Digital Currency, will it be used to control buying and selling?

[Josheb]

I didn't say that that's what John intended to convey to the original readers, nor do I think it.

Thanks

Hand Symbolic of Works (a few examples from many)

Ex. 3:20 (KJV) And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.

Deut. 3:24 O Lord GOD, thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might?

Ecc. 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Regarding the forehead: since the hand already deals with works, I've always thought that the forehead represents thought (the brain is behind it, after all).

Yes, I do think that places like Ex. 13:9 and Dt. 6:8 are relevant.

Ex. 13:8-10
8 ¶ And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
9 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 LORDbrought thee out of Egypt.
10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.

In other words: remember the LORD, what he has done and his law. The hand is a reminder of what God has done and the forehead of meditating on his law.

Deut. 6:4-8
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt 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.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

This is similar: reminders of God's law in what they do and what they think.

My apologies. I should have clarified my question so that it is understood specifically in the context of eschatology and not soteriology. Where is the scripture that indicates works and thinking are what John is referencing eschatologically?

Applying biblical principles to modern life...

Cannot occur when the first two agreed-upon exegetical precepts are violated.

...it's possible to see what is happening and draw close parallels...

Not when the agreed upon precepts of exegesis are applied.

The underlying principles are what matter, not the specific application of them, which could vary in different ages.

The principle of original meaning and understanding and the principle of using scripture to inform scripture do not change in different ages - especially if what we're discussing is one singular specific event. If an event is singular, occurring once in any and all ages, then there are not "different ages" by which the "underlying principles" "do not have a specific application." The MotB is not an event that happens more than once, nor in many ages. It is a specified event occurring once and the only age that is relevant is the age in which the MotB has occurred or is going to occur.

A beast, in biblical prophecy, is a kingdom (see Daniel, for several examples).

No, you show me the examples.

A mark in the forehead sets people apart from others...

Got it.

It is agreed the text of Revelation should be understood first and foremost from the perspective of John and his first century readers. It is agreed we should first understand the text as they understood it. It is agreed the first best place to understand what's said in Revelation is other scripture.

It is believed the reference to the hand is indicative of works, and the reference to the forehead is indicative of thoughts. A person's works and thoughts will determine whether or not they will be able to buy or sell .

Yes, I do think that places like Ex. 13:9 and Dt. 6:8 are relevant.

Ex. 13:8-10 [edited for the sake of space]

In other words: remember the LORD, what he has done and his law. The hand is a reminder of what God has done and the forehead of meditating on his law.

Deut. 6:4-8 [edited for the sake of space]

This is similar: reminders of God's law in what they do and what they think.

And how would that, the "reminder" of God's law be relevant to the MotB? How would it stop or empower a person from buying or selling? It sets people apart. How would that be a mark?

This is all rather "off the cuff" and mostly from memory, so it's a bit rough around the edges, but

Yes, that is evident.

I think that the core is sound.

I do not.

On one hand two of THE most basic and necessary precepts of sound exegesis are agreed upon, but subordinated to the premise of an "underlying principle" that applies differently to different ages in an example that is very specific and pertains to a one-time event in all the ages. The conclusion is the "mark" is something the original author and his audience would never have understood. I hope @Hobie is reading this.

 

[David1701]

Thanks

My apologies. I should have clarified my question so that it is understood specifically in the context of eschatology and not soteriology. Where is the scripture that indicates works and thinking are what John is referencing eschatologically?

This is a red herring. The way to understand symbolism is to check how it is used throughout the Bible. John used symbolism with which the Jews were familiar, because almost all of it is from the OT.

Cannot occur when the first two agreed-upon exegetical precepts are violated.

Then it's just as well that they're not violated, isn't it?

Not when the agreed upon precepts of exegesis are applied.

I disagree. Your turn.

The principle of original meaning and understanding and the principle of using scripture to inform scripture do not change in different ages - especially if what we're discussing is one singular specific event. If an event is singular, occurring once in any and all ages, then there are not "different ages" by which the "underlying principles" "do not have a specific application." The MotB is not an event that happens more than once, nor in many ages. It is a specified event occurring once and the only age that is relevant is the age in which the MotB has occurred or is going to occur.

I do not agree that the MotB is a single event. It's something that exists more or less throughout the NT age, as is the Anti-Christ (once the Roman Empire had been taken out of the way), the kingdom of darkness, etc.

I approached this from an amil. perspective, so we're using different paradigms. You can't just apply your paradigm to my post, then claim that my post is wrong because it doesn't fit.

No, you show me the examples.

Dan. 7:2-7 (KJV)
2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Dan. 7:23 (KJV) Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

It's well known that the first beast was Babylon, the second Medo-Persia, the third Greece and fourth Rome.

It is agreed the text of Revelation should be understood first and foremost from the perspective of John and his first century readers. It is agreed we should first understand the text as they understood it. It is agreed the first best place to understand what's said in Revelation is other scripture.

It is believed the reference to the hand is indicative of works, and the reference to the forehead is indicative of thoughts. A person's works and thoughts will determine whether or not they will be able to buy or sell .

Yes. China is very good example of that principle in action, with its social credit system. The "global elite" keep saying that they admire China.

And how would that, the "reminder" of God's law be relevant to the MotB? How would it stop or empower a person from buying or selling? It sets people apart. How would that be a mark?

<sigh>
Showing how a symbol is used (something on/in the forehead) is obviously relevant to the MotB!

