The Mark of the Beast and The Seal of God: Misinterpretations, Historical Context, and Modern Relevance
I. INTRODUCTION
Almost 2,000 years ago, John the Revelator wrote (Revelation 13:11, 16–18):
“Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. […]
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.”
For centuries, Christians from across all denominations have seen themselves enmeshed in an arduous debate over who was the beast and what that mysterious number (whether symbolic or real) could mean ever since.
This article, rather than claiming to have solved the two-thousand-year-old riddle by accurately identifying both the beast and its mark (something that nobody seems to have convincingly done until now), is an attempt to highlight the challenges that the Seventh-Day Adventists’ interpretation is facing today, and it is an invitation to consider more coherent approaches to this prophecy in particular and the prophetic phenomenon in general. It also urges modern readers to reconsider the relevance of this symbol today as a metaphor for moral and spiritual submission to worldly systems of authority that demand ultimate loyalty.
II. THE TERMINOLOGY
First, let’s consider the words the author of the book uses to speak about the mark of the beast and, in contraposition, the seal of God (note the difference between “mark” and “seal”).
In Revelation 13:16,17 the Greek term used for “mark” is χάραγμα (‘charagma’), a word that has 8 occurrences only in the New Testament (with 7 of them in Revelation chapters 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20, respectively) and none in the Greek (LXX) version of the Old Testament. As defined by HELPS Word-studies, ‘Charagma’ was originally any impress on a coin or a seal, used by an engraver on a die (stamp, branding iron). Later, it became “the identification-marker” (like with an owner’s unique “brand-mark”). ‘Charagma’ is, namely, an engraving, imprinting, carving, etching, a sculptured figure (see Acts 17:29), or a mark similar to the fire horse branding.
In opposition to the “mark of the beast”, the Greek term used for the “seal of God” in the book of Revelation 7:2–4 is σφραγίς (‘sphragis’) or σφραγίζω (‘sphragizó’), which occurs 16 and 15 times, respectively, in the NT (three of them in Rev. 7) and 24 times (excepting its variations) in the Greek LXX with the same meaning. It means “properly, to seal (affix) with a signet ring or other instrument to stamp (a roller or seal), i.e. to attest ownership, authorizing (validating) what is sealed. ‘Sphragízō’ (“to seal”) signifies ownership and the full security carried by the backing (full authority) of the owner. “Sealing” in the ancient world served as a “legal signature” which guaranteed the promise (contents) of what was sealed. It was also used to prove, confirm, or attest a thing; hence, tropically, to confirm, authenticate, place something or someone beyond doubt.” (https://biblehub.com/greek/4972.htm).
In the Septuagint (LXX) version of the OT, σφραγίζω (sphragizó) translates the Hebrew word חָתַם (‘chatham’), which also means to seal, affix a seal, or seal up (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2856.htm), and it is never applied to/on people (rather than on documents or things).
Neither this Greek word, nor its Hebrew correspondent have been used in any of the OT texts that SDA eschatologists refer to when designating the Sabbath as the “sign” or “seal” of God for his people (Ezekiel 20:12,20 and Exodus 31:13)!
In the Old Testament, there are mainly two Hebrew words used for attesting someone’s belongingness to (the people of) God and/or, respectively, to define the process of ratifying an agreement (covenant).
One of them is תָּ֜ו (‘tav’), which means “mark” or “signature” and it has 3 occurrences only (two of them in Ezekiel, chapter 9), along with its denominative verb, ‘tavah’ — meaning ‘to make a mark’, and occurring twice in the OT (1 Samuel 21:14 is an eloquent example).
The other word used much more frequently in the OT (79 times) is אוֹת (‘oth’), and it means properly, a sign, pledge, token (including signs, miracles, as pledges or attestations of divine presence & interposition).
The Greek term translating both the Hebrew “oth” and ‘tav’ in the Septuagint (including Deut. 6:4–8, Ezekiel 20:12,20) is σημεῗον (‘sémeion’) and it can be found in 77 instances in the NT too. σημεῗον, in the NT, means “a sign (typically miraculous), given especially to confirm, corroborate or authenticate. It then emphasizes the end-purpose which exalts the one giving it. Accordingly, it is used dozens of times in the NT for what authenticates the Lord and His eternal purpose, especially by doing what mere man cannot replicate of take credit for; of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s” (https://biblehub.com/greek/4592.htm).
At this moment, at least two conclusions can be drawn from analyzing the aforementioned terms:
1. The “sealing” (‘sphragis’, NOT ‘sémeion’ or ‘charagma’) on the forehead of the 144,000 saints in Revelation 7:2–4 and 14:1 is a clear reference to Ezekiel 9:4,6 (Hebrew ‘tav’), where the “seal” — also placed on the forehead of “those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in” Jerusalem — is meant to set apart (works as an identifier), in both scenarios, the people who are going to be spared from destruction. It obviously has nothing to do with the texts in Ezekiel 20:12,20 or Exodus 31:13 (as the SDA hermeneuts claim), where both the context and the Hebrew word (‘oth’ and NOT ‘tav’) are different, reason why the author most likely avoids the more ambiguous term ‘sémeion’ and uses ‘sphragis’ instead.
