So "mark of the beast" should equate with "seal of the beast".

Vine's says a mark is an "indelible token", a "stamp or an impress". An indication, if you will.

A seal, however carries with it a meaning of authentication and destiny. A completion and fulfillment. (Vine's again.

Therefore: the mark is a symptom, visible even now, but made completely visible by the Sunday decree (for want of a better expression.) The seal is beyond that, declaring God's judgment and intent.

What do you think?

Zyph:
It appears, to me anyway, that when we receive the mark then things are pretty well finished. However, in the Passover story, the people could receive the token, "oth" in hebrew, and yet were still able to rebel against God. So there appears to be a process involved in the sealing issue. It appears to me that when you get to sealing, it is both a process and a final event. So, personally, I want to keep as much room open for people to grow, develop, and mature, but I want to have the final product be immovable. I pray that when my name comes up in the process I will be sealed with the Sabbath and what all Sabbath means.

The mark of the beast in its literal form is definitely the defining mark, which invites the judgments of God, good or bad.

But I think there is a definite spiritual application to our lifestyle prior to that time.

I pray for the same things, Greg.

Catholic theology defines "natural law" differently than we do. It's laws that are written into the fibers of our being.

Then you have "positive law," something that isn't written there, something that you don't know intuitively, something you have to be told. The 4th is like that, and it is for this reason that some of those good Catholic quotes we use call the 4th a "most POSITIVE command."

The Catholic Church thinks it impossible to change natural law, but they believe they have so much power they can change positive law, even that which God wrote Himself on tables of stone.

If they really can do that, then they can do anything they want to. That's why it's a mark of their authority.

In order for something to be A mark of the beast, it has to be something that is a mark of THE beast.

But the Sabbath/Sunday issue involves more than we realize. It will test us all where we are weakest.

Suppose your weak point is popularity. Well, you'll have to decide between God and popularity.

Or what about appetite? Well, you'll have to decide between God and food.

Or maybe you're inclined to put family above God? Well, you'll have to decide between God and family on that day.

Thanks to the rise of republics and democracies as foretold in prophecy, everyone alive on the planet will get to cast their vote or raise their voice.

In the full light of the Holy Spirit poured out in the latter rain, to decide to stick with our secret sin, whatever it may be, instead of keeping the Sabbath, will be a final choice.

If I may interupt this interesting train of thought, I'd like to ask Mike for a clarification of his earlier statement regarding the "seal of God" The text refered to was Isaiah 8:16, and the assertion was made that the law was the seal of God. I have not heard this assertion before, always being told that the "seal of God" was specifically the Sabbath commandment. However, even this claim does not agree with Scripture, which states that the seal of God is the Holy Spirit. (Eph. 1:13; 2 Cor. 1:21)

Please comment

Durk, you bring up an excellent point. Thank you. Here's what I posted awhile back:

"Whenever I have the opportunity to share this topic with non-SDA's I like to point out that the "seal" of God is the law (Isa 8:16) and that sabbath keeping is the "sign" of the seal of God (Eze 20:12,20). Thus the seal of God is more than just sabbath keeping. It includes the entire law."

According to these passages, taken together with the ones you eluded to, I would suggest that the seal of God is the law of God, that the sign of the seal of God is sabbath keeping, and that the Holy Spirit is the one who makes it possible for born again believers to experience the sign and seal of God.

What do you think?

The mark of the beast is an issue that requires much study. It covers as much territory as the law of God for the mark of the beast is the sign that one has fully and completely rejected God's plan of salvation. When that rejection is completed then the mark of the beast is given.

In GC 495-496 we have the story of the first case of the mark of the beast. It reads as follows (emphasis mine):
"God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as only infinite love and wisdom could devise were made to convince him of his error. The spirit of discontent had never before been known in heaven. Lucifer himself did not at first see whither he was drifting; he did not understand the real nature of his feelings. But as his dissatisfaction was proved to be without cause, Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong, that the divine claims were just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker."

When Lucifer fully committed to his rebellion, and he had fully been convinced of his error, and he had fully rejected God's plan of salvation for him, then he had come to the point of receiving the mark of the beast, the sign of complete loyalty to sin and complete rejection of God's plan to save.

The mark of the beast in heaven did not consist of the Sabbath per se but it did consist or rebellion against the authority of God and against His law. The experience of Adam and Eve did not conist of Sabbath per se, but it did consist of rejection of the authority of God and His law. The mark of Cain came as a result of murder and rejection of the sacrificial system, both are components of God's law. In each and every experience of interaction with God some people fell off, received the mark of the beast, and some continued in their walk with God. Even Achan made it through many tests before he succombed to his mark of the beast in takeing the "goodly babylonish garment" and the gold. He died not for breaking Sabbath primarily but for rejecting the law of God for a trinket.

As each experience is met each person has to decide what they will do with God and His law. Will they surrender to Him or will they establish themselves as the arbitrater of God's law. The final display of loyalty to God will be on the Sabbath issue the law most distorted by man. When logic fails to guide, when human reasoning does not suffice regarding God's revealed will then each person will have to decide based upon the movings of the spirit guiding them. The righteous will decide upon the movings of the Holy Spirit through the revealed will of God in Scripture, and the wicked will decide upon the movings of an unholy spirit through feelings, traditions, and the emotional issues of life. See John 12:42-43. Then everyones heart will be revealed by the sign of their loyalty - Sabbath for God, sunday for satan. That revealing of their loyalty is the mark of the beast.

Greg, while I appreciate how you seek to show a running connection between the history of rebellion and the mark of the beast, I'm not sure I agree with how you are referring to everything dating back to the fall of Lucifer as THE mark of the beast.

I would be much more comfortable if the phrase, A mark of the beast, was used to refer to these historical events. I believe to use the phrase, The mark of the beast, waters down and blurs the truth about the prophetic intentions of this entire subject.

I can live with the phrase a mark of the beast when referring to these events.

Greg, perhaps I'm missing you're main point? From what you've been studying so far, do you see a difference between a and the mark of the beast? I don't mean to cut you short by mentioning my concerns. Mostly I want to learn what you're trying to share. Sometimes I catch on slower than I'm willing to admit. Please continue sharing what's on your heart. Thank you.