Thursday, February 24, 2022

The Mark of the Beast - A Rational Explanation For Why It's So Prophetic

13:16 And 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: 13:17 And 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.

In this age of implantable microchips and digital identities the above passage from the Book of Revelation can seem eerily prophetic. Literal believers in the bible will raise it as proof that biblical prophecy is real, and that the end times are upon us. Whilst the so-called sceptics will simply ignore it, and pretend they haven't noticed how aptly it appears to mirror the way the current world is heading.

Meanwhile, anyone in between is left a little freaked out by it..

"People have to take a mark? That they have to have to "buy or sell" things? That does sound a lot like the 'digital identity' systems governments are rolling out now. WEIRD!"

And it is weird, a little unsettling even. Especially for people that are otherwise rationally-minded.

However, fortunately for those people, there is a rational explanation for this that kind of makes sense of it all. Namely that the 'Mark of the Beast' is a timeless concept - representing a threat that exists in all eras of human history. A threat that takes on different forms according to the technology available in the era.

Tribal Bodily Markers

Tribal markers are common throughout all of human society, and can take a multitude of forms - piercings, brandings, tattoos, circumcisions and so forth. All these things can be good, bad or indifferent in of themselves.

For example, tattooing is very common around the world - both as a form of individual bodily expression, and also as a tribal or group marker. If a person freely chooses to get a tattoo, either as a personal choice or to denote membership of a particular tribe or group, that's perfectly fine and normal. However, if there's peer pressure to do so things are a little different, and often in such circumstances failure to accept the marking may come with social consequences, imposed by the wider group. So it's not quite the same as someone freely choosing to do it. On top of this, tattooing can even be used to literally tag and track people. The most extreme example obviously being the tattooing of prisoners in concentration camps during World War II.

It's similar with implantable tech like microchips. If someone freely chooses to have a microchip put under their skin that's fine. Though I personally find the idea thoroughly unappealing (just as I find the thought of tattoo needles thoroughly unappealing), I can nevertheless respect another person's freedom to do it. However, if people are being forced, coerced or pressured into doing it, then that's quite different. Then it really is the mark of the beast ..or at least the mark of a beast. As when a person's bodily autonomy is overridden like this it equates in many ways to being treated like an animal.

In fact, our attitude to animals is quite illuminating in this regard, and when it comes to the forced tagging or marking of creatures it's our treatment of animals that sets us on the path to how we treat humans. The hierarchy tends to look something like this:

animals < criminals < the general population

Animals, especially farm animals, are often tagged for human convenience. Think cattle branding with hot irons, or those little ear tags you see hanging from cows' ears. Today RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags are also commonly used - so again, if the 'Mark of the Beast' is an implanted microchip the beasts are already subjected to it.

Next in the pecking order though are criminals. Often criminals will be tagged in various ways. Today it may be ankle bracelets, in the past it was branding with irons, or the clipping of body parts, such as the ears. We generally treat our fellow humans with more respect than we do animals, but when people transgress the law society often deems that they've forgone some of their rights. So they stand only a few notches up.

However, from there it's only a small step to forcibly marking or tagging the population in general. Be it for the convenience of those in charge, or to protect society from some dangerous wider threat. We only need to look at the health mandates of the last few years to see how easy it is to go from tracking criminals and terrorists to tracking the entire population.

In human civilisation it seems the Mark of the Beast is never far away. We have this in-built urge to track, tag and control other animals and people. Especially so those in charge, who, just like parents, feel a need to keep track of their children. Both the naughty ones and the good. (Or if you're being less generous: like farmers, they feel the need to keep track of their cattle.) Either way there's a desire for order and control, and there's always the urge to use whatever technology is available to do this.

It's not too hard to imagine that in some distant, long-forgotten period of history it may have been the case that branding wasn't just reserved for the criminals and cattle. Perhaps there were times when entry into a city or a marketplace was conditional on taking a brand or mark - on the hand, or perhaps even the forehead. Maybe the mark coming in the form of a number or a name.

Again, it's perfectly natural for whoever's in control to want to keep track of things. To know where people are, who has and hasn't paid their dues. Think the 'ink stamps' put on people's hands when they enter nightclubs - it's such a simple way of knowing who's paid to get in. Who's free to come and go, and who isn't. A mark or branding on the skin (or a microchip underneath it) is an ultimate and permanent expression of this.

So this is why that above passage from the Book of Revelation feels so apt - it's because it is. However, it was also no doubt just as apt when it was first written. The danger that tyrants will impose bodily markers upon their populations being an ever-present threat.

The term 'Mark of the Beast' therefore carrying with it a double meaning. To be marked like a beast, i.e. like cattle, but also standing as a symbol for the evil empire or tyrannical regime imposing this marking upon the people - the Devil, the Beast, the Great Babylon.


*The above painting is St. John the Evangelist on Patmos by Hieronymous Bosch, circa 1489.