What is the Mark of the Beast ?

[Josheb]

Most of the world leaders & the masses pledged alliance to King Charles at his Coronation

What does that have to do with the "mark"?

 

[Apple Sky]

Am I making sense?

Sort of. What I don't understand is that Jesus hasn't returned yet & it's been 2,000 years since John wrote revelation, if God is the only one who knows when Jesus is to return, surely God would know in what era we would be living at upon Jesus's return. I'm at a understanding that Revelation was written for our generation as we are told in Matthew 24 the things to look out for in order to be ready for his 2nd coming.

So I'm still at the understanding that the mark of the beast could be a chip or a DNA change.

 

[bèlla]

So I'm still at the understanding that the mark of the beast could be a chip or a DNA change.

I think it's tied to trans humanism. The mark may symbolize who's undergone the process or allowed themselves to be implanted with a device like a chip as you've noted. But there's also the reference to men longing for death which could be the result of conditions and the realizations of those who've taken the mark. I don't know if they'll understand the gravity of their choice but I believe they'll learn eventually.

I look at the subject in the natural and spiritual. There's a lot of things on the horizon that alter man's internal makeup or enhance it. I follow the topic as an investor. They're less likely to mince words and go into greater depth on what lies ahead. There's no need to speculate.

~bella

 

[Apple Sky]

But there's also the reference to men longing for death which could be the result of conditions and the realizations of those who've taken the mark.

Not forgetting the sores they break out with, it all fits together for it to be DNA splicing, and what were they doing in Noah's day ?

Jesus said,
As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37

 

[bèlla]

Not forgetting the sores they break out with, it all fits together for it to be DNA splicing, and what were they doing in Noah's day ?

Lots of splicing. When I was younger I used to watch a show called Land of the Lost and never forgot it. I remember the scene in the opening with whirlpool (portal) that transported them to a different period. And the common denominators with dinosaurs is their delight in human flesh but we didn't see that in the garden. They were never His creation but abominations of the evil one. Chimera is the term we use today.

I don't believe in the rapture. I've used this period to strengthen my person and warfare. The strongest altar wins as Elijah proved.

~bella

 

[3 Resurrections]

If read exactly as written then some of what is in the book of Revelation had already transpired (the things which John had seen), and some of it was about conditions existing at the time of his writing the book (the things which are),

Agreed. This past and present reality in John's days was true about the "mark". It had already been in use before John was writing Revelation, and it was also then presently in use. The Rev. 13 Land Beast had been requiring the use of that "mark" by everyone coming to the land of Israel who desired to offer worship in the Jerusalem temple. That "mark" gave homage to the Roman phase of the Rev. 13 Sea Beast that was then in power in John's days.

But you are mistaken that it is only a "peripheral" issue of what the Sea Beast's identity was. If you don't know the identity of the Land Beast that was requiring the "mark", and the identity of the Sea Beast which that "mark" was giving homage TO, then you can't really figure out what that "mark" was.

The "mark" which gave homage to the Roman phase of the Rev. 13 Sea Beast and its demi-gods was the required use of the Tyrian shekel in the temple in order to buy or sell sacrificial items for worship. The Tyrian shekel was also the coin which was required for paying the annual temple tax by the adult Israelite males. The two-horned Rev. 13 Land Beast was the religious leadership of Israel with its Pharisee and Sadducee rulers of the Sanhedrin who spoke lies like Satan the Dragon. This Land Beast of Israel's religious leadership had been demanding that all foreign currency be exchanged for this single Tyrian shekel coin before any buying or selling could be done in Jerusalem's temple. A fee was charged for this "exchange service", and was collected by the money-changers. This was the reason why Christ was so enraged at the money-changers who had turned His Father's house into a "den of thieves" with this abominable practice instituted by the high priesthood.

The Tyrian shekel "mark" which gave homage to the Roman phase of the Sea Beast remained as the only coin allowed for temple transactions until AD 66 when the Zealots launched the rebellion against Rome. After AD 66, the Zealots began minting their own currency instead, and the Tyrian shekel "mark" was no longer being required for temple purchases and sales. As of the time John was writing Revelation, the Tyrian shekel "mark" would only be required for just a few more years - 6 more years to be exact.

