing they've not succumbed to the power of Satan and if people are led to believe they are not deceived how much more easy it is to deceive them with the true mark.


All in all, God will not allow His very elect-- those who have a love of the truth and nothing but the truth as it is found in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, to be deceived.


We have truly been given all the knowledge we need to keep from the deception by the power of the Holy Spirit living and working in us through the grace and mercy of our Lord.


Let us holdfast to what we know and watch, and pray so that we're not found wanting in the end. Remember many will cry out to Jesus that they are His, but Jesus is going to say He never knew them. They will have been deceived.


Protect us Lord from the great deceiver, keep us safe in You now and forever!


Amen.