No medication - even if dangerous and unjustly forced on the populace - is the "mark of the Beast." This is because the Mark has specifically to do with /worshipping/ the Beast. With the covid "vaccine" rollout, nobody was being told to "worship the Beast."
It’s NOT a medication... and of course no one was told to worship the beast. Most people already do, but being told to would have been a little bit too obvious. The Bible says that the beast will cause all to receive the mark, but it doesn’t say it will be direct command. That’s why so many “believers” will be deceived. It won’t be blatantly obvious to the general population.
You're not following my reasoning: if the "Mark" isn't an obvious expression of idolatrous worship -- i.e., everyone knows what it means and implies -- then those who take it can't rightly be judged as if they were worshipping the Beast.
It's just nonsensical to view the "vax" as the Mark of the Beast. (**And I say that as one who is /against/ the "vax.")
Worshipping the beast comes before the acceptance of the mark. The majority of the population will worship the beast before the mark is imposed on them so theoretically they could possibly be saved up to that point.
The taking and giving of a mark signifies ownership...like branding cattle. Only the owner is authorized to give the mark and only a worshipper of the owner would willingly accept the mark. The mark of the beast is a complete repudiation of God and the ultimate symbol and demonstrable action of unbelief.
The other factor against the ability to repent is the time frame of the mark. If it is given and accepted after the Holy Spirit and the Church has been taken from the earth it will be impossible for worshippers of the beast to be saved.
1) I stand by the present-tense construction of the verbs in Revelation 14:9. The passage (vv. 9-11) on its own simply doesn't specify that the Mark can't later be repudiated.
2) You're assuming that there's such a thing as a "pre-tribulation" rapture. I reject this idea. Here's a test for you: List the things that the Bible says occur with the "coming" of the Lord in Matthew 24:27; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2Thess. 2:8; 1 John 2:28. (**Note especially 1Thess. 4:15-17 and 2Thess. 2:8.)
Worship of the beast alone may be a forgivable sin, but the taking of his mark will not be.
Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
While taking the "Mark" will of course be a serious sin, your view has a couple weaknesses.
1) You differentiate between taking the Mark and "worship of the Beast." But the two are just sides of the same coin. One side can't be "worse" than the other.
2) You may have overlooked the fact that my article specifically addresses the passage you cite. I argued that the Bible doesn’t specifically say that those who take the Mark “can’t repent.”
To begin with, in the Greek all of the “Mark”-related verbs in Revelation 14:9-11—“worships,” “accepts,” “worshiped,” and “accepted”—are, like the key verbs in Hebrews 6:6, written in the /present/ tense. This can be reasonably construed as pointing to /continuous/ action; not a one-time thing. If that’s the case, then it implies that if those who’ve worshipped the Beast and taken his Mark later /cease/ those actions and /repudiate/ the Beast, they can still be saved.
Secondly, I pointed out that we see a possible demonstration of that very thing in Revelation 11:7, 11-13, wherein the phrase "gave glory to the God of heaven" (v. 13) should be construed (based on similar wording elsewhere in Scripture) as /confession and repentance/. And because in this situation we're looking at people who almost certainly had been Beast-worshippers and Mark-takers - this would mean that a Beast-worshipper / Mark-taker can indeed repent.
I am leaning towards the theory that the mRNA injection is a part of the mark.
I don’t think that once it’s fully installed and implemented that those who received it will be able to make any decisions other than what the “beast” prescribes. Last paragraph of this article says it better than I can. https://open.substack.com/pub/jimychanga/p/meet-the-fockers?r=pr2e8&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
No medication - even if dangerous and unjustly forced on the populace - is the "mark of the Beast." This is because the Mark has specifically to do with /worshipping/ the Beast. With the covid "vaccine" rollout, nobody was being told to "worship the Beast."
It’s NOT a medication... and of course no one was told to worship the beast. Most people already do, but being told to would have been a little bit too obvious. The Bible says that the beast will cause all to receive the mark, but it doesn’t say it will be direct command. That’s why so many “believers” will be deceived. It won’t be blatantly obvious to the general population.
If it's not blatantly obvious, then it's not a damning sin.
Deception and obfuscation is the devil’s speciality...God’s command to Adam and Eve was blatantly obvious until Satan and Eve had a talk.
Placing the beast’s mark on the temple of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy. Some actions are irreversible and irredeemable. I believe that is one of them.
You're not following my reasoning: if the "Mark" isn't an obvious expression of idolatrous worship -- i.e., everyone knows what it means and implies -- then those who take it can't rightly be judged as if they were worshipping the Beast.
It's just nonsensical to view the "vax" as the Mark of the Beast. (**And I say that as one who is /against/ the "vax.")
Worshipping the beast comes before the acceptance of the mark. The majority of the population will worship the beast before the mark is imposed on them so theoretically they could possibly be saved up to that point.
That's a likely scenario. But Revelation 14 still doesn't say that the Mark can't later be repudiated.
We should also bear in mind the possibility that the "Mark" isn't literal.
The taking and giving of a mark signifies ownership...like branding cattle. Only the owner is authorized to give the mark and only a worshipper of the owner would willingly accept the mark. The mark of the beast is a complete repudiation of God and the ultimate symbol and demonstrable action of unbelief.
The other factor against the ability to repent is the time frame of the mark. If it is given and accepted after the Holy Spirit and the Church has been taken from the earth it will be impossible for worshippers of the beast to be saved.
1) I stand by the present-tense construction of the verbs in Revelation 14:9. The passage (vv. 9-11) on its own simply doesn't specify that the Mark can't later be repudiated.
2) You're assuming that there's such a thing as a "pre-tribulation" rapture. I reject this idea. Here's a test for you: List the things that the Bible says occur with the "coming" of the Lord in Matthew 24:27; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2Thess. 2:8; 1 John 2:28. (**Note especially 1Thess. 4:15-17 and 2Thess. 2:8.)
Worship of the beast alone may be a forgivable sin, but the taking of his mark will not be.
Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Thanks for commenting, Jonathan!
While taking the "Mark" will of course be a serious sin, your view has a couple weaknesses.
1) You differentiate between taking the Mark and "worship of the Beast." But the two are just sides of the same coin. One side can't be "worse" than the other.
2) You may have overlooked the fact that my article specifically addresses the passage you cite. I argued that the Bible doesn’t specifically say that those who take the Mark “can’t repent.”
To begin with, in the Greek all of the “Mark”-related verbs in Revelation 14:9-11—“worships,” “accepts,” “worshiped,” and “accepted”—are, like the key verbs in Hebrews 6:6, written in the /present/ tense. This can be reasonably construed as pointing to /continuous/ action; not a one-time thing. If that’s the case, then it implies that if those who’ve worshipped the Beast and taken his Mark later /cease/ those actions and /repudiate/ the Beast, they can still be saved.
Secondly, I pointed out that we see a possible demonstration of that very thing in Revelation 11:7, 11-13, wherein the phrase "gave glory to the God of heaven" (v. 13) should be construed (based on similar wording elsewhere in Scripture) as /confession and repentance/. And because in this situation we're looking at people who almost certainly had been Beast-worshippers and Mark-takers - this would mean that a Beast-worshipper / Mark-taker can indeed repent.