 

[Apple Sky]

John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

This passage tells me that we do no wrong in looking into the lost books of the Bible, where we can learn more about Jesus & his second coming.

 

[Josheb]

Sort of. What I don't understand is that Jesus hasn't returned yet...

Say as who?

God/Jesus comes many times in many ways for many purposes. Jesus came with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus came to Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD. The author of Hebrews stated Jesus would come a second time for a salvation apart from sin (the premillennial view of his return is decidedly about sin). In point of fact, the phase "Second Coming" does not exist anywhere in the Bible . That phrase is a doctrinal addition to scripture, one that is man-made, not God-uttered. Most eschatologies assume all mentions of his coming again are the exact same coming, a second coming, one that they hold in contradiction to the fact he came in several places in the NT (and the OT if we accept those examples as Chrstophanies).

& it's been 2,000 years since John wrote revelation,

Yes, it has. It has been 2000 years since God stated the things that would happen quickly was near. So is God mistaken or a liar? No! Definitely not. That leaves us with only one other conclusion: Jesus did come, but not as most of our end-times views say he's supposed to come. Most of these debates on eschatology are about what a particular doctrine teaches, not what scripture teaches. When the Dispensationalist, for example, argues, "That hasn't yet happened!" what s/he more accurately means is, "The way my end-times doctrine teaches 'X' will happen has not yet happened." That's an entirely different statement than "What scripture teaches hasn't happened."

Fundamentally, and I mean fundamentally, if God says, "X will happen when Y occurs," and Y then occurs it does not matter whether or not we understand how and why X happened or what X is. This boils down to whether or not we believe God, what God explicitly stated, or do we believe what man-made doctrines say God meant. When God uses the word "near," He always means near. That is a fact of scripture. It's a fact anyone can objectively verify if and when they open their Bible and concordance and examine every single occasion when God used the word "near." Once the facts of scripture are gathered.... be wary of those who teach what is plainly, objectively verifiable is not what was intended. If you do that study it will be discovered that some of the uses of "near" occur conditionally. That is to say God says, "When W happens then X is near." For example, "When the Messiah comes then there will be healing," or "When the Messiah comes people will be made seeing but not perceiving." Whether or not there was ever any report of healing or blindness does not matter because God explicitly stated those things would occur when the Messiah came. The NT gospels do confirm those two particular examples, but it did not have to do so. The moment scripture reported the Messiah had come all the events associated with his coming were going to occur. The same hold true for all those OT prophecies about the "last days." On any occasion when the NT states the OT last days prophesy was fulfilled it immediately become incumbent upon us to believe what is written. So, when Peter speaks in Acts 2 explicitly stating Joel 2 was fulfilled at Pentecost, we don't get to deny what is plainly stated. At best we could look at the Joel 2 text and ask whether or not all of that prophecy was fulfilled in that New Testament moment but if and when we do that we had better have something in that text to support our doing so. Extra-biblical man-made doctrines in and of themselves do not justify changing what is stated. Ever.

But that happens a lot when it comes to eschatology.

I mention Acts 2 because in Acts 2 we read Peter unequivocally stating God's promise to David to seat one of David's descendants on his throne was about the resurrection of Christ, that his body would not see decay in the grave.

This is an example of the newer revelation explaining the older revelation, the New Testament explaining an Old Testament prophecy and declaring it fulfilled. Premillennialists (both Historicists and Dispensationalists deny Acts 2:30-31 and teach his kingdom is not complete until he establishes a physical throne with his physical presence physically here on physical earth. The essence of that view is a Judaization of Christian eschatology, the imposition of the Old Testament over the New Testament and in a way that denies what is plainly, explicitly undeniably stated in Acts 2:31. God's oath was about the resurrection, not a chair made of wood covered in gold for someone to sit on.

if God is the only one who knows when Jesus is to return

Who said God is the only one who knows?

, surely God would know in what era we would be living at upon Jesus's return.