The MotB is not God's law. It is in the same place, but it is not the same mark. Since it is a mark of the evil kingdom, it represents its code of morality, not God's law.

There were many place in the Roman Empire in which you had to pay a tribute to the false gods, in order to enter the market place, to buy or sell. This principle, applied nowadays, would be like the Chinese social credit system.

A person's deeds and thinking are marks of the kingdom to which they belong. This is not rocket science.

On one hand two of THE most basic and necessary precepts of sound exegesis are agreed upon, but subordinated to the premise of an "underlying principle" that applies differently to different ages in an example that is very specific and pertains to a one-time event in all the ages. The conclusion is the "mark" is something the original author and his audience would never have understood. I hope @Hobie is reading this.

I disagree with your "one-time event" claim, and the conclusion based upon it.

 

[Josheb]

This is a red herring.

It is not a red herring.

The way to understand symbolism is to check how it is used throughout the Bible. John used symbolism with which the Jews were familiar, because almost all of it is from the OT.

Which is exactly what I said and did. The specific verses that specifically and explicitly state anything specific about anything explicitly on the hand AND/OR head are the verses I cited. The ones you cited are good, but they are not explicit mentions of both hand and head, nor are they marks.

So don't be calling what is an explicit example of scripture defining scripture, the Old Testament being referenced by the New, a red herring.

Then it's just as well that they're not violated, isn't it?

But you did violate them That is my point. Your exegesis is inconsistent. On one hand you hope to apply the precept of original meaning and scripture interpreting scripture but when it comes to interpreting the symbolism of marks on the hand and forehead the literal is dismissed in favor of the inferential (another violated exegetical precept, one we haven't yet discussed*). The original meaning precept in exegesis is also subordinated to the hermeneutical precept of applying principles to differing ages.

I disagree. Your turn.

You disagree with yourself?

On one hand you agree 1) the text of scripture (including that of Revelation) should be understood by us, in the same way it was understood by the original author and his original readers, and 2) scripture is the best interpreter of other scripture (and since John directly and indirectly referenced more than 340 Old Testament texts in Revelation, we should look to the Old Testament, not just the New. One the other hand you also say our understanding of the text should be adapted to the differing age and because we should adapt the "principle" to our age that legitimizes interpretations that would have been completely alien to the original readers! Computer chips, digital currency, digital currency banking, and any number of non-mark marks were unheard of in the first century.

The moment you hypothesize a mark that the first century reader never COULD have considered..... you are violating the first precept of understanding the text as the first century reader would have understood it.

This is axiomatic, so it should also be self-evident to anyone who subscribes to the precept of original meaning.


The "mark" could be a literal mark, a tattoo or a scar, perhaps. Either of those options could have and would have been understood by a first century Christian reader. In reference to the Law, they would have understood scarring the body was prohibited by God (Lev. 19:28), especially any tattoo or scar that was culturally significant to another god, idol, or ruler. That is a scripture-defining-scripture point of view. To hypothesize something having to do with modrn technology is well outside of the exegetical precept of original meaning and scripture defining scripture.









*Normally the literal interprets the figurative or symbolic, not the other way around. This is another basic and necessary precept in sound exegesis.

 

[Josheb]

I do not agree that the MotB is a single event. It's something that exists more or less throughout the NT age, as is the Anti-Christ (once the Roman Empire had been taken out of the way), the kingdom of darkness, etc.

What is it, specifically, in the Revelation 13:17 verse that leads you to conclude the mark (singular) is more than one event? What is it - in that verse - that leads you to conclude the singular is not singular but is multiple and NOT singular. What is it that leads you to conclude the text should be reads as "marks," and not "mark"?

The text plainly, specifically, explicitly states, "a mark," and "the mark," not "marks."

Revelation 13:11-18
Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

Before answering, I'd like you to think through your answer before posting because if THE mark is a computer chip a non-mark digitial currency non-mark mark, then it is something much different than anything the Roman Empire required in the second or third century, or something much different than the Roman Empire (RCC?) could have required in the 15th century. The moment there is one mark in the first century, another mark in the second or third, and another mark in the 15th and still another yet to come in the 21st or 22nd century the the fact the mark is A mark, THE mark, a singular mark has been completely abandoned. Logically speaking, if the mark is singular AND it occurs throughout the differing ages (as you speculate) then it still has to be the exact same mark from age to age to age. Otherwise, there are multiple marks, not one.

The same exact limitation applies to the mark being a specific act of works or a specific thought that prohibits buying and selling as you argued using the Ex. 3 and Dt. 3. If the works or thinking change from age to age to age to age then there is not one mark, but many.

.

 

[Josheb]

Since it is a mark of the evil kingdom, it represents its code of morality, not God's law.

That is an invention not supported by the specifics of the text.

Beasts (can) represent kingdoms (I agree) but that does not mean the mark of a (evil) kingdom is "its code of morality." It could be, especially IF the juxtaposition is the hand/head mark of law of God versus the law of some pagan kingdom. If the hand/forehead mark is some work or thought, then it could very well be the Mosiac Law because that Law did not save. The first century reader would have understood a reference to the Mosaic code, but they wouldn't have understood any reference to a work or a thought to be 21st century space age, rocket science work or philosophy!

My point is this: I do not find your application of the exegetical principles to which you agreed to be very consistent. Scripture AND the basic precepts of exegesis have to be abandoned to make the mark something modern, something contemporary the original readers would never have understood.


