Assumptions of Futurist Eschatology

Someone wrote that he is expecting tribulation to begin on the Gold Coast within six months to two years; he also mentioned the microchip.

My reply:

1. Your model of future events is fairly typical of the futurist interpretation of end-times prophecy. But as for me, I can't help noticing that many of the foundation-texts of Scripture which futurists rely on to construct their view, may in fact have already been fulfilled.

For example, when Jesus predicted "great tribulation", He was actually answering a question that related specifically to the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Despite these events being fulfilled circa AD70, futurists use these Scriptures to construct a futurist model.

Jesus was dealing with two, not one, question in Matthew 24: the first, related to the Temple; the second, to His coming. I admit I don't find it easy to always decipher which of Jesus' answers relates to which question. However, Jesus did seem to provide a bridging-statement that does seem to span the period of time between the two events (when He said that Jerusalem would remain trodden under foot by Gentiles for years).

Because I don't find it easy to always decipher what is now past and what is still future, I'm careful to avoid creating a dogmatic model of future events. It means I can neither embrace nor outright-reject every aspect of the futurist model.


2. But even if your futurist model is correct, I still think it's impossible to put a time-frame on its fulfillment, even given the futurist model, for the following reason:

Paul stated that the man of lawlessness could not be revealed until the restrainer would be removed. The man of lawlessness, said Paul, would appear not at a time of his own choosing, nor at the time when a naturally-spiralling circle of events climaxes - but he can be revealed only once the restrainer is removed.

In other words, we can't look at current trends and then conclude a time-frame on the basis of those events or trends. There is one and one only factor which could determine the timing, and that is the prior removal of the restrainer - even in the futurist model.

Do you know for sure that the restrainer has been, or will be, removed in the next six months to two years? If not, then there's no possible way to give time-frames, regardless of what trends you see happening in contemporary society.


3. The microchip may or may not have anything to do with the mark of the beast. To conclude that it must, requires a fair bit of interpretive licence with regard to Revelation 13.

In the first place, the mark of the beast may be already-fulfilled prophecy. But that aside, notice a few things that the Bible does and doesn't say about the mark of the beast:

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say the mark was something that functionally enabled people to buy and sell - it could merely mean that without the mark, they wouldn't be allowed to buy or sell

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say people were marked in a way that identified them individually, distinguishing one individual from another - it says they were all marked with the same mark - either the beast's name or number

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say the mark was invisible like an implanted microchip - the very word "mark" according to an English dictionary, implies visibility

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say the mark replaced the use of cash - in fact, the use of the Roman Denarius currency is mentioned as being still in use during the period described in the Book of Revelation (Rev.6:6)

* The text of Revelation 13 does not necessarily mean that the people had a choice to receive the mark or not - it says they had a choice to worship the man as god or not - then the mark was imposed on them on the basis of the choice of worhsip they'd made (the wording of the text makes either meaning a possibility)

* The text of Revelation 13 says that ten kings supported the beast - ten kings doesn't sound like a one world government to me - aren't there nearly 200 countries in the world today, not ten?

* The text of Revelation 13 says that before the mark was given, miraculous signs were being done and people were worshiping the beast and his statue - that sounds like something a whole lot more religious than mere participation in a secular cashless system

* The text of Revelation 13 says that people who received the mark were thrown into the lake of fire - would God do that to a person for merely participating in a monetary system - or were these people literally worshiping a man as god?

* When an allegorical book describes an allegorical animal with allegorical horns giving a mark, chances are the 'mark' might be only allegorical too! (especially when you consider that the same book [of Revelation] already describes another mark which was given to people which was almost certainly only allegorical [namely, God's mark in the foreheads of the righteous])

All of the above means that it requires a fair bit of interpretive licence to assert that the microchip must be the mark of the beast. It's a fairly big assumption to make. I'm not saying that amount of interpretive licence shouldn't be taken - but I just want people who are taking that amount of interpretive licence to realize and admit that that's what they are doing! They have created an interpretive model of future events that relies heavily on assumptions and that doesn't seem to give regard to the fact that at least some of Jesus' end-times prophecies may or may not have already been fulfilled.

The Mark of the Beast Might Not Be the Microchip

Many of us have been taught that the Bible prophesies a time coming when a worldwide political leader will introduce a microchip which will enable those who accept it to buy and sell, while some who refuse it will be physically unable to buy and sell because there will no longer be any alternative medium of exchange. The microchip allegedly will be implanted invisibly beneath the skin to avoid identity fraud.

But is that what the Bible says?

The Bible doesn't necessarily say that there was no alternative medium of exchange - Revelation 6:6 mentions the use of the currency of the Roman Denarius.

Neither does the Bible necessarily say that the 'mark' of the beast physically enabled people to buy and sell - it could just mean that without it people wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell.

The Bible doesn't mention that the mark had the function of distinguishing one individual from another - rather, it only distinguished between everyone who was marked and everyone who wasn't. So the mark in itself couldn't actually physically facilitate buying and selling.