Yep. And He stated it in His word.

For example, it is very popular for premillennialists to point to Matthew 24 where Jesus says no one will know the day or hour of his return. That is true, Jesus did explicitly state that, BUT Jesus ALSO just as plainly stated all the events he was describing in answer to his disciples' question, would occur in "this generation."

Matthew 24:34
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

And he said it twice. He had told the Pharisees the exact same thing just a few hours earlier. No one will know the day or hour, but it will happen in this generation. Not "that" generation," as many say he meant. The Greek there is conjugated in the near-demonstrative. The near-demonstrative CANNOT be made to mean anything but what it plainly states. But MANY teachers, including many noted and esteemed theologians teach "this" means "that." Norm Geisler once argued "this generation" meant "that race which eventually sees those things." because the word "genea" can be translated race, depending on the context. He later recanted. The phrase "this generation" is used almost exclusively in Matthew and Luke. The phrase is found only one other place in the NT (Heb. 3:10), where the author is quoting from Psalm 95. All 14 of the gospel uses refer to the generation to whom Jesus is speaking at that time. Most of them are references to the OT where prophesies were tied to the Messiah's coming (incarnation) to Israel. If you check this out, make sure you start reading at Matthew 21:18 and read all the way through to Matthew 26:5. Matthew is reporting one day's events and it took him five chapters to do so. Jesus enters Jerusalem, cleans out the temple in obedience to the Levitical Law, and then leaves the city. The next day he returns and is repeated challenged by the Sadducees and Pharisees. He eventually pronounces judgment on them telling them they are graves full of dead bones and their house is desolate. He then leaves the temple where he informs the accompanying disciples the temple will be destroyed and that evening, after they've walked up to the Mount of Olives (which looks down upon the temple roof) they asked him when those things would happen. Jesus answers their question, and the passage closes with Matthew reporting the Jewish leaders had begun to plot Jesus' death. That all takes place in one day.

I'm at a understanding that Revelation was written for our generation...

Yes, that is true, but the reason it has meaning for all people of all generations (beginning with those who are Christians) is because God was faithful and true. It is because He kept His word that we KNOW we can trust Him. The modern futurist teaches an entirely different kind of trust. They teach we're are to trust God because He will keep His word, not because He has kept His word.

...as we are told in Matthew 24 the things to look out for in order to be ready for his 2nd coming.

No. In Matthew 24 Jesus told his disciples, the ones sitting there with him on the Mount of Olives to be ready. You, me, and everyone living in the 21st century are never mentioned. Go back and read that chapter and ask yourself, "To whom does the 'you' in this verse refer?"

"You" will see X...
"You" will hear of Y...
"You" will be handed over to tribulation...

Those yous are said to the disciples, not you or me. Those yous are said about the disciples, not you or me. Jesus did NOT say, "They" will see and hear X and Y. He said you will see and hear them. Exegetically speaking, these are called "audience affiliations." We apply the text to the audience identified in the text itself. So, for example, when Paul opens his epistles with "I Paul, a bondservant of Christ am writing to....." he is identifying his audience. It's not okay for us to apply his words to some other group of people unless the text of his epistle states otherwise.

Read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary everyday usage unless there is reason in the text to do otherwise. Understand the words as the original speaker and his original audience would have understood them.

The only thing we should be looking for are the parts of prophecies left to be fulfilled and that's why the debate continues: premillennialists say a lot has not been fulfilled where most of the other eschatologies are more preterist (which means prophecies are already fulfilled).

So I'm still at the understanding that the mark of the beast could be a chip or a DNA change.

Okay.

I've made my case and I appreciate the time taken and the patience and kindness extended to consider an alternative point of view.

