The mark of the beast

[Stryder06]

Yep, our Jewish friends have always kept the Sabbath.

If worshipping on Sunday is the mark of the beast, how does that fit in with the Bible saying the mark is on their foreheads or hands? Not only the curious placement of the mark relative to a Sunday law, but the indication there are two places, or ways, to have this mark. I really don't remember the answer from my past indoctrination.

Past indoctrination? Really though? How sad to see it as such.

The mark on the hand or forehead is symbolic of an acceptance rather mentally or through deeds. This is directly contrasted by the seal of God which only goes on the forehead of His people.

 

[Stryder06]

Even though its possible I doubt there have always been sabbath keepers, contrary to what egw claimed the vadensians for example didnt keep the sabbbath

This is where we differ. But of course, I believe this more so through faith than through history, although many a historical record shows individuals keeping the sabbath.

 

[ricker]

Revelation 14:9 is an allusion to Deuteronomy:

"And these words, which I command the this day, shall be in thine heart:
And thou [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write then upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates."
Deuteronomy 6:6-9

"Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes."
Deuteronomy 11:18

"And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt."
Exodus 13:9

So the Bible gives us a hint: whatever the mark of the beast is, it will involve the beast attempting to replace God's commandments with his own. God's people will know when the time comes.

Thanks, I can now see where the hand and forehead thing came from. I naturally don't agree it has to be a Sunday worship decree, but I digress.

 

[mrasell]

Yep, our Jewish friends have always kept the Sabbath.

If worshipping on Sunday is the mark of the beast, how does that fit in with the Bible saying the mark is on their foreheads or hands? Not only the curious placement of the mark relative to a Sunday law, but the indication there are two places, or ways, to have this mark. I really don't remember the answer from my past indoctrination.

The law between the eyes and forehead represents accepting the principles of the law in the mind and practicing them in daily life.

The seal of God and the mark of the beast are closely connected with character, one group come to represent the Lamb, the other group the beast.

The Sabbath was given as a sign (Hebrew = oth) that God sanctifies us. Hence it is central to the issue of holiness and being like Jesus. God has pledged that those who truly keep the Sabbath will be made holy by Him.

Therefore the Sabbath is a very important issue, because when God promises to make holy those who keep the Sabbath. To deliberately reject this is to distrust God's promise and reject His holiness.

The mark of the beast is not yet in effect, that time comes when all have had a chance to intelligently understand the issues and make a choice, when the Sunday law comes in.

 

[mrasell]

Really ..Is Sunday worship the mark of the beast or not?...When? At some unknown time when the Sunday law kicks in? Well what wrong with Sunday worship now? Why are Sundayworshippers being condemn by SDA?

God does not condemn sincere Christians who did not know about the true Sabbath. But the time is coming when all will know and have to make an intelligent decision either to keep God's commandments or man's laws.

Sunday exalts a man (the Pope) above God, hence worship of the beast, because the papacy claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday by its own authority.

 

[ricker]

The law between the eyes and forehead represents accepting the principles of the law in the mind and practicing them in daily life.

The seal of God and the mark of the beast are closely connected with character, one group come to represent the Lamb, the other group the beast.

The Sabbath was given as a sign (Hebrew = oth) that God sanctifies us. Hence it is central to the issue of holiness and being like Jesus. God has pledged that those who truly keep the Sabbath will be made holy by Him.

Therefore the Sabbath is a very important issue, because when God promises to make holy those who keep the Sabbath. To deliberately reject this is to distrust God's promise and reject His holiness.

The mark of the beast is not yet in effect, that time comes when all have had a chance to intelligently understand the issues and make a choice, when the Sunday law comes in.

I don't think the Bible is exactly clear with this scenario, but I'm sure there are hidden meanings in prophetic imagery that could be used to prop it up.

The eyes and forehead explanation makes sense, but it is obviously not naming or implying a specific issue of contention.

 

[ricker]

God does not condemn sincere Christians who did not know about the true Sabbath. But the time is coming when all will know and have to make an intelligent decision either to keep God's commandments or man's laws.

Sunday exalts a man (the Pope) above God, hence worship of the beast, because the papacy claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday by its own authority.

Doesn't any Christian with a Bible have access to the Truth of the Sabbath?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Doesn't any Christian with a Bible have access to the Truth of the Sabbath?

I have met many, many Sunday keeping christians that have looked at the issue of Sabbath and whether to keep it or not. I don't believe you can be a Bible student and not come across this issue at some time or another... sadly, many come to it and reject it but there are those that seethe truth in it.

 

[foofighter]

Has anyone here looked up the Greek word for mark...according to Strong's Concordance? It seems to mean "etching" or "stamp" or "imprinted mark". Might be something interesting to investigate.