2. Bible usage shows that a “seal” (‘sphragis’) is something voluntarily accepted (as an indicator of a covenant/agreement), whereas a “mark” (‘charagma’) is placed on a person, object, or animals without the need of their participation or consent (sometimes even against their will), as a mark of possession/ownership. While both terms involve marking and ownership, ‘charagma’ implies external, often imposed control, while ‘sphragis’ emphasizes divine authorization and protective assurance. This distinction is crucial: the “mark” of the beast symbolizes submission to corrupt earthly powers, whereas the “seal” of God represents voluntary allegiance and divine security.
Another problematic link in the SDA’s eschatology is identifying The Sabbath — the seventh day of the week — with the sign (or symbol) of God’s covenant with Israel.
All biblical texts (including Ezekiel 20:12,13) that link the concept of a “sign” (‘oth’) to the idea of “Sabbaths” (properly translated to English in plural, everywhere) employ, invariably and overwhelmingly, the Hebrew term שַׁבְּתוֹתַי֙ (šab·bə·ṯō·w·ṯay), always referring to the mosaic holydays in general, as a whole (the ”feasts and festivals”). “Moreover, I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them” (Ezekiel 20:12, and following).
There are two exceptions where the text indicates a specific holy day as a “sign” between Yahweh and the children of Israel.
The first is in Exodus 13:9,16 and identifies the Passover, ‘year after year’ (not the seventh day of the week): “This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead that this law of the Lord is to be on your lips. For the Lord brought you out of Egypt with his mighty hand”; “and it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the Lord brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.” Observe here the striking similitude with the placing of the “mark of the beast”, in the book of Revelation, on forehead and hand.
The second exception, mentioning the weekly Sabbath indeed, can be found in Exodus 31:13–17 (especially verse 17): “it is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” However, there is no reference here to receiving or bearing the “sign” on “your hand and forehead”, as it happens with the Passover, which John the Revelator seems to allude more explicitly (also think in the blood on the door posts as a “sign” for spearing the lives of Lord’s people on the Passover night).
While this might not completely exclude the weekly Sabbath from the equation, in the SDA’s interpretation of the “seal of God” set on the forehead of the 144,000 saints, we can definitely say that the Passover (and its symbology) in particular — as well as the Hebrew festivals in general — has the same odds as the “Shabbat”, if not more, to qualify as the “sign of the Lord” in opposition to the “mark of the beast”, should John the Revelator have had any holy day(s) in mind.
III. HERMENEUTICAL PROBLEMS IN THE ADVENTIST ESCHATOLOGY
The Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) hermeneutics of the Book of Revelation is grounded in the historicist approach, which interprets the text as a chronological unfolding of church history from the first century to the Second Coming of Christ. Rooted in the Protestant Reformation, this method views the prophetic visions of Revelation as successive stages in the spiritual and political conflicts between God’s faithful and forces of apostasy. For Adventists, Revelation 13 aligns with specific historical events, such as the rise of the papacy and the enforcement of Sunday observance, which they identify as the “mark of the beast.” This perspective is heavily influenced by their belief in prophetic continuity between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing that God’s revelations trace an unbroken narrative through human history. While historicism once dominated Protestant eschatology, the SDA Church remains one of its most consistent proponents, interpreting prophecy not as symbolic or past fulfillment alone but as ongoing evidence of God’s involvement in the world’s redemptive story.
1. The SDA scholars, faithful to the Protestant tradition, interpreted the first beast in Revelation 13 as being the Roman Catholic Church, more specifically, the papacy (https://ssnet.org/blog/sunday-beast-from-sea/). If the Adventist theologians want to be consistent with their historicist interpretation of the prophetic books though, then they need to maintain that a “beast” is an imperial, statal, or else a political power, not a religious one — whose representation in the Bible is understood to be a woman. In Revelation 13, it is not a woman who forces all the people to receive a mark, but it is a beast (even if it is through the agency of a second beast). Hence, the mark is not the mark of a church (woman), but the mark of an empire/state/kingdom (beast). Actually, the word used here for “mark” (χάραγμα) is a clear reference to an element of authority similar to a coin or imperial seal, something engraved, imprinted, which has a number and an image on it.
The woman (“the harlot”), the symbol of a pagan/apostate religion or church, is introduced later, in Revelation 17 (actually, some interpreters think, arguably, that Babylon is a metaphor of the city of Jerusalem). According to verse 5, “the name written on her forehead was a mystery — Babylon the Great, The Mother of Prostitutes and the Abominations of the Earth.” So, her name is not 666. And she is not the beast. They are two different entities. If the beast itself represents Rome, it would be rather redundant to have the woman representing the same. The woman rides on top of the beast. Then, John was said, the woman and the beast were even hostile to each other (“The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire” — Rev. 17:16).