REMEMBER: the Revelation is a revelation, a revealing of information, and a revealing for the express purpose of being understood, not further obscurity. The revelation of Revelation's revealing was written to the first century Christian so the first century Christian could and would understand it!

 

[Josheb]

I approached this from an amil.

I appreciate that. It's immaterial to my half of the discussion, but I appreciate knowing from whence you come, eschatologically.

...perspective, so we're using different paradigms.

No, I am not, and any and all assumptions my thoughts are known should be avoided. I am going to ask that not happen again. Not only am I amillennial, too, but I am well-studied and well-versed in all the main eschatological doctrines and their various iterations. I speak many dialects of Christianese and eschatology .

It's also a red herring because I haven't asserted any paradigm. I started with scripture and exegesis and nothing else. I asked you if you agreed to a pair of basic exegetical precepts and you said you did! Great! Praise God. Not a single other sibling in this thread did so. You not only know the precepts of original meaning and scriptural self-interpretation, but you also commendably went on record saying so and endeavoring to apply them in good faith and clear conscience. No one else here has done so.

Eschatological doctrine is irrelevant to everything I have posted. If amillennial eschatology is being imposed onto this discussion then it is you, not me, who is applying paradigms where they shouldn't (yet) be applied.

I'm simply trying to properly exegete the relevant text because all the futurists in every Christian forum known to humanity constantly screw up the exegesis. They openly abandon the precept of original meaning in favor of contemporary meaning and over the last 200 years NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS EVER CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THE MARK, so they just push on with more and more and false interpretations. That problem is avoidable simply by applying sound exegesis. It has absolutely nothing to do with any ~ism.

You can't just apply your paradigm to my post

Practice what you preach.

Stop applying "paradigms," and look first at scripture and scripture alone. Uniform application of sound exegetical precepts leads to consensus. Doctrinal biases rarely do so.

...then claim that my post is wrong because it doesn't fit.

I think your posts are wrong because the basic precepts of sound exegesis are inconsistently practiced, but because I have applied any paradigm.

Dan. 7:2-7, 23 (KJV)


Dan. 7:23 (KJV)

Yes. China is very good example of that principle in action, with its social credit system. The "global elite" keep saying that they admire China.


<sigh>
Showing how a symbol is used (something on/in the forehead) is obviously relevant to the MotB!

Never said otherwise.

The MotB is not God's law.

Never said it was.

It is in the same place,

Yes, it is, and that is important because it abides by the precept of scripture interpreting scripture.

but it is not the same mark.

Never said it was.

There were many place in the Roman Empire in which you had to pay a tribute to the false gods, in order to enter the market place, to buy or sell. This principle, applied nowadays, would be like the Chinese social credit system.

A person's deeds and thinking are marks of the kingdom to which they belong. This is not rocket science.

Irony. It is rocket science. International, global social credit system is, in fact, a direct product of rocket science. The rhetoric is oddly self-indicting! We wouldn't have computers and their chips if it wasn't for modern advances in physics. Those advances, in turn, produced rockets by which zero-gravity experiments were performed which, in turn, furthered computer science.


And NONE of it could possibly have been understood byb the first century reader of Revelation. There is absolutely NOTHING in scripture indicating John intended his audience to understand he was writing about international, global elite, social credit system. The premise is anathema to the principles of original meaning and scripture-interpreting scripture.

And there are a lot of amillennialists who understand that.

I disagree with your "one-time event" claim, and the conclusion based upon it.

Well, let's be fair and honest. It is not MY claim. The text of Revelation specifies the mark as singular, not plural. Not only is the mark singular, but the mark is said to be provided by one individual, not several. If the individual beast who provides the mark is a human male, then he lives one life span and then dies to face judgment (Heb. 9:27). If the beast that comes from another beast is a kingdom, then it is still just one, singular kingdom and not many. The word is "beast," NOT "beasts." A single beast provides a single mark. It is NOT many beasts providing many marks.

It is, therefore, a singular, one-time event. That event may last a long period of time, but it is not multiple events over a long or short period of time.

The disagreement is not with me. The disagreement is with the plain reading of the text (Another basic exegetical precept we have yet to discuss*).









*Scripture should be read as written, with the normal meaning of words in their ordinary usage, unless there is something in the surrounding text indicating the need, or providing warrant, to do otherwise. In this case, the chapter of Revelation 13 is so filled with figurative language and symbolism there is plenty of reason not to read the text as written, but there is nothing in the entire chapter indicating the singular beast or the singular mark should be read as plurals. Both are conjugated in the singular form.

.

 

[TibiasDad]

Where is digital currency mentioned in scripture?

Where are credit cards, or light bulbs, cars and trucks mentioned, but they certainly are real and will be a part of life in the time of Revelation 13’s arrival.

Revelation 13 tells us what will happen but not necessarily the specifics of how or the means of it happening! Digital technology is the thing that makes a unified global economy under a single government authority possible.

Doug

 

[Josheb]

Where are credit cards, or light bulbs, cars and trucks mentioned, but they certainly are real and will be a part of life in the time of Revelation 13’s arrival.

So what?

Revelation 13 tells us what will happen but not necessarily the specifics of how or the means of it happening!

Did you read through the thread, Doug? Or are you posting in wanton disregard to what has already been posted? Can you see that your post has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed? No one is discussing whether or not automobiles and light bulbs will exist when Revelation 13 comes about. No one. No one is disputing whether or not Revelation 13 is specific. No one.