 

[ricker]

I have met many, many Sunday keeping christians that have looked at the issue of Sabbath and whether to keep it or not. I don't believe you can be a Bible student and not come across this issue at some time or another... sadly, many come to it and reject it but there are those that seethe truth in it.

I know you maybe don't agree, but there are some indicators Sabbath worship isn't required of Christains. (No direct command repeated, no listing of Sabbath breaking as a sin post-cross, No instruction to anyone, including the Gentile churches on how to observe the Sabbath in the Christian era (remember, they didn't have the Gospels yet).

Maybe if Sabbath observance was the defining issue of salvation in the end times the Holy Spirit could have inspired some Bible writer to at least mention it's importance to Christians under the New Covenant. I'm sure you know how many times in Paul's Epistles to the Gentile churches he uses the word "Sabbath" and where that is.

Why would God leave us partly in the dark as to if we are to keep the Sabbath, said to be a sign exclusively between God and the Nation of Israel? Why leave any possibility of doubt? There are many sins mentioned in the Epistles while Sabbath breaking is always absent.

"Choose now who you will serve" shouldn't be on a debatable issue that many God fearing, studious theologians disagree on.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I know you maybe don't agree, but there are some indicators Sabbath worship isn't required of Christains. (No direct command repeated, no listing of Sabbath breaking as a sin post-cross, No instruction to anyone, including the Gentile churches on how to observe the Sabbath in the Christian era (remember, they didn't have the Gospels yet).

Maybe if Sabbath observance was the defining issue of salvation in the end times the Holy Spirit could have inspired some Bible writer to at least mention it's importance to Christians under the New Covenant. I'm sure you know how many times in Paul's Epistles to the Gentile churches he uses the word "Sabbath" and where that is.

Why would God leave us partly in the dark as to if we are to keep the Sabbath, said to be a sign exclusively between God and the Nation of Israel? Why leave any possibility of doubt? There are many sins mentioned in the Epistles while Sabbath breaking is always absent.

"Choose now who you will serve" shouldn't be on a debatable issue that many God fearing, studious theologians disagree on.

I agree that the requirement for Sabbath keeping wasn't clearly laid out in the epistles, however, Jesus did teach on it's right observance. Yes, you can say that He only said that for the Jews, but where does that reasoning end? Perhaps everything Jesus said was only for the Jews and our only instruction is everything taught after the cross... maybe we, as new covenant Christians don't need the OT as instruction either. Is that what we want to believe?

 

[ricker]

I agree that the requirement for Sabbath keeping wasn't clearly laid out in the epistles, however, Jesus did teach on it's right observance. Yes, you can say that He only said that for the Jews, but where does that reasoning end? Perhaps everything Jesus said was only for the Jews and our only instruction is everything taught after the cross... maybe we, as new covenant Christians don't need the OT as instruction either. Is that what we want to believe?

Just saying it is obvously a pretty debatable issue to use as the defining criteria for who is saved. No matter what you may think, it is not exactly black and white for the reasons I have mentioned and more.

Would God not make it much more plain if He would use the issue as a dividing line between who is saved and who is damned? I could go on and on with names of devout, studied men of God who believed and believe the Sabbath is not necessary for Christians to follow. Why rely on questionable symbolic interpretations from apocalyptic verses for your doctrine?

 

[Stryder06]

I know you maybe don't agree, but there are some indicators Sabbath worship isn't required of Christains. (No direct command repeated, no listing of Sabbath breaking as a sin post-cross, No instruction to anyone, including the Gentile churches on how to observe the Sabbath in the Christian era (remember, they didn't have the Gospels yet).

Maybe if Sabbath observance was the defining issue of salvation in the end times the Holy Spirit could have inspired some Bible writer to at least mention it's importance to Christians under the New Covenant. I'm sure you know how many times in Paul's Epistles to the Gentile churches he uses the word "Sabbath" and where that is.

Why would God leave us partly in the dark as to if we are to keep the Sabbath, said to be a sign exclusively between God and the Nation of Israel? Why leave any possibility of doubt? There are many sins mentioned in the Epistles while Sabbath breaking is always absent.

"Choose now who you will serve" shouldn't be on a debatable issue that many God fearing, studious theologians disagree on.

I hope you don't mind me responding to this:

There are a few things that you say in your post that reflect modern issues not dealt with in the time of the Apostles. One of those things being the "christian era". Paul, and the other disciples, were simply carrying on the work that Christ started. Also, the sabbath would have been a non-issue. Jews were already keeping the sabbath, and gentile believers as well (as seen in the book of Acts). This wouldn't have been a point of contention. If I'm not mistaken, whenever Paul talks about the commandments, he only lists the last six. I don't recall too many letters to the churches where He talked about worshiping another god, idol worship, or taking the Lord's name in vain.

