The Mark of the Beast Identified

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This site identifies the Mark of the Beast through many articles, including articles on Daniel and Revelation.  Another article provides an overview of these articles, but it is still lengthy. This article summarizes that overview.

Revelation 13; An Overview

Four Powers

Revelation 13 describes four ‘animals,’ representing four human organizations that oppose God and His people:

• The Beast from the Sea (v. 1), often simply called “the beast”
• The Dragon gives the Beast “his power and his throne and great authority” (v. 2).
• A Beast from the Land (v. 11), later called the False Prophet (16:13), “exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence” (v. 12). By performing “great signs” (v. 13), it deceives people.
• The Image of the Beast (v. 14) compels people to receive the Mark of the Sea Beast.

Authority passes from the Dragon to the Beast (v. 2), then to the False Prophet (v. 12), and the False Prophet gives life to the Image (v. 15). Since the Dragon is the ultimate source of authority for the other three powers, to understand the Mark of the Beast, one must also determine what the Dragon represents.

Since the Beast is not the direct persecutor of God’s people in the end time, but the Image of the Beast, one also needs to identify the Image and the False Prophet, who gives it life.

The Beast is Christian.

The following suggests that the Beast represents a Christian organization:

• • It specifically persecutes God’s people (13:5–7), meaning God’s true people, not nominal Christians, something secular organizations are unable to do.
  • It acts through the Land Beast, which has two horns like a Lamb (v. 11). Everywhere else in Revelation, the “Lamb” is Jesus Christ (e.g., v. 8). The Land Beast therefore appears to be Christlike, but “spoke as a dragon” (v. 11).
  • The Land Beast is also called the False Prophet, implying a false Christian organization.
  • The Land Beast performs great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven (13:12–13). This is symbolic fire. Elijah called down fire from heaven to demonstrate that he spoke for God. Similarly, the Land Beast’s fire implies that it convinces the earth-dwellers it speaks for God. Although it is the False Prophet (16:13), most people will accept this organization as God’s true prophet!

The conflict in Revelation 13 is therefore not between the Church and the world, but between the mainstream Church and God’s people. The mainstream Church persecutes God’s people because they refuse to submit to its idolatrous practices. This further suggests that the Mark of the Beast is a Christian practice or symbol.

THE BEAST IS ROMAN

Revelation’s Dragon = Daniel 7’s Fourth Animal

As stated, the Beast, whose mark is placed on people, receives its throne, power, and great authority from a Dragon (Rev 13:2). This implies that the Beast receives its Mark from the Dragon. To identify the Beast and its Mark, one must also identify the Dragon.

For the following reasons, the Revelation’s Dragon corresponds to the 4th animal in Daniel 7:

• First, Revelation’s Dragon has seven heads and ten horns (12:3), and the animals in Daniel 7 have, in total, the same number of heads and horns. This suggests that Revelation’s Dragon is somehow related to, or part of, the series of animal-empires in Daniel 7.
• Second, Daniel 7 describes its fourth animal as like a dragon. It was dreadful, terrifying, extremely strong, and had large iron teeth. It devoured, crushed, and trampled the remainder with its feet, and differed from all the beasts that came before it (7:7)—characteristics consistent with the image of a dragon.
• Third, Revelation’s Beast receives characteristics from four animals. It was like a leopard, with feet like a bear’s, a mouth like a lion’s, and the dragon gave it power, a throne, and great authority. (13:1–2). The lion, bear, and leopard are explicitly the first three animals in Daniel 7 (verses 4-6). The fourth—the dragon—therefore most likely corresponds to Daniel’s fourth dragon-like animal.

Therefore, Revelation’s Dragon corresponds to Daniel’s 4th animal, but it also serves as a general symbol for Satan and its forces. It corresponds to Daniel’s fourth animal creature only when mentioned alongside the Beast.

See here for the full article on the Dragon.

 

Revelation’s Dragon

The Beast, whose mark is put on people, receives its throne, power, and great authority from a Dragon (Rev 13:2). Therefore, to identify the Beast, it is important to also identify the Dragon.

The Fourth Animal in Daniel 7

In Daniel 7, four animals: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a dragon-like animal, symbolize four successive empires. None of these animal-empires are explicitly identified. In Daniel 8, two animals, a Ram and a Goat, symbolize two empires, explicitly identified as Medo-Persia and Greece (Dan 8:20-21). The animals in the two visions are described with characteristics like multiple heads, horns, and wings. One of the articles on Daniel compares the descriptions of the animals in Daniel 7 with those in Daniel 8 and shows that the Ram and Goat correspond to the second and third animals in Daniel 7 (see here). It follows that the 4th animal in Daniel 7 symbolizes the empire after Greece, namely, the Roman Empire.