I most certainly am not. So when you quote me and then post try to post something related to what I am discussing.

Digital technology is the thing that makes a unified global economy under a single government authority possible.

Doug

And where does Revelation 13 specify a "unified global economy"?

The word "world" is mentioned only twice in the entire chapter and one of those mentions has to do with the names in the book of life. The other is a single, simple statement the "world" marvels at the beasts healing. The specific verse in question in this op is about a "mark" by which people can or cannot buy and sell. Logic tells us if some cannot buy or sell without the "mark" then an underground economy develops. A few posters have argued the need to hold onto cash in preparation for or defense against digital currency. In other words, if YOU are going to infer a world-wide economy then infer TWO, not one because Revelation 13 does not have large swatch of people starving to death because they cannot buy food.


Furthermore, I'd like you to think about your first comment because if the tribulation that is worse than anything and everything that has ever occurred comes first and there is pestilence, famine, and war then there might not be cars and light bulbs. Do not assume. Too many Christians make a muckery and mockery with Revelation with wanton, thoughtless speculation. Digital currency is NOT what will be used to control buying and selling relevant to Revelation 13's "mark". Digital currency does not meet the requirements of the text and in order to speculate digital currency is the mark requires enormous additions to the text and willful neglect of what is stated in the revelation of Revelation.

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

If we take those words literally, then nearly everyone here in this thread has risked their inclusion in the tree of life, the holy city, and the book of life . How many posters here do you read even remotely concerned with that prospect? @Bob Carabbio, is correct: this op is rank speculation.




Now go back and read or re-read what I attempted to broach with @Hobie and @Marilyn C and what @David1701 was commendably engaging. Be more like David than Hobie because you know the rules of exegesis and you know I know you know them (and vice versa). PRACTICE THEM!!!!! Don't post non sequitur again and expect me to reply.

 

[TibiasDad]

And where does Revelation 13 specify a "unified global economy"?

You also said: “Furthermore, I'd like you to think about your first comment because if the tribulation that is worse than anything and everything that has ever occurred comes first and there is pestilence, famine, and war then there might not be cars and light bulbs.”

So on the one hand, you require a specific detail, and then play the non-specific “if” card!

The fact that there are many different interpretations of Revelation, each dealing with the specific information within the book, shows the fluidity of possibilities of meaning for components within the book.

But, to answer your question, these verses strongly suggest a global government and the power of global economic control.

7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world…16And 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: 17And 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.

To have a singular power that controls all men, including their ability to buy and sell certainly describes and unified global economy.

The word "world" is mentioned only twice in the entire chapter and one of those mentions has to do with the names in the book of life. The other is a single, simple statement the "world" marvels at the beasts healing. The specific verse in question in this op is about a "mark" by which people can or cannot buy and sell. Logic tells us if some cannot buy or sell without the "mark" then an underground economy develops.

Okay, so where is there a specific mention of “an underground economy” developing? Are you adding to the scriptures?

A few posters have argued the need to hold onto cash in preparation for or defense against digital currency. In other words, if YOU are going to infer a world-wide economy then infer TWO, not one because Revelation 13 does not have large swatch of people starving to death because they cannot buy food.

No, it has those who don’t have the mark or who don’t worship the beast or his image being killed and put into prison!

9Whoever has ears, let them hear.

10“If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity they will go.
If anyone is to be killed with the sword,
with the sword they will be killed.”
This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of God’s people.

And this is because the Beast “was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.”

Doug

 

[David1701]

It is not a red herring.

Which is exactly what I said and did. The specific verses that specifically and explicitly state anything specific about anything explicitly on the hand AND/OR head are the verses I cited. The ones you cited are good, but they are not explicit mentions of both hand and head, nor are they marks.

That is not what I called a red herring. What I called a red herring was your attempt to limit what Scripture I could use, by saying that the Scriptures had to be eschatological in nature.

Ostentatious clothing is a mark of a show-off. Concise and precise language is a mark of a well-ordered mind. Wearing phylacteries was a mark of Jews who wanted to show that they were serious about keeping God's law. Good deeds and godly thoughts are marks of a godly man, etc..

There are all kinds of marks, physical and otherwise, but they are all marks.

So don't be calling what is an explicit example of scripture defining scripture, the Old Testament being referenced by the New, a red herring.

That is not what I called a red herring. What I called a red herring was your attempt to limit what Scripture I could use, by saying that the Scriptures had to be eschatological in nature.

I should have clarified my question so that it is understood specifically in the context of eschatology and not soteriology. Where is the scripture that indicates works and thinking are what John is referencing eschatologically?

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/digital-currency-will-it-be-used-to-control-buying-and-selling.913/post-32376

The illustration of uses of symbolism cannot be limited to one facet in that manner. It would be like saying that the understanding of a particular metaphor is only valid in one field of study. This may be true, in certain specific instances, but you should not make a claim that relies upon this as an unspoken assumption.

But you did violate them That is my point. Your exegesis is inconsistent. On one hand you hope to apply the precept of original meaning and scripture interpreting scripture but when it comes to interpreting the symbolism of marks on the hand and forehead the literal is dismissed in favor of the inferential (another violated exegetical precept, one we haven't yet discussed*). The original meaning precept in exegesis is also subordinated to the hermeneutical precept of applying principles to differing ages.