And God didn't leave us in the dark.You say that the sabbath was only a sign between God and Israel. This is true. It is also true however that the new covenant was only stated to be for Israel and Judah. In the book of Isaiah, God calls to the Gentiles to lay hold of His covenant, and to keep His sabbath. In the gospels, Christ tells the disciples that He has other sheep that must come in, and then there would be one fold with One Shepherd. If the fold is Israel, and Christ said He must bring others in to it, wouldn't it be fair to logically conclude that Christ was saying something similar to what was stated in Isaiah?

The only reason why it seems like this is a subjective issue, is because many have simply forgotten what God said to remember. For whatever reason, Satan has attacked the sabbath, and made it a point of contention. For everything God does, Satan crafts a counterfeit. So is it hard to believe that if God set aside a day for Himself, that Satan would set aside a day also?

 

[Stryder06]

Just saying it is obvously a pretty debatable issue to use as the defining criteria for who is saved. No matter what you may think, it is not exactly black and white for the reasons I have mentioned and more.

It is rather black and white. The problem is that the 4th commandment has been demoted from it's status as a commandment; it's authority stripped away by the hands of men, not God. Christ plainly says if you love Me, keep My commandments. The book of Revelation clearly points out that commandment keeping is a sign of those who will be saved. Since these verses are way to plain to ignore, the commandments that must be kept have been pulled into question. Men set Christ against the Father saying that Christ's commandments are to be kept as opposed to the Fathers, as if they are two separate things. This is the reason why there is confusion.

Would God not make it much more plain if He would use the issue as a dividing line between who is saved and who is damned? I could go on and on with names of devout, studied men of God who believed and believe the Sabbath is not necessary for Christians to follow.

God did make it plain. You however don't believe in the word of the person He used to spell it out
That aside, we could provide you with the names of devout christian men who studied and found the sabbath to be necessary for Christians. So who would be right? The problem is that there has been such a desire to distinguish Christians from Jews, that in so doing, men have lost sight of their true Christian roots. Paul kept the sabbath, but his practice is excused as being a shrewd attempt to convert Jews. There is absolutely no biblical support for such a belief, but yet that is what is taught throughout Protestantism.

Being Christian does not release one from the law of God, any more than being sworn in as a citizen would give me liberty to break the laws of the land.

Why rely on questionable symbolic interpretations from apocalyptic verses for your doctrine?

What makes them questionable? Why ignore the symbolism if it holds truth that we are to know for these last days?

 

[mrasell]

Has anyone here looked up the Greek word for mark...according to Strong's Concordance? It seems to mean "etching" or "stamp" or "imprinted mark". Might be something interesting to investigate.

[the meaning of the Greek word mark, “charagma”. This term was used for a mark or stamp placed on donkeys, slaves, and documents; it was also used to certify that a copy of a document was genuine; in essence it was a stamp of ownership. The word could also be used to refer to an image, statue or idol (Acts 17:29).
This means that those who receive the mark of the beast are receiving its mark of ownership. It is also apparent that those who belong to the beast also become like the beast just as an image reflects the original.] (taken from my book, "the mark of the beast and the seal of God")

 

[foofighter]

mrasell,

Thanks for your response...it still seems to be a physical mark of some kind. Just thought it would be interesting for others to investigate on their own, if they are so inclined.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

mrasell,

Thanks for your response...it still seems to be a physical mark of some kind. Just thought it would be interesting for others to investigate on their own, if they are so inclined.

Read the verse again.. it says 'in their hand or in their forehead' not on. As someone already posted, it relates to the verse in Deut 6... it is a sign of allegiance, loyalty and obedience.

 

[Forge3]

The beast is very weak. It relies on your fears to make it big. It is easily crushed under the toe of righteousness and I have to bear witness to your outstretched argument of examining it? Even the weakest of angels can crush it underfoot. I am the least of servants only assigned a position of witnessing and you multiply pages in honor of its false power? Ok. I will not waste time here. It has no more power than you assign it. But if it is intellectual fodder you seek to play back and forth I have a message from God to you. And please correct me if I am wrong because I do not stand by myself or I will fall like chaff in the wind. The beast is simply a mistrust in God and Divinity. Fools feed that its power.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The beast is simply a mistrust in God and Divinity. Fools feed that its power.

Satan feeds the beast it's power and it is not just some construct of mankinds collective imaginations... the beast of Revelation is the Papal power. It can be easily discerned by studying Daniel and Revelation and applying it to historical record.

 

[ricker]

I agree that the requirement for Sabbath keeping wasn't clearly laid out in the epistles, however, Jesus did teach on it's right observance.

The Gospels weren't written until after the Epistles to the Gentile churches.