In summary, I remind you that the teachers of that model have never got even one prediction correct in the entire existence of that model. Eschatologically speaking, not a single one of them have ever been correct; they are all false teachers when it comes to these kinds of prognostications. The only way 21st century conditions like the advanced technologies suggested in this op can be made is by denying some of the most basic rules of exegesis, like the original meaning, literal reading, temporal markers, audience affiliations, and using scripture first to understand scripture. I've made some recommendations for comparative points of view and done a basic examination of a few eschatologically relevant passages in scripture. I'll leave you with three other verses to consider.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

The LORD says to His Lord to sit at the LORD's right hand until the LORD defeats the Lord's enemies. The rest of the psalm has the Lord effecting events on earth from his seat in heaven. He does not leave until his enemies are defeated. This reconciles perfectly with the fact Revelation has Jesus in heaven, seated on his Father's throne all the way through to chapter 21 and 22. Nowhere prior does the book of Revelation explicitly state Jesus is on earth.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

The ends of the ages had come. Not their beginning, but their ends.

Matthew 24:34-41
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.

In the days of Noah it was the ones who were taken away by the flood that died and were destroyed. It was the ones who were left behind, eight people in all, who went on to live in a covenant relationship with their Creator. Pre-tribulational rapturists interpret this backwards. When the Son of Man comes it will be like it was in the days of Noah where many will be destroyed and those who remain will enjoy God's covenant promises.

Thanks for hanging in there with me. Let me know what you think of those other books when as you read them and I'll gladly recommend some specific sources for each eschatological pov if you like.

 

[Josheb]

This passage tells me that we do no wrong in looking into the lost books of the Bible, where we can learn more about Jesus & his second coming.

That might be true if any of those sources were identified, but they are not. That means the inclusion of any other source must first be examined for its integrity with whole scripture. I've recently been having a conversation with a poster in another forum who has expressed the view this book, HERE, might be a legitimate source for understanding 1) Solomon's Christology and 2) why Jews of the first century would expect the Messiah to be able to cast out demons. It is my opinion they book is not to be considered a legitimate source for either task because the book's contents contradict scripture in many ways and in multiple places (beginning with its claim the "heart girl with the serpent" is the "bornless" lord of all things who can invoke God). That book is NOT something that could scripturally or logically be considered something to which John might be alluding in that verse.

 

[Josheb]

Agreed. This past and present reality in John's days was true about the "mark". It had already been in use before John was writing Revelation, and it was also then presently in use. The Rev. 13 Land Beast had been requiring the use of that "mark" by everyone coming to the land of Israel who desired to offer worship in the Jerusalem temple. That "mark" gave homage to the Roman phase of the Rev. 13 Sea Beast that was then in power in John's days.

But you are mistaken that it is only a "peripheral" issue of what the Sea Beast's identity was. If you don't know the identity of the Land Beast that was requiring the "mark", and the identity of the Sea Beast which that "mark" was giving homage TO, then you can't really figure out what that "mark" was.

The "mark" which gave homage to the Roman phase of the Rev. 13 Sea Beast and its demi-gods was the required use of the Tyrian shekel in the temple in order to buy or sell sacrificial items for worship. The Tyrian shekel was also the coin which was required for paying the annual temple tax by the adult Israelite males. The two-horned Rev. 13 Land Beast was the religious leadership of Israel with its Pharisee and Sadducee rulers of the Sanhedrin who spoke lies like Satan the Dragon. This Land Beast of Israel's religious leadership had been demanding that all foreign currency be exchanged for this single Tyrian shekel coin before any buying or selling could be done in Jerusalem's temple. A fee was charged for this "exchange service", and was collected by the money-changers. This was the reason why Christ was so enraged at the money-changers who had turned His Father's house into a "den of thieves" with this abominable practice instituted by the high priesthood.

The Tyrian shekel "mark" which gave homage to the Roman phase of the Sea Beast remained as the only coin allowed for temple transactions until AD 66 when the Zealots launched the rebellion against Rome. After AD 66, the Zealots began minting their own currency instead, and the Tyrian shekel "mark" was no longer being required for temple purchases and sales. As of the time John was writing Revelation, the Tyrian shekel "mark" would only be required for just a few more years - 6 more years to be exact.

Perhaps, but we don't know the mark has anything to do with Rome. What we do know is that the mark, whatever it was/is/or will be (and I include all three possibilities solely as a concession to the modern futurists so as not to create unnecessary division) is something understandable by the original readers of Revelation 13. To say otherwise inescapably makes the text meaningless to both the first century, original reader and every Christian who has lived and will ever live between the time the book was written and the time the mark appears.