I said that the mark could be visible or invisible. It could be literal or figurative; but, the important point is that it is a mark that sets apart those who have it, from those who do not.

The "law of first use" is about the most basic meaning of something. The first mark named as such is the mark of Cain. This was clearly something visible, on his body; but, the important thing, as always with a mark, is what the mark signifies.

A mark is only useful, if those who see it know its significance. In the case of the MotB, we are told the significance. We also know the marks of those who are in the kingdom of darkness (the deeds of the flesh and thinking opposed to the word of God - these are also visible, in what people do and say). Those who willingly take these marks upon themselves, thereby rejecting the gospel, are doomed.

Does this mean that I reject the idea of a literal, physical mark, on the hand or forehead? No, I believe that this could also be true, at times, although obviously not throughout the NT age.

On one hand you agree 1) the text of scripture (including that of Revelation) should be understood by us, in the same way it was understood by the original author and his original readers, and 2) scripture is the best interpreter of other scripture (and since John directly and indirectly referenced more than 340 Old Testament texts in Revelation, we should look to the Old Testament, not just the New. One the other hand you also say our understanding of the text should be adapted to the differing age and because we should adapt the "principle" to our age that legitimizes interpretations that would have been completely alien to the original readers! Computer chips, digital currency, digital currency banking, and any number of non-mark marks were unheard of in the first century.

We don't need to "adapt" the principles involved. We merely apply them.

In the 1st C. A.D., they could understand the principles are well as we can. They didn't need to apply them to our setting, because they were not in our setting; we do, because we are. The principles are not locked into 1st C. applications, any more than other biblical principles. We apply those to watching T.V., to how we behave on the Internet, etc.. These are not adaptations of the principles; they are simply applications of them, to modern life.

 

[David1701]

I appreciate that. It's immaterial to my half of the discussion, but I appreciate knowing from whence you come, eschatologically.

No, I am not, and any and all assumptions my thoughts are known should be avoided. I am going to ask that not happen again. Not only am I amillennial, too, but I am well-studied and well-versed in all the main eschatological doctrines and their various iterations. I speak many dialects of Christianese and eschatology .

It's also a red herring because I haven't asserted any paradigm. I started with scripture and exegesis and nothing else. I asked you if you agreed to a pair of basic exegetical precepts and you said you did! Great! Praise God. Not a single other sibling in this thread did so. You not only know the precepts of original meaning and scriptural self-interpretation, but you also commendably went on record saying so and endeavoring to apply them in good faith and clear conscience. No one else here has done so.

Eschatological doctrine is irrelevant to everything I have posted. If amillennial eschatology is being imposed onto this discussion then it is you, not me, who is applying paradigms where they shouldn't (yet) be applied.

I'm simply trying to properly exegete the relevant text because all the futurists in every Christian forum known to humanity constantly screw up the exegesis. They openly abandon the precept of original meaning in favor of contemporary meaning and over the last 200 years NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS EVER CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THE MARK, so they just push on with more and more and false interpretations. That problem is avoidable simply by applying sound exegesis. It has absolutely nothing to do with any ~ism.

Practice what you preach.

Stop applying "paradigms," and look first at scripture and scripture alone. Uniform application of sound exegetical precepts leads to consensus. Doctrinal biases rarely do so.

I think your posts are wrong because the basic precepts of sound exegesis are inconsistently practiced, but because I have applied any paradigm.

Never said otherwise.

Never said it was.

Yes, it is, and that is important because it abides by the precept of scripture interpreting scripture.

Never said it was.

Irony. It is rocket science. International, global social credit system is, in fact, a direct product of rocket science. The rhetoric is oddly self-indicting! We wouldn't have computers and their chips if it wasn't for modern advances in physics. Those advances, in turn, produced rockets by which zero-gravity experiments were performed which, in turn, furthered computer science.


And NONE of it could possibly have been understood byb the first century reader of Revelation. There is absolutely NOTHING in scripture indicating John intended his audience to understand he was writing about international, global elite, social credit system. The premise is anathema to the principles of original meaning and scripture-interpreting scripture.

And there are a lot of amillennialists who understand that.

Well, let's be fair and honest. It is not MY claim. The text of Revelation specifies the mark as singular, not plural. Not only is the mark singular, but the mark is said to be provided by one individual, not several. If the individual beast who provides the mark is a human male, then he lives one life span and then dies to face judgment (Heb. 9:27). If the beast that comes from another beast is a kingdom, then it is still just one, singular kingdom and not many. The word is "beast," NOT "beasts." A single beast provides a single mark. It is NOT many beasts providing many marks.

It is, therefore, a singular, one-time event. That event may last a long period of time, but it is not multiple events over a long or short period of time.

The disagreement is not with me. The disagreement is with the plain reading of the text (Another basic exegetical precept we have yet to discuss*).









*Scripture should be read as written, with the normal meaning of words in their ordinary usage, unless there is something in the surrounding text indicating the need, or providing warrant, to do otherwise. In this case, the chapter of Revelation 13 is so filled with figurative language and symbolism there is plenty of reason not to read the text as written, but there is nothing in the entire chapter indicating the singular beast or the singular mark should be read as plurals. Both are conjugated in the singular form.

.

The "beast" is the counterfeit church (Roman Catholicism - the continuation of paganism in ancient Rome, disguised as Christianity, with its "Pope" being the continuation of the Pontifex Maximus - a pagan title conferred upon the latter Roman Caesars, then transferred to the "Pope") and the MotB is what signifies being willingly subject to it, which includes most world leaders and many people whose religion is not Roman Catholicism.