Revelation’s Dragon

One of the articles on Revelation shows that the Dragon in Revelation 13 corresponds to Daniel’s fourth animal:

Firstly, while Revelation’s Dragon has seven heads and ten horns (12:3), the animals in Daniel 7 have, in total, the same number of heads and horns. That implies that Revelation’s Dragon is somehow related to or part of the series of animal-empires in Daniel 7.

Secondly, Daniel 7 describes its fourth animal as like a dragon. It was dreadful, terrifying, extremely strong, and had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it (7:7). That supports the view that it corresponds to Revelation’s Dragon.

Thirdly, according to Revelation 13:2, Revelation’s Beast:

• • • • Was like a leopard,
      • His feet were like those of a bear.
      • His mouth like the mouth of a lion.
      • And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.

In other words, Revelation’s Beast receives characteristics from four animals. Since the first three—the lion, bear, and leopard—are explicitly the first three animals in Daniel 7 (verses 4-6), the fourth—the dragon—must be the fourth animal in Daniel 7.

If Daniel’s fourth animal symbolizes the Roman Empire, and if Revelation’s Dragon corresponds to Daniel’s fourth animal, then Revelation’s Dragon also symbolizes the Roman Empire. [Show More]

For the full article on Revelation’s Dragon, see here.

Revelation’s Beast

The 11th horn of Daniel 7

If Daniel’s 4th animal is the Roman Empire, the 11 horns of that animal symbolize the kingdoms into which the Empire fragmented, beginning in the 5th century.

The 11th horn is the main character of Daniel 7 and the main remnant of the Roman Empire. The only reason the prophecy mentions the preceding four animal-empires and 10 horn-kingdoms is to enable the reader to identify it. It begins small, but becomes larger than the other horn-kingdoms. It is different from the other horns. It speaks blasphemously against God and persecutes God’s people. It represents the Antichrist.

This 11th fragment of the Roman Empire uproots three other horns as it came up and reigned for a time, times, and half a time. A heavenly court sits, the dominion of this evil power is removed, and it is ultimately destroyed when Christ returns. Then the kingdom is given to the people of the Most High. That kingdom endures forever.

Another article argues the only remnant of the Roman Empire that fits this description is the State Church of the Roman Empire, which survived the Fall of Rome and evolved into the Roman Church. (See here.)

Revelation’s Beast

Another article shows that Daniel’s 11th horn and Revelation’s Beast symbolize the same entity. For example:

Firstly, while Revelation’s Beast—like Revelation’s Dragon—has seven heads and ten horns (12:3), the animals in Daniel 7 have, in total, the same number of heads and horns. That implies that both Revelation’s Dragon and Beast are somehow related or part of the series of animal-empires in Daniel 7.

Secondly, Revelation’s Beast receives its throne from the Dragon, identified as the Roman Empire, and the 11th horn grows out of Danbielk’s 4th animal, also identified as the Roman Empire. Therefore, both Revelation’s Beast and Daniel’s 11th horn succeed the Roman Empire.

Thirdly, Revelation’s Beast and Daniel’s 11th horn:

• • • Are the main characters in their respective prophecies,
    • Are described as the Antichrist, blaspheming God and overpowering His people,
    • Reigns for “a time, times, and half a time,” and
    • Will exist until Christ returns.

Therefore, when Rev 13:2 says the Dragon gave the Beast its power, throne, and great authority, it means that the Roman Church received these things from the Roman Empire.

See here for the article on the Identity of Revelation’s Beast.

The Mark of the Beast

Introduction

The Mark of the Beast is not a literal mark on literal foreheads or hands. While the Mark—the Name of the Beast—is applied to the foreheads of the Beast’s people (13:16-17), just two verses later, God’s name is written on the foreheads of His people (14:1). Therefore, God’s name on the forehead is God’s counterpart to the Beast’s mark. The next few verses explain what God’s name on the forehead entails. They explain God’s people as pure in mind (14:4-5). In other words, the forehead symbolizes the mind.

As the opposite of God’s name on the forehead (Rev 14:1), the Beast’s mark on the forehead signifies a mind committed to the Beast’s principles. The mark on the hand signifies a person complying out of fear, without agreeing to the Beast’s principles, for the people who refuse the mark will be killed (13:15).