As I tried to explain above, those who correctly apply the literal reading and original meaning precepts believe God's word because it has proven true and correct, not because it will one day in the possibly far, far, far distant future prove correct. This is a fundamental difference in the meaning of trusting God. We trust God because He has been true and faithful eschatologically, and they trust God in hope he will be true and faithful according to the definition their modern futurism teaches about the mark.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Perhaps, but we don't know the mark has anything to do with Rome.

Actually, we do know. What proves to me that the mark required by the Rev. 13 Judean Land Beast gave homage to Rome is the information in Revelation 13:2. In this verse, it says that the Dragon's / Satan's throne was given to the Sea Beast, along with great authority. John had already written in Revelation 2:13 that the throne of Satan was in the city of Pergamos.

The fulfillment of this was when the entire idol-worshipping kingdom of Pergamos along with that throne in Pergamos was given to the Roman Republic in 133 BC. The dying king of the Pergamum kingdom, Attalus III, had no heir to whom he could pass his kingdom, so in his will he bequeathed it entirely to his ally, the Roman Republic. This bequest was recorded by the Roman senate.

This connection of Revelation 2:13 with Revelation 13:2 tells us that the Sea Beast was in some way connected with ancient Rome.

 

[Josheb]

Actually, we do know. What proves to me that the mark required by the Rev. 13 Judean Land Beast gave homage to Rome is the information in Revelation 13:2. In this verse, it says that the Dragon's / Satan's throne was given to the Sea Beast, along with great authority. John had already written in Revelation 2:13 that the throne of Satan was in the city of Pergamos.

The fulfillment of this was when the entire idol-worshipping kingdom of Pergamos along with that throne in Pergamos was given to the Roman Republic in 133 BC. The dying king of the Pergamum kingdom, Attalus III, had no heir to whom he could pass his kingdom, so in his will he bequeathed it entirely to his ally, the Roman Republic. This bequest was recorded by the Roman senate.

This connection of Revelation 2:13 with Revelation 13:2 tells us that the Sea Beast was in some way connected with ancient Rome.

That is speculation. No matter how well-informed it may be, it is still speculation. In the absence fo either some specific scripture explicitly explaining the mark or some post-NT era history explicitly specifying the mark its identity is lost to time.

And your belief violates the temporal specifications provided in Revelation, so it's a bad speculation.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And your belief violates the temporal specifications provided in Revelation, so it's a bad speculation.

What are you talking about? The Tyrian shekel being the mark that gave homage to the ancient Roman phase of the Sea Best most definitely matches the temporal language of Revelation 1:19 on all fronts. As you yourself have pointed out, John was to write about past things he had seen, present things going on, and those things that were "about to take place hereafter".

The Tyrian shekel mark was all of those things. In the past, ever since 19 BC, that Tyrian shekel "mark" whose inscriptions and images gave homage to Rome and its gods had been imposed by the Rev. 13 Land Beast on anyone buying or selling in the temple. The high priesthood had requested special permission from Rome in 19 BC, asking if they could mint a copy of this Tyrian shekel themselves. In the present, (in John's days), the Tyrian shekel requirement was still in place for any temple worshippers coming to either buy or sell sacrificial items, and it was also required for the annual Temple tax for adult Israelite males. This Tyrian shekel "mark" was also in John's near future, as it was still going to be a requirement by the high priesthood in the temple up until they lost control in the Zealot rebellion which began in AD 66.

That is speculation. No matter how well-informed it may be, it is still speculation. In the absence fo either some specific scripture explicitly explaining the mark or some post-NT era history explicitly specifying the mark its identity is lost to time.

No, the identity of the "mark" is not "lost to time". You need to do some numismatic study of the Tyrian shekel to see why its images and inscriptions were considered so abominable by God, and such a disobedient act against His commandments not to take the silver of other gods unto themselves, because it was "a cursed thing". The high priesthood was totally ignoring those OT commandments in Deuteronomy 7:25-26 in order to make vast profits from exchanging all other foreign currency coming to the temple for their required Tyrian shekel coin. Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple for this offense should tell you how abominable this Tyrian shekel requirement was.