The Bible doesn't say the mark will be a microchip - a 'mark' is defined as something visible. Last time I checked, microchips are supposed to be implanted invisibly!

The Bible doesn't say that each person was marked in a way that identified him as an individual - it says he was marked with either the beast's name or number, not his own name or number.

The Bible does not say the number of the beast was some symbol of a financial system - it says it was the number of a man - the beast.

The Bible does not say his number was a logo that looks like three sixes - his number was literally six-hundred-sixty-six.

The Bible also implies that John's first-century readers - if they had wisdom - would be aware of the system being used by John when he gave the person's number as six-hundred-sixty-six, enabling them to work-out who the beast might be.

When an allegorical book (the book of Revelation) describes an allegorical beast giving a 'mark', chances are the mark might be allegorical too. After all, was God's mark in the foreheads of the righteous a literal, physical mark - or was it symbolic and spiritual? If one mark was symbolic rather than physical, then maybe the other mark was too. Just a thought!

Besides, even if the mark of the beast was literal, and even if it did have some physical function that directly enabled buying and selling, it still couldn't solve the identity problems that it is purported to solve: if it had electronic signals, those electric signals could still be interfered with even if the chip was placed beneath the skin.

Plus, the Bible says that only those who had already worshipped the beast and his statue were marked by the beast. So, before thinking we've identified the fulfillment of the mark of the beast, shouldn't we first be seeing the worldwide worship of a political leader and of his statue (that's assuming the futurist interpretive model is correct - and that's another question in itself!).

Worshipping the beast and receiving his mark resulted in being cast into the lake of fire. Mere participation in a cashless system would not in itself be indicative of worship, nor would it be eternally damnable - would it?

I'm not necessarily asserting that the microchip can't be the mark of the beast, nor am I hereby proposing any alternative interpretive model - I'm merely pointing-out that to assert that the mark of the beast must be the microchip, requires a fair bit of interpretive licence - maybe more than some people realize.

I'm not even saying that such interpretive licence shouldn't be taken. But if that's what people are doing I just want them to concede that that is what they are doing.

When a Bible-student becomes aware of that, it will have a number of obvious practical and helpful ramifications which needn't be mentioned here.

Interpretive Licence Regarding the 'Mark' of the Beast

Do you believe God would cast a person into the lake of fire for merely accepting an implant? in order to be able to buy food for his family? Would that in itself be any worse morally than having one's ears pierced? or having a titanium splint implanted? And yet the Bible says that all who had been marked by the beast were seen to be cast into the lake of fire.

The Bible explains that it was only those who had worshiped the beast and his image who were 'marked' by the beast. Participating in barcoding, credit cards or chips however, are not indicative that a participant has worshiped someone or his image (statue, idol).

Also, the way the text of the Bible is worded doesn't necessarily have to be taken to mean that anyone made a choice to receive or refuse the mark - the text can be taken to mean that it was the beast who chose who to mark and whom not to mark based on the criteria of whether or not the person was known to be a worshiper of the beast or seen to be a worshiper of his idol. Textually, that meaning is a possibility.

This reinforces that the issue surrounding the 'mark' was worship - literally worshiping a person or his idol. I don't see worship as the criteria today upon which any politician is deciding to issue or not issue microchips. So far, at least.

Also, the way the text of the Bible is worded does not necessarily mean that the mark was functional. It was merely a mark. The mark was of the beast's name or number. The text does not say that the mark distinguished each individual. It does not say that the mark was something functional in and of itself as a chip would be. The only thing the mark distinguished between was between those who had worshiped the beast and those who had not. Beyond that there was no distinguishing capability between individuals. Worshipers were allowed to buy and sell - non-worshipers were discriminated against.

The Book of Revelation also talks about God's mark in people's foreheads. Where's this mark on your forehead? Since God's 'mark' is understood to be figurative, why do we insist that the beast's 'mark' must be literal? The 'beast' himself is after all not literally a beast but it speaks figuratively of a man.

All of this shows that a large degree of interpretive licence is required by those who insist that the modern microchip must be the mark of the beast. It isn't written in the Bible in black and white like many have been led to think that it is.

I'm not saying that degree of interpretive licence shouldn't be taken - I'm only wanting those who take such licence to acknowledge that that is what they are doing - and to concede that an alternative interpretive model might therefore be just as credible as theirs.

What is the Mark of the Beast

What was the mark of the beast? The Bible describes the mark of the beast for us:

1) It was visible - it was a "mark";

2) It was the beast's name - not the bearer's name - but the beast's name; or

3) It was the beast's number - not the individual bearer's own number - but the beast's number.

That doesn't sound like a microchip - not in appearance, nor in function.

But the Bible's description is only an allegory which required interpretation. Any interpretive model - such as the microchip theory - is therefore just that - an interpretive model. It's not necessarily black-and-white Bible truth.

Is the Microchip the Mark of the Beast?

Since when could a microchip be described as a 'mark'? Last time I checked microchips were always implanted invisibly! (Oxford Dictionary: "mark, ...visible sign, stain, spot, or dent on something..." NB 'visible' sign.)