Moreover, if the 666 is the “mark of the beast” (that is, ‘its name or the number of its name’) and the beast — in biblical prophecy — is a kingdom, why would someone consider the pope as being “the beast” (also called “The Antichrist”)? Some may argue that the Catholic Church is both a church and a state (Vatican), but here come other issues.
Last but not least, Adventists’ interpretation is tergiversated — it implies that there is a mark (keeping the Sunday) that would give someone the right to receive another mark (on his arm or forehead) which is to be used for everyday transactions. The book of Revelation does not speak of two “marks”.
2. The traditional view of the Adventists, who have interpreted the mark of the beast to be the enforcement of Sunday observance and the Number 666 of the Beast the equivalent of the papal title VICARIUS FILII DEI (supposedly inscribed in the papal tiara), poses a very disturbing problem because it differentiates between the Mark and the Number of Beast. Such a differentiation can hardly be justified exegetically, because the text suggests that the Mark, the Name, and the Number are essentially the same thing (“so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name” — Rev. 13:17).
NOTE: The traditional views of the Adventists have been officially challenged by the SDA theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi Ph. D. in 2018, who otherwise endorsed Dr. Angel Rodriguez in his 2002 symbolic interpretation of the number/name of the beast and, at the same time, dismantled “The Saga Of Vicarius Filii Dei On The Papal Tiara” (also see https://archive.org/details/Samuele-Bacchiocchi-Endtime-Issues-Newsletter-196/mode/2up).
3. Throughout church history, there have been four different views regarding the book of Revelation: preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist. The preterist approach interprets most of the book’s prophecies as having been fulfilled in the first century, focusing on events like the fall of Jerusalem and the persecution of early Christians under Rome. The historicist view sees Revelation as a chronological map of church history, with its prophecies gradually unfolding over time, beginning in the first century AD through the end of age. The idealist or symbolic interpretation treats the book as a timeless allegory, portraying the universal conflict between good and evil without tying its visions to specific historical events. Finally, the futurist perspective views Revelation, particularly from chapter 4 onward, as a prophecy of events yet to occur, including a literal tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ. Each of these approaches reflects a unique hermeneutical lens, shaping how the book’s imagery and prophecies are understood across theological traditions.
Among these major approaches to interpreting the Book of Revelation, the preterist view stands out as the most compelling in its historical and textual grounding, as we shall see in our next chapter. This perspective posits that most of Revelation’s prophecies were fulfilled shortly after John’s writing, providing direct relevance to the first-century churches to which the book was addressed. The text itself underscores this immediacy, with declarations such as “the time is near” (Rev. 1:3; 22:10) and “what must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1; 22:6). These statements, taken at face value, point to events within the historical context of John’s audience rather than thousands of years far-off future occurrences.
The preterist interpretation gains further credibility when viewed alongside the genre of Revelation as apocalyptic prophecy. Like the Old Testament prophets, John employs symbolic language to describe impending historical judgments, such as those on the oppressive forces of Israel or pagan Rome. Just as prophecies in Jeremiah or Ezekiel addressed immediate crises while occasionally alluding to distant restorations, Revelation provides both timely relevance and glimpses of ultimate eschatological hope. In his article, “The Preterist Approach to Revelation”, Keith Mathison aptly notes that adopting the same hermeneutical approach used for Old Testament prophecy naturally leads to a preterist reading of Revelation.
This view, however, does not negate the timeless relevance of the text. Critics of the preterist approach argue that it robs Revelation of its contemporary significance, relegating it to a literary relic. Yet this critique misses the broader application of fulfilled prophecy. Just as Old Testament predictions about the exile and the Messiah remain instructive for modern believers, Revelation’s fulfilled prophecies may carry enduring lessons about God’s sovereignty and justice. Its vivid imagery of divine judgment, resistance to oppressive systems, and ultimate restoration continues to resonate as a call for fidelity to God in every generation.
While the preterist framework is robust, an eclectic approach — integrating elements from futurist, idealist, and historicist interpretations — may provide the fullest understanding. Futurism acknowledges the eschatological dimensions of chapters like Revelation 20–22, which describe ultimate cosmic restoration. Idealism captures the timeless spiritual truths woven into the narrative, while historicism situates the text within the sweeping arc of church history. By allowing these methods to complement one another, we can maximize their strengths while mitigating their individual weaknesses, as scholars like George Eldon Ladd and Grant Osborne have suggested (see op. cit.).
Adopting this multifaceted perspective enriches our engagement with Revelation. It allows us to appreciate the book’s immediate relevance to first-century believers, as underscored by its preterist framework, while also embracing its ongoing applicability as a timeless guide for understanding the interplay of divine and worldly powers. This approach underscores the layered complexity of Revelation, calling believers in every era to remain faithful amidst trials, confident in the ultimate triumph of God’s kingdom.
For an insightful exploration of the preterist perspective, Keith Mathison’s article on the approach provides a valuable resource, clarifying its hermeneutical basis and its enduring significance within the broader tradition of biblical interpretation.