The requirement of the "mark" for buying and selling sacrificial items for temple worship is ancient history by now, although you can certainly buy one of these Tyrian shekel coins if you wanted one for "show and tell".

 

[Josheb]

What are you talking about?

When was Revelation written?

 

[3 Resurrections]

When was Revelation written?

John wrote Revelation 666 YEARS after the Sea Beast first began its existence back under King Nebuchadnezzar (the "lion" kingdom in Daniel's writings). The first Babylonian deportation of Jerusalem's nobility was in 607 BC (including Daniel and his friends). Sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60, John wrote the book of Revelation after 666 YEARS of those various pagan nations holding control over Israel (the "lion", the "bear" and the "leopard" features of the Sea Beast in Rev. 13:2).

We know that John wrote the book of Revelation BEFORE the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake, because those church members had been claiming "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". God told them through John that "I am ABOUT TO spue thee out of my mouth". This meant that the catastrophic AD 60 earthquake was on the very near horizon for these Laodicean church members. Meaning John was writing Revelation just before that disastrous AD 60 Laodicean earthquake.

That dates the time period in which the Sea Beast was then existing in John's days as being in its final Roman phase of existence. The "mark" imposed by the Rev. 13 Land Beast had been required for anyone of any nation coming to the temple who needed to either buy or sell sacrificial items for worship. The abominable, forbidden pagan images and inscriptions on that Tyrian shekel "mark" gave homage to Rome and its gods. The high priesthood's requirement of this "mark" had been going on ever since 19 BC when that Tyrian shekel "mark" was the only coin the high priesthood would allow for sales and purchases in the temple, and for the annual Temple tax for Israelite adult males. That Tyrian shekel "mark" only lasted until AD 66 when the Zealot rebellion took over, and the Zealots began minting their own coins for an independent Israel, with "for the redemption of Zion" stamped on them instead.

As you have said yourself on several occasions, Josheb, Revelation's message needs to be understood in terms of its audience relevance in the first century. With a little wisdom, most at that time could easily "calculate the number of the Beast" by counting backward in time those 666 years and realize that John was talking about all the pagan empires who had held control over the nation of Israel until that point in time around AD 60. The intent of John's meaning could then get across to his first-century readers without John saying something that could have been misconstrued by the church's enemies as promoting rebellion against the Roman empire, (which was certainly not John's purpose).

 

[Josheb]

Sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60.....

And how many years occur between 59 and 60 AD and 119 AD? That would be about 60 years after the "near/at hand" of Revelation 1 and 22, and about 120 years after the "you will sees/hears" and "this generation" of Matthew 24.

Do you see a problem with that? I do. It's too much time. The mark was something John's 59-60 AD original audience knew was at hand, something they were going to observe (and experience if they didn't heed the warning). Most of his readers would have been dead had they had to wait another 60 years, and if any of them had been present in Mattew 24 they'd all be dead by 119 AD.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And how many years occur between 59 and 60 AD and 119 AD? That would be about 60 years after the "near/at hand" of Revelation 1 and 22, and about 120 years after the "you will sees/hears" and "this generation" of Matthew 24.

Do you see a problem with that? I do. It's too much time. The mark was something John's 59-60 AD original audience knew was at hand, something they were going to observe (and experience if they didn't heed the warning). Most of his readers would have been dead had they had to wait another 60 years, and if any of them had been present in Mattew 24 they'd all be dead by 119 AD.

I'm afraid you will have to explain why you are bringing up the AD 119 year. Are you accidentally mistaking this for the 19 BC year I brought up? That year of 19 BC was when King Herod was making plans for his lavish temple renovations, and needed to show the priesthood that he had plans for a ready source of money in Israel to fund those extensive temple renovations.