Because God’s people are willing to die rather than to accept the Beast’s mark, the mark is a sin. Just as the Beast’s followers bear its mark on their foreheads and hands, God commanded ancient Israel to keep His commandments on their foreheads and hands (Exod. 13:9, 16). This enforces the idea that the Beast’s mark is some kind of violation of God’s commandments. This is further supported by the identification of God’s end-time people as those “who keep the commandments of God” (12:17; 14:12).

See here for a further introduction to the Mark of the Beast.

As the Beast’s mark, it must also be something the Beast is particularly known for. For the following reasons, this site identifies the Trinity doctrine as the Mark of the Beast:

1. The Trinity Doctrine is unBiblical.

The Son is not a distinct Being.

First, while the New Testament presents the Father and the Son as two distinct Beings with distinct minds, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father and the Son are one Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Apologists often explain the Trinity doctrine by saying that God is one Being existing as three Persons, but that is misleading. Given the modern meaning of the word, ‘three Persons’ suggests three distinct minds. But the orthodox Trinity doctrine, as held by the vast majority of denominations, is that God is one Being with one single mind. [Show More]

Leading scholars note that, within Trinitarian doctrine, the so-called Persons are more accurately understood as three modes of existing as God.

Karl Barth, a leading Reformed scholar, proposed replacing the Trinitarian formula of “one God in three persons” with “one God in three (German) Seinweise,” which can be translated as “one God in three modes of being,” or “three ways of being.”

Karl Rahner, a leading catholic scholar, replaces “Person” with “manner of subsisting” (distinkte Subsistenzweisen). [Show More]

While the New Testament presents the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, as two distinct Beings with two distinct minds, the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father and pre-incarnate Son are a single Being with a single mind and will. Therefore, the Son is not a distinct mind and consciousness.

, but since there is only one divine mind and consciousness, the term ‘Persons’ is misleading, and leading scholars avoid it.

While the New Testament teaches that the divine Son of God suffered and died for the sins of the world, in the Trinity doctrine, since the Father and Son are one single Being, the Son is as impassible, immutable, immortal, and invisible as the Father. Therefore, the Son cannot and did not die on the Cross; a mere human body died.

Apologists often explain the Trinity doctrine as one Being existing as three Persons, but since there is only one divine mind and consciousness, the term ‘Persons’ is misleading, and leading scholars avoid it. (See here)

2. The Trinity Doctrine was not Traditional.

This site defends the view that the pre-incarnate Son is a second divine Being, begotten from the Father’s very being, who received all things from the Father, and through whom God created all things. He is our God and Creator, the visible image of the invisible God, but eternally subordinate to the One who alone exists without cause.  This was the majority view in the first three centuries (see here) and outside the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries. Over the centuries, people have spread a great deal of misinformation about this doctrine. [Show More]

This view is commonly discredited by calling it ‘Arianism,’ implying that it was a new heresy developed by Arius, teaching that the Son is a created being. But modern patristic scholarship admits that:

•  Arius was not an innovator. He was a conservative. [Show More]

•  The anti-Nicenes did not follow Arius. The anti-Nicenes were an existing school. Arius was a member of this school. [Show More]

•  Therefore, the term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer. The Controversy was not about Arius’s theology. [Show More]

•  The anti-Nicenes did not describe the Son as a created being, but as begotten from the Father’s being, and as the second Person of the Godhead. While the Trinity doctrine presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single Being with a single mind and consciousness, Arianism held that the Godhead consists of the Father, Son, and Spirit, three distinct divine Beings with three distinct minds. [Show More]

•  The heart of ‘Arianism’ is that God’s Son died on the Cross. Therefore, He cannot be impassible, immutable, immortal, and invisible. He must be a distinct divine Being (see here). [Show More]

Ordinary Christians often claim they believe in the Trinity doctrine, but what they really believe is the view defended by this site, that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct divine Being. However, if one believes that the Son is a distinct Being, then He must be subordinate to the Father, for two Almighty, uncaused Beings are not considered possible.

3. The Trinity doctrine was chosen by Roman Emperors, not the Church.

Many claim the Church adopted Nicene Trinitarianism at the two Ecumenical Councils in the fourth century. In reality, religious freedom and separation of Church and State did not exist. Church and State were united under a single head: the emperor.

“In the later Roman Empire, civil and ecclesiastical authority blended. One example of this blending is the ecclesiastical edicts of Constantine and his successors” (Boyd).

When there were doctrinal disagreements, the emperor had the final say:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority” (Hanson, p. 849).