IV. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SOUND HERMENEUTICS
One reason the Book of Revelation can be challenging to interpret today is that many people approach it as a book about the future, when it is primarily one about the past and present. John and his first-century audience would likely have understood the meaning of the “mark of the beast” within their own historical context. If they couldn’t, then the message would have had no sense to its original readers. In other words, when John presents the “number of the beast” as a riddle, he expects his first-century readers to have the knowledge necessary to solve it at that time. In the following lines, we will try to get a closer look at the prophecy, through the lens of his intended readers and their historical context.
1. To understand the true meaning of the mark of the beast, someone must keep in mind that The Book of Revelation is a Jewish, anti-Roman document. Once we realize that, we need to remember that the central Jewish Torah text that was recited twice daily stated, “‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one”. But it had another, less famous, although an integral part, speaking of God’s commandments: “Bind them as a sign on your hand and they will be on your forehead” (Deut. 6:4–8). Jewish people, both today and in Antiquity, fulfill this commandment by literally tying the words of the Living God found in Torah to their hand and head almost every day of the week. This practice is called, “the laying on of a tefillin.” See the reference to the mark placed on the hand (‘shel yad’ or ‘shel zeroa’) and forehead (‘shel rosh’) as symbolizing the tokens testifying to commitment to Mosaic covenant. Each box contains the four Scriptural passages Ex. 13:1–10, 11–16; Deut. 6:4–9, 11:13–21 (surprisingly, not even one of the Ten Commandments!). Revelation 12:17 says: “Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring — those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus”. That would be, against those who — through covenant, agreement, of free choice — have God’s commandments (“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength”) ’tied on their hands and bound on their foreheads’ (Deut. 6:5–8 and 11:18), in opposition to those who forcibly receive the ‘engraving” or the mark of the beast on their right hand and the forehead. Another text that may be worth mentioning here is Leviticus 19:28 (NIV): “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.” So, unlike other religions (and the beast in the book of Revelation), the Torah prohibits making marks in one’s flesh as protective totems (although — interestingly enough — it did require male’s circumcision). Thus, the passage can rather be seen as an antithetical parallelism to the Jewish institution of tefillin — Hebrew Bible texts — worn bound to the arm and the forehead during daily prayer. Instead of binding their allegiance to God to their arm and head, the place is instead taken by people’s allegiance to the beast.
2. The imperial cult played a pivotal role in the political and religious fabric of the Roman Empire. Emperors were not just political leaders; they were revered as gods. This deification extended to the imperial coinage, which often bore images of the emperor alongside divine symbols. For early Christians, this posed a significant challenge: their faith prohibited the worship of false gods, and the requirement to engage in idolatry, as evidenced by these coins, often placed them in conflict with Roman authority. In this context, the ‘charagma’ — a term for the official Roman stamp — symbolized more than just a physical mark. It became a representation of submission to imperial authority, and as scholars like C.C. Hill suggest, this system of economic control through currency was a constant reminder of the emperor’s claim to divinity, compelling Christians to navigate a world that demanded allegiance to Rome’s gods: “It is far more probable that the mark symbolizes the all-embracing economic power of Rome, whose very coinage bore the emperor’s image and conveyed his claims to divinity (e.g., by including the sun’s rays in the ruler’s portrait). It had become increasingly difficult for Christians to function in a world in which public life, including the economic life of the trade guilds, required participation in idolatry.” (Hill, Craig C. (2002), In God’s Time: The Bible and the future, Eerdmans, p. 124).
Adela Yarbro Collins further denotes that the refusal to use Roman coins resulted in the condition where “no man might buy or sell” (Collins, 1984, p. 126). A similar view is offered by Craig R. Koester. “As sales were made, people used coins that bore the images of Rome’s gods and emperors. Thus, each transaction that used such coins was a reminder that people were advancing themselves economically by relying on political powers that did not recognize the true God.” (Craig R. Koester (2001), Revelation and the End of All Things, Eerdmans, p. 132).
As a matter of fact, in 66 AD, when Nero was emperor — about the time some scholars say Revelation was written — the Jews revolted against Rome and minted their own coins.
So, there are enough reasons to assume that, to the author of the Book of Revelation, the emperor’s “godly” image, or stamp on the Roman coins may have equated with the “mark of the beast” (especially under emperors like Nero and Domitian, who were infamous for their persecution of Christians), a representation of the economic and social structures of Roman imperialism, where using Roman currency became an indication of one’s loyalty to the empire.
3. One of the most compelling interpretations of the “mark of the beast” identifies it with Emperor Nero, a figure who loomed large in the historical and symbolic imagination of early Christians. Nero’s reign epitomized the unchecked excesses of imperial power, marked by acts of cruelty, persecution, and self-deification (see Collosus of Nero, later Collosus Solis). He was regarded as the first emperor to unleash organized violence against Christians, scapegoating them for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. According to Tacitus (XV.44), Nero subjected Christians to gruesome deaths, having them “thrown to dogs, nailed to crosses in his gardens, and burned alive to serve as night-time illumination.” These events cemented Nero’s place as the prototype of a tyrannical oppressor of God’s people.