I think it is more than just coincidence that the high priesthood asked permission from Rome to began minting their copy of the Tyrian shekel in that same 19 BC year. The fee which the money-changers charged every time someone coming to the temple wished to either buy or sell sacrificial items for their temple worship (swapping any foreign currency for the required Tyrian shekel) provided a steady stream of funds for the temple's renovations. Herod could then channel that money into paying for those expensive renovations without bearing the cost himself out of the royal treasury. The stream of people coming from every nation to worship at the temple were the ones who ended up "footing the bill" for the needed funds for those stupendous improvements on the temple. As well as every adult male in Israel paying the yearly Temple tax in that same Tyrian shekel coin.

It didn't matter to either King Herod or the high priesthood that this practice of using and requiring that profane Tyrian shekel in the temple was a clear violation of God's commands all the way back in Deuteronomy 7:25-26. A constant stream of readily-available money meant more to them than obedience to God's commands about idolatrous images of pagan gods, which those required Tyrian shekel "marks" had stamped on them.

That Tyrian shekel requirement had not only been in place since 19 BC, it was still an ongoing, abominable practice in Christ's days, and was also an "at hand" / "near" problem in John's days when he was writing Revelation in AD 59 / 60. It would continue to be a problem in Israel up until AD 66. That was the year when the Zealots got rid of that abominable practice by starting to mint their own coinage with "year one" of the rebellion stamped on them.

 

[Josheb]

I'm afraid you will have to explain why you are bringing up the AD 119 year. Are you accidentally mistaking this for the 19 BC year I brought up?

My bad. I mistakenly thought you'd posted something about a mark occurring in 119 AD, but I see that you have, instead said the mark began in 19 AD. I stand corrected (and appreciate the commendable grace extended in my error).

That year of 19 BC was when King Herod was making plans for his lavish temple renovations, and needed to show the priesthood that he had plans for a ready source of money in Israel to fund those extensive temple renovations.

I think it is more than just coincidence that the high priesthood asked permission from Rome to began minting their copy of the Tyrian shekel in that same 19 BC year. The fee which the money-changers charged every time someone coming to the temple wished to either buy or sell sacrificial items for their temple worship (swapping any foreign currency for the required Tyrian shekel) provided a steady stream of funds for the temple's renovations....

So, what you are saying, if I understand this correctly, is that the "mark" of Revelation 13 is part of the Revelation 1:19's things already seen and things that are, and not (just) things that take place afterwards. Is that correct?

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

If that is correct then 1) how is that shekel a mark on the hand or forehead, and 2) what do you think of the appeal to an extra-biblical source as the explanation for the mark?

 

[3 Resurrections]

So, what you are saying, if I understand this correctly, is that the "mark" of Revelation 13 is part of the Revelation 1:19's things already seen and things that are, and not (just) things that take place afterwards. Is that correct?

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

If that is correct then 1) how is that shekel a mark on the hand or forehead, and 2) what do you think of the appeal to an extra-biblical source as the explanation for the mark?

Yes, that is what I intended to say. And thank you for clarifying that bit about the AD 119 year being just a simple mis-reading of the 19 BC year.

For all those great and small, rich and poor, free and bond who in Rev. 13:16-17 were caused "to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads", this Tyrian shekel "mark" WAS received in the right hands of those coming to the temple who had to hand over their own foreign currency to the money-changers, along with a transaction fee. In exchange, these all received in their right hand the Tyrian shekel so that they could either sell sacrificial items or buy them if they were not able to bring those things with them on their journey to the temple.

As for the "forehead" part of this verse where the "mark" was received, women in those days wore a headdress with a set of ten Tyrian shekels on the forehead portion of that headdress, which denoted their marital status. This was why the woman in the "lost coin" parable in Luke 15:8-9 was so upset at losing one of those drachma coins, since it was the equivalent of a woman today losing her wedding ring somewhere in her house.

John mentioned both the right hand and then the forehead in connection with this "mark", since this covered the universal use of that profane Tyrian shekel in those days by both men and women, free and bond, small and great, rich and poor.