The singular man (or, rather, one continuing office, filled by one man at a time) is the office of "Pope", representing the "beast", as its ruler.

 

[Josheb]

That is not what I called a red herring. What I called a red herring was your attempt to limit what Scripture I could use, by saying that the Scriptures had to be eschatological in nature.

I never said any such thing and I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to consider "whole scripture," and specifically stated the "mark" in question s informed by scripture other than just Revelation 13.

The complaint about a red herring is a red herring.

You and I agreed the precept of original meaning and scripture interpreting scripture are valid and applicable. Digital currency and their banks is inconsistent with both precepts (along with the two others that have come up). I, therefore, find the speculations about the mark inconsistent with sound exegesis. I find them inconsistent because there's no way in heaven and earth the original author and his original audience would ever have understood the mark in such terms. Whatever the mark may be in the 21st century is something that could/would have been possible to understand in the first. Whatever they understood is applicable to us centuries later, not the other way around.

 

[Josheb]

The "beast" is the counterfeit church (Roman Catholicism - the continuation of paganism in ancient Rome, disguised as Christianity, with its "Pope" being the continuation of the Pontifex Maximus - a pagan title conferred upon the latter Roman Caesars, then transferred to the "Pope") and the MotB is what signifies being willingly subject to it, which includes most world leaders and many people whose religion is not Roman Catholicism.

The singular man (or, rather, one continuing office, filled by one man at a time) is the office of "Pope", representing the "beast", as its ruler.

I disagree.

The reason I disagree is because such an interpretation violates the most basic precepts in sound exegesis. There was no RCC in the first century. There was no Pope. The RCC nor the Pope are a "mark," and neither is put on the hand or the forehead.

 

[Marilyn C]

Whatever the mark may be in the 21st century is something that could/would have been possible to understand in the first. Whatever they understood is applicable to us centuries later, not the other way around.

I have been pondering what you said and have some thoughts.

mark - Gk, `charagma` meaning a scratch, etching, engraving.

The early believers would be familiar with `marks` on the flesh of slaves, prisoners and perhaps on stone for property. Those `marks` on people would be on the hand or forehead so that is not in question, I think.

Today we have the possibility of an `engraving` (mark) being put on the hand or forehead to enable `buying and selling.` This `engraving` is put on a small flat piece of silicon encased in a capsule and inserted under the skin.

 

[TibiasDad]

Whatever the mark may be in the 21st century is something that could/would have been possible to understand in the first.

That is not necessarily the case! Paul had to explain to the Corinthians about the nature of the resurrection because they didn’t understand it. Peter said that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and that many misunderstand them and twist the truth. (2Peter 3:16b)

That they would have necessarily understood who the dragon, beast and prophet would be, and what the mark would have to be is, at best conjecture. For goodness sakes, all of us can’t agree on what they may or may not be, and I know that human behavior hasn’t changed in principle since the first century, so I doubt that it was any clearer to them in general than it is to us today.

There is nothing in the first century that can explain or could be implemented to achieve this wholistic control of the world as described in Rev 13 for our current world!

As we are nearly two millennia removed from the original hears, it is impossible that the ultimate reality in our timeframe would be understood fully or specifically by a first century listener.

I haven’t read the historical interpretations through out the years, but I would venture a guess that the explanations evolved with the technological advancements of the day to explain how and what the various elements of Rev 13 meant!

I think the hermeneutical lesson to be applied to scripture in general, applies especially here: the natural reading of a passage is most likely the right one.

The hypothetical thinking of what these things may be, based on our current experiences and technologies is not “adding to” scripture, but rather seeking to find an identity for these images portrayed.


Doug

 

[David1701]

I never said any such thing and I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to consider "whole scripture," and specifically stated the "mark" in question s informed by scripture other than just Revelation 13.

Here is the part of one of your previous posts that demanded "eschatological" references (in the context of determining the correct meaning of certain expressions), contradicting your above claim. At the very least, you were inconsistent. The italic emphasis was in the original.

I should have clarified my question so that it is understood specifically in the context of eschatology and not soteriology. Where is the scripture that indicates works and thinking are what John is referencing eschatologically?

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/digital-currency-will-it-be-used-to-control-buying-and-selling.913/post-32376

You and I agreed the precept of original meaning and scripture interpreting scripture are valid and applicable. Digital currency and their banks is inconsistent with both precepts (along with the two others that have come up). I, therefore, find the speculations about the mark inconsistent with sound exegesis. I find them inconsistent because there's no way in heaven and earth the original author and his original audience would ever have understood the mark in such terms. Whatever the mark may be in the 21st century is something that could/would have been possible to understand in the first. Whatever they understood is applicable to us centuries later, not the other way around.

Josheb, you keep bringing up this point, as if I had claimed that the biblical passages about the MotB had the possible meanings of CBDCs, etc.. I have never made this claim, nor would I.

What I did claim, and I stand by it, is that the principles the Bible declares about the MotB apply very well to such things as chips in hands and/or heads (principles like the control of buying and selling and the association of such things with the devil's kingdom). Of course, these principles do not apply only to modern technology (e.g. some people were, long ago, literally, marked as belonging to evil emperors or religious cults and could not buy or sell without them).