The cryptic number 666 in Revelation is widely regarded as a veiled reference to Nero. When transliterated from Greek into Hebrew as Neron Kaisar, the numerical value of his name adds up to 666. This calculation would have been immediately recognizable to the text’s original audience, steeped in the practice of gematria. Even the variant reading of 616, found in some early manuscripts, aligns with Nero’s name when an alternate spelling (Nero Kaisar) is used, further reinforcing the connection.
Recent scholarship, particularly Craig R. Koester’s analysis in The Number of the Beast in Revelation 13 in Light of Papyri, Graffiti, and Inscriptions, offers fresh and seminal insights into the enigmatic 666. Drawing on newly discovered graffiti from the Smyrna agora, papyri from sites like Murabba‘at and Ketef Jericho, and inscriptions from Sardis and Dura Europos, the study illuminates how ancient practices and socio-political contexts shape our understanding of the mark of the beast.
Textual Variants and Gematria
The primary reading, 666, has extensive textual attestation, while the variant 616 also appears in notable manuscripts like the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Both numbers plausibly reference Nero Caesar via gematria, where Hebrew letters assign numerical values to names. The Hebrew transliteration נרון קסר (Neron Caesar) equals 666, while its Latin form קסר adjusts to 616. This duality reflects the broader cultural interactions between Greek, Latin, and Hebrew-speaking communities.
The Social and Economic Context
Koester highlights how the Roman Empire’s dominance manifested in daily life, particularly through economic systems. Roman coins, emblazoned with imperial titles and images, functioned as symbols of political allegiance, while official documents frequently referenced the emperor’s name and title. For instance, a promissory note from Murabba‘at dated to Nero’s reign includes the transliterated title, reinforcing the connection between commerce and imperial authority. Revelation’s imagery, such as forbidding buying or selling without the beast’s mark (Rev. 13:17), evokes this system, portraying economic compliance as a form of idolatrous submission.
Graffiti and Subversion
The agora graffiti from Smyrna, using gematria to encode names, mirrors the satirical tone of Revelation. By likening Roman imperial power to a grotesque beast, the author invites readers to resist compliance, framing the mark as both a literal economic restriction and a symbolic rejection of God’s sovereignty. This interpretation situates Revelation within a countercultural critique of Roman hegemony.
Historical Interpretations and Challenges
While Nero remains the most plausible historical referent, alternatives include other Roman emperors such as Domitian, Vespasian, or even generic representations of oppressive human governance. However, Koester argues that the context, literary clues, and transliteration evidence firmly anchor the beast’s number to Nero as a prototype of imperial tyranny.
4. According to some Bible scholars, Nero, the fifth emperor of Rome, also seems to fulfill the description of the beast with “seven heads, one of which was wounded but then healed” (Rev. 13:3) and the mention of the eighth king who is also one of the earlier seven kings in Revelation 17:8–11 — a likely reference to the widespread belief in Nero Redivivus, the myth that Nero would return from the dead to reclaim his throne as a demonic force.
The apocalyptic literature of the era reflects Nero’s transformation from a historical figure into an eschatological symbol of evil. The Sibylline Oracles (a collection of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic verses attributed to the prophecies of the ancient Sibyl, who identifies herself as a native of Babylon) and the Ascension of Isaiah vividly portray Nero as a ruler empowered by satanic forces. Into the middle of the Ascension of Isaiah (3:13–4:22), dating from the late 1st century AD, there is a Christian apocalypse called the “Testament of Hezekiah”, describing a vision of the coming of Jesus, the subsequent corruption of the Christian church, the rule of Beliar, and the second coming. All of this is phrased in such a way that it is clearly a code for the persecution of the church by Nero and the belief that Nero was an Antichrist. He is described as a “murderer of his mother” and “the king of iniquity,” who will deceive the world by proclaiming himself as God and performing miracles to seduce the faithful.
“This angel, Beliar, will come in the form of that king, and with him will come all the powers of this world, and they will obey him in every wish….And he will do everything he wishes in the world; he will act and speak like the Beloved, and will say, ‘I am the Lord, and before me there was no one.’ And all men in the world will believe in him”. (IV.1–8)
The Sibylline Oracles similarly present Nero as a resurrected serpent who “breathes out grievous war” and dares to declare himself equal to God.
“One who has fifty as an initial (the Hebrew letter “N”) will be commander, a terrible snake (the serpent or dragon), breathing out grievous war… But even when he disappears, he will be destructive. Then he will return declaring himself equal to God”. (V.28ff)
The Christian poet Commodian (fl. AD 260) also writes of the Antichrist, when Nero will return from hell.