This isn't strictly an appeal to an extra-biblical source I'm using to explain this "mark". The money-changers are well known from scripture. Christ's angry response to this abuse of His Father's house in John 2:13-17 was totally understandable. The temple should have been a house of prayer instead of a "den of thieves" which was extorting that onerous fee from everyone to make them comply with the profane Tyrian shekel requirement in the temple, both Israelite and those from other nations as well who came to the temple to worship.

The woman in the "lost coin" parable is also well known from Luke 15:8-9. The coin in this context was a "drachma" in this case, which in Jewish terminology was the shekel coin. The value of a complete set of ten drachma coins worn on a married woman's headdress can be compared to the annual tax of the half-shekel (didrachma) from every adult male in Israel. So the married woman's headdress actually had the value of twenty annual temple tax payments by a single adult Israelite male.

Likewise, the dated year when King Herod began plans for the temple renovations is known from John 2:20, where the Jews told Christ, "forty-six years was this temple in building..." prior to Christ's first Passover of His earthly ministry in AD 30. It took a couple years for King Herod to plan and collect materials and start funding for the renovations. (This connects with the 19 BC year I proposed above when the high priesthood asked Rome if they could start minting those Tyrian shekel copies to use in the temple.) Then in 17 BC, those 46 years of the temple's actual building process were initiated (up to AD 30 which was Christ's first Passover of His earthly ministry).

So this presentation of the Tyrian shekel required by the high priesthood being the "mark" is mixed with both scripture and historical records that coincide with each other on the chronological timeline. None of this information is self-contradictory.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, that is what I intended to say. And thank you for clarifying that bit about the AD 119 year being just a simple mis-reading of the 19 BC year.

For all those great and small, rich and poor, free and bond who in Rev. 13:16-17 were caused "to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads", this Tyrian shekel "mark" WAS received in the right hands of those coming to the temple who had to hand over their own foreign currency to the money-changers, along with a transaction fee. In exchange, these all received in their right hand the Tyrian shekel so that they could either sell sacrificial items or buy them if they were not able to bring those things with them on their journey to the temple.

As for the "forehead" part of this verse where the "mark" was received, women in those days wore a headdress with a set of ten Tyrian shekels on the forehead portion of that headdress, which denoted their marital status. This was why the woman in the "lost coin" parable in Luke 15:8-9 was so upset at losing one of those drachma coins, since it was the equivalent of a woman today losing her wedding ring somewhere in her house.

John mentioned both the right hand and then the forehead in connection with this "mark", since this covered the universal use of that profane Tyrian shekel in those days by both men and women, free and bond, small and great, rich and poor.

This isn't strictly an appeal to an extra-biblical source I'm using to explain this "mark". The money-changers are well known from scripture. Christ's angry response to this abuse of His Father's house in John 2:13-17 was totally understandable. The temple should have been a house of prayer instead of a "den of thieves" which was extorting that onerous fee from everyone to make them comply with the profane Tyrian shekel requirement in the temple, both Israelite and those from other nations as well who came to the temple to worship.

The woman in the "lost coin" parable is also well known from Luke 15:8-9. The coin in this context was a "drachma" in this case, which in Jewish terminology was the shekel coin. The value of a complete set of ten drachma coins worn on a married woman's headdress can be compared to the annual tax of the half-shekel (didrachma) from every adult male in Israel. So the married woman's headdress actually had the value of twenty annual temple tax payments by a single adult Israelite male.

Likewise, the dated year when King Herod began plans for the temple renovations is known from John 2:20, where the Jews told Christ, "forty-six years was this temple in building..." prior to Christ's first Passover of His earthly ministry in AD 30. It took a couple years for King Herod to plan and collect materials and start funding for the renovations. (This connects with the 19 BC year I proposed above when the high priesthood asked Rome if they could start minting those Tyrian shekel copies to use in the temple.) Then in 17 BC, those 46 years of the temple's actual building process were initiated (up to AD 30 which was Christ's first Passover of His earthly ministry).

So this presentation of the Tyrian shekel required by the high priesthood being the "mark" is mixed with both scripture and historical records that coincide with each other on the chronological timeline. None of this information is self-contradictory.

Source?