I'll restate, just to be clear: I do not believe that the meaning of the MotB is a silicon chip. I believe that the meaning is that it is a mark, visible or otherwise, that points to the fact that the person who has it belongs to the "beast" kingdom; however, this does not preclude an application of this principle to modern technology (although not exclusively).

The "beast" kingdom has existed for a very long time and there are always marks evident in those who belong to it (just as there are in those who belong to the Kingdom of God); however, it has not always been the case that one cannot buy or sell without such marks.

If the prophecy in Rev. 13 (and elsewhere) started in the 1st C. A.D. (and I believe that it did), that does not mean that it ended there. I believe that the principles involved have continued to this day and that there could be a final, extreme application of them, in the near future (there are many signs indicating that the world is heading in that direction).

 

[David1701]

I disagree.

The reason I disagree is because such an interpretation violates the most basic precepts in sound exegesis. There was no RCC in the first century. There was no Pope. The RCC nor the Pope are a "mark," and neither is put on the hand or the forehead.

You're right that there was neither RCism, nor "Pope", in the 1st C. A.D.; however, RCism is merely the continuation of pagan Roman religion. The "Pope" was handed the title of "Pontifex Maximus" ("Greatest Bridge-builder", in a pagan, religious sense) by one of the latter Roman Caesars, thereby taking over the religious authority of the Caesars.

It is no secret that apostate Christianity incorporated a great deal of paganism and mixed it with pseudo-Christianity; nor is it a secret that the Roman Emperor Constantine declared this paganised Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire.

 

[Josheb]

I have been pondering what you said and have some thoughts.

mark - Gk, `charagma` meaning a scratch, etching, engraving.

The early believers would be familiar with `marks` on the flesh of slaves, prisoners and perhaps on stone for property. Those `marks` on people would be on the hand or forehead so that is not in question, I think.

Yes! That is something the first century reader would have understood.

Today we have the possibility of an `engraving` (mark) being put on the hand or forehead to enable `buying and selling.` This `engraving` is put on a small flat piece of silicon encased in a capsule and inserted under the skin.

No. That is not something the first century Christian reader would have understood.

There's an additional problem with the implant hypothesis that I rarely read get addressed. The mark is a thing that is visible. It is put on the hand or the forehead to be seen. In the case of the phylacteries, it was something the wearer viewed, not those observing the wearer. This became perverted by the time Jesus showed up, with the Jewish leaders wearing their phylacteries to be seen by others as a fleshly, works-based display of their devotion and righteousness. In the case of works and thoughts (as our brother David has hypothesized), the works are visible but they are not a mark; the thoughts are not visible unless and until displayed in works.

A first century view would be something like a scar or a tattoo or, as you have suggested, a scratch, etching or engraving - but it has to be worn on the outside, nit the inside. Implants do not meet the criteria asserted in scripture.





Reminder: As most of you know, I am partial-preterist. I think the mark has come and gone and all the modern speculation about some future mark is thoroughly misguided. That does not prevent me from taking an objective look at scripture and an objective look at modern futurism and objectively comparing the two exegetically. Exegetically speaking precepts like "original meaning," "scripture rendering scripture," "whole scripture," "first precedent," "the literal rendering the figurative," and other really very basic, fundamental and foundational precepts for how to read scripture get us a long way in understanding the revelation when we use them. We should all be able to use the concept of original meaning and bow to it. Clearly, some do not.

 

[Josheb]

That is not necessarily the case! Paul had to explain to the Corinthians about the nature of the resurrection because they didn’t understand it.

Think about that sentence.

Think about it because it undermines your own case and contradicts your own position... and proves me correct. The Corinthians - worried in their flesh and lacking revelation to correct their misguided confusion were provided revelation that cleared up their confusion and provided knowledge and understanding. That is the nature of revelation: to reveal, not to obscure. Paul's letter reveals. Paul's letter reveals God's revelation to the first century Corinthian and nothing we believe in the 21st century should contradict that fact.

That is not necessarily the case!

It is the case and you just proved it!

Peter said that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and that many misunderstand them and twist the truth. (2Peter 3:16b)

Yes, but it is not those idwelt with God's Spirit that twist the truth, nor does something hard to understand mean it is impossible to understand.


Look how you are trying to make excuses and defend your position in misguided ways.

That they would have necessarily understood who the dragon, beast and prophet would be, and what the mark would have to be is, at best conjecture.

No, it is a logical deduction based on the fact revelation is intended to reveal and the exegetical precept of original meaning and original understanding is universal. The same holds true for scripture interpreting scripture, the literal informing the figuration, the outward spiral of context, audience affiliation, and all the other basic rules of sound exegesis.

Universally held as valid and veracious but inconsistently practiced by some.

For goodness sakes, all of us can’t agree on what they may or may not be...

Irrelevant and untrue.

IF the rules of exegesis were objectively applied two things would ensue: 1) we'd have a lot more agreement with scripture and not just among ourselves, and 2) we'd have a lot less disagreement with scripture and among ourselves. In the case of the "mark," we could all easily agree the mark is likely to be a scar or a tattoo, something visible, and if the metrics are taken literally then something visible on the hand or forehead. Logically and exegetically, that instantly rules out vaccines, implants, and digital currency. The precept of original meaning and original understanding confirms and works in unison with all the other metrics scripture provides regarding the mark, not in conflict with them.

There is simply no way in heaven or hell the first century reader would have though the mark on the hand or forehead was a computer implant. Every single Christian should instantly reject every single teacher who tries to pass that nonsense off as truth.