“Then, doubtless, the world shall be finished when he shall appear. He himself shall divide the globe into three ruling powers, when, moreover, Nero shall be raised up from hell, Elias shall first come to seal the beloved ones; at which things the region of Africa and the northern nation, the whole earth on all sides, for seven years shall tremble. But Elias shall occupy the half of the time, Nero shall occupy half. Then the whore Babylon, being reduced to ashes, its embers shall thence advance to Jerusalem; and the Latin conqueror shall then say, I am Christ, whom ye always pray to; and, indeed, the original ones who were deceived combine to praise him. He does many wonders, since his is the false prophet”. (Instructions, XLI).
These depictions underscore how deeply Nero’s legacy shaped the early Christian understanding of the Antichrist and his opposition to Christ’s kingdom.
For those seeking a deeper exploration of this interpretation, the article “Nero as the Antichrist” offers a thorough and illuminating analysis of how the imagery of Revelation connects Nero’s life, legacy, and apocalyptic symbolism to the Antichrist and the Mark/Number of the Beast. This scholarly work highlights the enduring relevance of Nero’s archetype in understanding both the historical and symbolic dimensions of John’s vision.
5. The Book of Revelation fits firmly within the genre of Jewish-Christian apocalyptic literature, a tradition that sought to offer hope and divine insight during times of crisis. Apocalyptic texts, such as Daniel in the Hebrew Bible and the Sibylline Oracles, share with Revelation a vivid use of symbolic imagery, cosmic dualism, and an overarching focus on God’s ultimate victory over oppressive earthly powers. These writings often emerged during periods of persecution or national upheaval, serving as both a critique of prevailing powers and a promise of divine justice.
One hallmark of apocalyptic literature is its dualistic worldview, where history is portrayed as a cosmic struggle between good and evil, culminating in the triumph of God’s kingdom. In Revelation, this dualism is evident in the opposition between the Lamb of God and the beast, as well as the New Jerusalem’s emergence after the destruction of Babylon. Similarly, the Book of Daniel frames historical events — such as the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes and his desecration of the Temple — as manifestations of a broader divine plan for the end of days.
Another defining feature of this tradition is the use of symbolic language and numerology to encode messages for the faithful while concealing them from hostile powers. Revelation’s frequent use of numbers (e.g., 7, 12, and 666) parallels Daniel’s time spans and the cryptic measurements found in Ezekiel’s temple vision. These numbers often carry theological significance, representing completeness, imperfection, or divine orchestration. The coded reference to Nero as 666 fits neatly within this apocalyptic strategy, as it simultaneously indicts Rome while encouraging the oppressed faithful to endure.
Revelation also adopts the apocalyptic motif of heavenly visions. Much like Isaiah’s throne-room vision (Isaiah 6) or Enoch’s celestial journeys in the Book of Enoch, John is transported to the heavenly realm, where he witnesses divine judgments and the ultimate restoration of God’s creation. These visions serve as a reminder to the faithful that earthly suffering is temporary, and that God’s sovereign plan is unfolding behind the scenes.
Finally, the Book of Revelation draws heavily on Old Testament apocalyptic themes, weaving them into its narrative to demonstrate continuity between the Hebrew scriptures and the emerging Christian tradition. It echoes Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre in its dirge for Babylon, borrows Daniel’s imagery of beasts representing empires, and mirrors the Exodus plagues in its depiction of divine judgments. This intertextuality situates Revelation as both a continuation and a culmination of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, reframed through the lens of Christ’s redemptive work.
By situating the Book of Revelation within the broader tradition of Jewish-Christian apocalyptic literature, we see that its critique of imperial power was not unique. Texts such as Daniel and the Sibylline Oracles also condemned rulers who exalted themselves as gods, drawing parallels between historical figures like Antiochus Epiphanes and Nero. These rulers were not merely historical tyrants but prototypes of the ultimate adversary — the Antichrist or Anti-God. Jerome (Commentary on Daniel; 11:27–30) aptly observed that “many of our viewpoint think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity.” Revelation’s portrayal of Nero as the beast, therefore, serves both as a specific indictment of Rome’s oppressive regime and a timeless warning against the corrupting influence of power that demands total allegiance.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, all these arguments reinforce the preterist interpretation as the most plausible of all. Nevertheless, a more eclectic approach can broaden our perspective. Revelation is not just a uniquely Christian text but also a bridge between Jewish apocalyptic thought and the Christian understanding of God’s final victory. It speaks to its audience in a familiar literary and theological language, embedding its message of resistance and hope within a rich, symbolic tradition that spanned centuries. In its context, the “mark of the beast” becomes a multi-faceted symbol, rooted in the economic, political, and religious realities of its time, offering both a historical critique of Rome and a timeless call for spiritual fidelity.
V. THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
While Revelation’s historical context provides valuable insight into its symbolism, it is vital to evaluate theological claims that have emerged from specific interpretations of the text. One such claim, central to Seventh-Day Adventist theology, is that Sabbath observance represents the defining seal of God for His people at the ‘end of time’. However, this idea raises significant theological challenges. The heart of Revelation’s theological message is about integrity, love, and divine justice. Can the observance of a single day truly encapsulate the essence of faith and allegiance to God? Does such a view align with the broader teachings of Scripture on what it means to be identified as God’s own? This chapter challenges the idea of equating Sabbath observance with God’s ultimate ‘sign’, examining biblical evidence that points to a more comprehensive understanding of God’s seal and His people’s identity.