“The truth is that in the Christian church of the fourth century there was no alternative authority comparable to that of the Emperor. The century did indeed see an increase in the power of the bishop of Rome, but he still could not be regarded as a figure even remotely as powerful as that of the Emperor” (Hanson, p. 854).

The so-called Ecumenical Councils were not even church councils. They were meetings called by the Roman emperors on their own initiative and for their own purposes: to determine the Empire’s religious policy. For that purpose, the emperors carefully controlled the meetings:

“The history of the period shows time and time again that local councils could be overawed or manipulated by the Emperor or his agents. The general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils, or councils aspiring to be general, were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).

The so-called Second Ecumenical Council in 381 serves as an example:

• • • Already in the preceding year (380), Emperor Theodosius had made Nicene Trinitarianism the sole legal religion (see here). Since that edict already outlawed Arianism, the emperor invited only Nicenes to the meeting.
    • Since he was only emperor in the Eastern Empire, he invited only Easterners.
    • To ensure an acceptable outcome, the emperor appointed a trusted unbaptized civil servant both as chair of the council and as Bishop of Constantinople (see here).

In conclusion, the “Church” in the fourth century was the State Church of the Roman Empire. The ‘ecumenical’ councils were really called to determine the Empire’s religious policy. Nations outside the Roman Empire remained ‘Arian.’ For example, the Germanic tribes that conquered and ruled the Western Empire in the 5th century were ‘Arians.’

4. Founding Constitution

The founding constitution of the Roman State Church was not an ‘ecumenical’ council, but a Roman law. In 378, the Roman Empire suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Visigoths. The Eastern emperor Valens was also killed. The Western Emperor Gratian then made Theodosius the emperor in the East. It was time for decisive action. Divisive doctrinal disputes could no longer be tolerated. In 380, the year before the ‘Second Ecumenical Council,’ Theodosius, with the support of Gratian, issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Nicene Trinitarianism the Roman State Religion, meaning that all Romans were required to confess Christianity, specifically Nicene Christianity. This was followed by ruthless persecution. ‘Arians’ were not permitted to teach or live in the cities and towns. Their churches were confiscated and given to Nicene bishops. In this way, ‘Arianism’ was eliminated from the Roman State Church.

The point is that this edict was the founding constitution of the Roman State Church. Thereafter, religious division was no longer tolerated, but suppressed with a heavy hand. The only issue it

, therefore, was the Trinity doctrine. A whole article series on this site explains the 4th-century ‘Arian’ Controversy (see here).

5. Origin as a Distinct Organization

In the 5th century, Germanic Arian nations conquered the Western Roman Empire. Daniel 7 says that the fourth animal first had 10 horns. I interpret that as the kingdoms into which the Germanic nations divided the Roman Empire.

Daniel 7 continues that an 11th horn came up by uprooting three other horns. I interpret that event as when Emperor Justinian, in the 6th century, liberated the Roman Church from Arian domination by defeating and subjugating three Arian kingdoms.

Over the next two centuries, the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Western Roman State Church. This is known as the Byzantine papacy. Over these centuries, the last Arian nations converted politically to the Roman Church.  In other words, the Roman State Church became a distinct organization by subjugating Arianism.

6. Boundary Marker

Over the centuries, the Trinity doctrine was regarded as the most important doctrine of the Church and the boundary between ‘Christianity’ and non-believers. [Show More]

Conclusion

Bible prophecy, comparing Daniel to Revelation and comparing Daniel’s 11th horn to historical events, identifies the Beast of Revelation as the State Church of the Roman Empire, which survived and evolved into the Roman Church after the Fall of Rome.

Other Articles

Other articles in this series

•  Articles on the Trinity doctrine
•  Arian Controversy
•  Pre-Nicene Fathers
•  Arius, Controversy begins
•  Nicene Council (AD 325)
•  Arianism – What is it?
•  Nicenes and Nicene Theology
•  End of the Controversy
•  Development in Later Centuries

Other Core Articles

•  The Mark of the Beast
•  All articles on this Site
•  Daniel’s Little Horn Identified
•  Daniel 9 – Verse-by-Verse
•  Daniel 9 – Four Alternative Interpretations
•  The Dragon of Revelation 13
•  The Beast of Revelation
•  The Trinity Doctrine
•  The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine
•  The Sabbath and the Arian Controversy
•  Christ’s Return

Other Article Series

•  The Antichrist in Daniel
•  The 490 years of Daniel 9
•  Book of Revelation
•  Christology – Who is Jesus?
•  Why does evil exist?
•  Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
For general theology, I recommend Graham Maxwell.