Peter said that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and that many misunderstand them and twist the truth. (2Peter 3:16b)

Yes, and it is not those following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that twist the truth. It is not teachers following the words of scripture, the precepts of sound exegesis, and the Holy Spirit that teach digital currency or computer implants as the mark. Those teachers are twisting the truth because the mark is on the hand or forehead, it's visible with the eye and doesn't take another computer device wholly separate from that which is ON (not in) the hand or forehead to read the mark. At best they are rank speculators, in the middle they are twisting the truth, and at worse they are false teachers teaching falsehood for personal gain.

Do not defend them or their teachings.

, and I know that human behavior hasn’t changed...

irrelevant

There is nothing in the first century that can explain or could be implemented to achieve this wholistic control of the world....

Already addressed. The text doesn't actually say anything about controlling the entire world or a global economy. Those are both sheer speculations and additions to the text that directly conflict with the implication there's an underground economy. If Christians know not to get the mark, whatever the mark may be, and they also know they will not be able to buy and sell in the beast's economy they will either develop a separate economy or die of starvation. Does the text support millions of Christians dying of starvation?

Reason is our friend.

As we are nearly two millennia removed from the original hears, it is impossible that the ultimate reality in our timeframe would be understood fully or specifically by a first century listener.

Hogwash.

There are millions of 21st century Christians who correctly know, understand, and apply the basic rules of biblical exegesis and recognize those who twist the truth when they read it.

I haven’t read the historical interpretations through out the years...

Then you are sadly ill-informed.

Many early Christians took the "thousand years" literally and thought Jesus was going to return and the world was going to end in the 11th century. Various specific years were specified. The year 1070 or thereabouts was considered the truth, the ultimate deadline, exactly 1000 years after Jesus destroyed Jerusalem. As we all know they were all wrong. NOTHING happened. With the rise of the RCC and the growing doctrinal and moral corruption of the RCC and the Pope the view of the Pope as the antichrist developed. It was a hallmark of Reformed eschatology. Not a word of it proved true (although some Protestants still persist with that belief). Historic Premillennialism is the oldest eschatology to be formalized, not the Dispensational variety we read so much about today. The two are irreconcilable. Although ALL Christians are partially preterist to one degree or another, and the practice of reading various prophesies to be fulfilled can be traced directly back to scripture itself and the ECFs, it wasn't until the Reformation that partial-preterism was formally articulated.... and that was done by an RC priest to prove the Pope was not the antichrist! How ironic is that? In the mid-1800s the various modern futurisms developed, most notably that of Dispensational Premillennialism and nowadays many Dispensationalists 1) don't know they are Dispensationalist, 2) do not know there are any other views, and 3) like you don't know the history of eschatology.

Not a single Dispensationalist has ever once predicted anything correctly.

They ALL have a 100% fail rate. They are ALL individually and correctly false teachers when it comes to their speculations.

I haven't read the historical interpretations throughout the years....

You should!

I think the hermeneutical lesson to be applied to scripture in general, applies especially here: the natural reading of a passage is most likely the right one.

Amen!

The natural reading of Revelation 13:16-17 leads us to conclude the mark is a scar, a tattoo, or something worn visibly on the hand or forehead and NOT digital currency, computer implants, vaccines, or anything having to do with far-distant-in-the-future modern space age, information age technology.

In fact, there is very little technology in Revelation! Modern futurists impose that on the text. They do NOT read the text naturally.


More importantly: The correct precept is to read the text naturally with the ordinary meaning of the words..... as the original readers would have understood them.

The hypothetical thinking of what these things may be, based on our current experiences and technologies is not “adding to” scripture

Yes, it is.

...but rather seeking to find an identity for these images portrayed.

No, it is not. It is rank speculation that ignores what is specifically stated i scripture while ignoring the most basic precepts of sound exegesis - usually informed by 19th century doctrinal biases.

And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.​

The natural reading of the text is the right one - according to your own words.

• The mark is given.
• The mark is given by a "he," not an "it."
• The mark is ON the right hand or the forehead.
• The mark is a name or a number (the "or" here could indicate the two are synonymous).
• The number is that of a man (not a kingdom, bank, philosophy, etc.).
• The man giving mark provides the ability to buy or sell.

The natural reading of those words precludes digital currency, computer implants, vaccinations, and a host of other speculations and anyone and everyone relying on the natural reading of the text should readily reject ALL those who teach otherwise as false teachers....

...and they should not replicate the falsehoods in Christian internet discussion boards.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, you keep bringing up this point, as if I had claimed that the biblical passages about the MotB had the possible meanings of CBDCs, etc.. I have never made this claim, nor would I.

Well...

I will stand partly corrected and amend my posts accordingly because it was Marilyn C who first used the premise of CBDCs (Post #7) but you did, in fact, state,

"Digital currency, in general, is not used to control buying and selling; however, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) are intended to do exactly that, and China is already using its state-controlled digital currency, in conjunction with its social credit system, as a means of extreme control. The WEF is pressing governments to introduce CBDCs asap." (Post #14).​

Therefore, if you want to now clarify that statement so it is not possible to read it as an affirmation of CBDC as the "mark" of Revelation 13 then I am completely amenable to your doing so and will embrace the clarification as commendable. Otherwise, do not insinuate I have misunderstood something or in any way misrepresented your posts.

Yes?