1. No commandment is more important than other, not even the 4th. The Sabbath is no more important than the commandment that says (Mat. 5:28, KJV), “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (that is, sexual objectification of the women). Likewise, the first four commandments are no more important than the last six, since “whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 John 4:20, NIV). We hear the same over and over: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery’, also said, ‘Do not commit murder’. Now if you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10, 11 — ESV). Hence, it is obvious that keeping the Sabbath while transgressing any other piece of the law cannot be considered a “sign” that someone is “God’s people”, a bearer of the “mark of God”.
2. The ‘mark of the beast’ is often viewed through the lens of legalism — the idea that external signs or rituals define a person’s relationship with God. While the Old Covenant established physical signs of allegiance to God, such as circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath, the New Covenant emphasizes internal transformation through the Holy Spirit, where love and grace fulfill the law (Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 13:10; Hebrews 10:16). The ‘mark of the beast’ then, when viewed through this other lens, is not merely a matter of outward compliance to a ritualistic command, but rather represents a deeper issue of the heart: a choice to submit one’s life to earthly authorities (not out of love but through control and coercion) in opposition to the law of God. The conflict becomes not one of physical marks, but of the loyalty of the heart, choosing between allegiance to God’s way of life or allegiance to powers that demand ultimate obedience, such as imperial Rome.
3. As Romans 14:1–6 teaches us, God’s acceptance is not contingent on the individual’s observance of a specific type of food or days of the week – which, by the way, Paul the Apostle brands as “disputable/doubtful matters” (!) in verse 1 — but rather on this person’s integrity, that is his willingness to align his actions with his sincerely held beliefs: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind… for God has accepted them” (v.5 & 3). The emphasis is on “conviction”, since “everything that is not from a conviction is sin” (Romans 14:23, HCSB). It is not about the correctness of a particular belief (since different believers may find themselves at different stages and degrees of understanding the same truth), but rather about true-heartedness, love, and peace: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (Romans 14:17–19).
So, a believer can have respect of no day of the week particularly, and still be accepted by God as one of His family, because what qualifies him for the kingdom is a different set of attributes. Conversely, a virtuous, uncorrupted person who chooses to rest on Sundays does not necessarily have the “mark of the beast” on his arm or forehead just because of refraining from work that day. How could then the observance of the Sabbath become the cornerstone for God’s economy of salvation?
4. According to Christ, there is one SIGN only, that will characterize and distinguish any of his followers: “By this all people will know that you are My disciples: if you have love for one another” (John 13:35 NASB) or “Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples” (John 13:35 NLT). This is the “sign” that will tell the difference between sheep and goats at the Final Judgement (Matthew 25:31–46), not the Sabbath, and not any of God’s commandments or holy feasts particularly. Even the Sabbath day has more to do with love and charity, rather than rituals and observances (see Isaiah 58)!
These holy days and compliances have no significance under the New Covenant: “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13 NIV) and “He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations” (Ephesians 2:15 NLT; see also Galatians 2:16, etc.). None of these matters indeed, literally. As Paul the Apostle exhorts Timothy, “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies (an overt allusion to the Jewish Talmud). Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work — which is by faith. The goal of this command is LOVE, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:3–5, NIV, emphasis added).
What really matters is one’s relationship of love (which may have a higher or a lower complexity of components and dimensions, depending on its stage of development and maturity) with God and other humans. “For whoever loves others has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8, NIV). “For God will not show mercy when he judges the person who has not been merciful; but mercy triumphs over judgement” (James — 2:13–18 GNT).
Love supersedes, encompasses, and incorporates God’s universal Law, no matter the day or kind of food one sets apart.
5. The book of Revelation (6:9, BLB) states: “and when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had upheld”. Revelation 14:1 (NIV) follows directly after 13:17–18 and suggests that the ‘sign of the beast’ stands in opposition to those “who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads”. Now, it doesn’t take too much to look back on history to see that only a very small part of the martyrs who died for their faith were Sabbath keepers. They were first and foremost lovers and disciples of Christ, people who had the courage of their convictions.
“There is a problem when we reduce the final conflict over worship to simply a conflict between two different days: Sabbath versus Sunday. There is more to worship than observing the right day. One can observe the right day, but for the wrong reason. Moreover, even some Sabbath keepers sometimes reduce their Sabbath keeping to one hour of church attendance followed by secular activities” (Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Saga Of Vicarius Filii Dei On The Papal Tiara, page 29).
The word “worship” appears 8 times in Revelation 13 and 14. It seems to indicate that the controversy between the beast and God’s people must be seen in the larger context of the conflict between allegiance to God (and His universal standards) and allegiance to a corrupted man-made system.
A mark or a sign, from a holistic perspective of the Bible, is not about a certain day or a specific commandment — it is about integrity, about will (forehead) and servitude (hand)! Dr. Eli Lizorkin — Eyzenberg’s observation is worth quoting here: “Instead, we should understand the mark of the beast to be an inward or outward expression that opposes the law of God in the life of a human being.”
As a side note, by contrast with the mark of the beast, the name of the Lamb and the Father (Rev 14:1) is written on the foreheads of the saints (conscious adherence) only, and not on their hands (instinctual subservience or compliance).
In light of these arguments, it becomes evident that viewing Sabbath observance as God’s ultimate seal oversimplifies the profound message of Scripture. Revelation emphasizes the inner alignment of the will and actions with God’s law — not merely adherence to a single commandment, but a holistic commitment to His ways. A day of rest cannot substitute for a life characterized by righteousness, love, and service, as Jesus Himself taught when He declared that all the Law and Prophets hinge on love for God and neighbor. The true seal of God is not found in ritual observance but in a commitment to justice, love, and truth — a call to align one’s entire life with God’s character and His eternal kingdom.
VI. SOCIO-POLITICAL DIMENSIONS — The Likely Futility of Sunday Laws in a Post-Religious Society
While the theological implications of the mark emphasize spiritual allegiance and moral integrity, it is equally crucial to examine how these principles interact with the socio-political realities of a globalized and increasingly secular world. The symbolic nature of the mark gains heightened relevance when viewed through the lens of modern systems of control and conformity.
The “mark of the beast” has historically represented a sign of submission, a marker of allegiance to corrupt systems of power. Throughout history, this marker has manifested in various forms, adapted to the socio-political realities of the time.
However, in contrast with the SDA eschatology, the notion of Sunday observance being imposed globally as the “mark of the beast” appears increasingly implausible in our modern context. For one, major religious and cultural groups would strongly resist such a mandate. Devout Jews, for whom Saturday (Shabbat) is sacred, would reject any requirement to transfer their Sabbath to Sunday. Similarly, Muslims honor Friday as their holy day. Secular populations — including atheists and agnostics, particularly in countries like China and Russia — attach no special significance to any specific day of the week. For them, such an imposition would lack both meaning and relevance.
Additionally, in an increasingly secular world, imposing a religiously motivated rule, such as mandating Sunday as a universal day of rest, contradicts prevailing trends of individual freedom and religious pluralism. The cultural and ideological diversity of the modern world presents a significant obstacle to any such unilateral enforcement. In fact, flexible work arrangements, such as four-day work weeks, and concepts like universal basic income are already reshaping traditional notions of work and rest. These trends further diminish the practical and economic rationale for such a decree, especially in a world where the boundaries between work and leisure are increasingly blurred.
Furthermore, the very nature of the “mark” described in Revelation implies something far more integral to daily life than a weekly act of observance. For a “mark” to serve as an effective tool of the beast, it must carry real transactional weight — impacting one’s ability to buy, sell, or engage in essential domains of life such as education, healthcare, economy, and employment. In today’s socio-political climate, such a marker would likely manifest as a mechanism tied to economic or social control: a digital identifier, a social credit score, or a compliance token enforced by technology. These mechanisms, rather than a day of worship, are far more likely candidates for limiting freedoms and enforcing conformity. They align more closely with the global, transactional, and ‘wearable’ nature of the “mark” described in Revelation, as they could universally affect financial, professional, medical, and social participation.
Ultimately, a symbolic or literal “mark” that functions as a transactional key to survival is far more compelling and relevant than a weekly religious observance. Revelation’s depiction of the beast emphasizes not formalities, but the pursuit of ultimate control over individuals’ lives and loyalties — a goal achieved not by mandating the observance of a particular day, but through pervasive systems that can affect some or every essential facet of human existence.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The Revelation is a blend of Judaism and Christianity, serving as both a letter of encouragement and a warning. Like all biblical prophecy, it is a manifesto of what could unfold or be averted, depending on humanity’s response to God’s warnings and guidance.
“A text cannot mean what it could never have meant for its original readers/hearers… the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken or written.” (Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pages 34–35).
The book of Revelation uses symbols and concepts intended to have an immediate meaning for the Judeo-Christian audience of the first century, contemporaneous with the author. While it may, at most, serve as a lesson or parable for future generations, the author likely did not anticipate many generations beyond his own, given his strong belief in the imminent return of Christ (“Behold, I am coming soon”). Therefore, despite its relevance for future readers, Revelation should not be considered divination.
On one hand, we could see that ‘the mark of the beast’, rather than being tied to Sunday observance, symbolizes deeper issues of conformity and allegiance to corrupt systems. It represents a universally impactful and compulsory sign, not limited to rituals, but woven into the fabric of everyday transactions, highlighting a deeper submission to corrupt forces.
On another hand, the ‘mark of the beast’ may not be merely a relic of ancient prophecy but a symbol that continues to resonate today. Historically, it reflected submission to the oppressive powers of Rome. Theologically, it represents a deeper choice between allegiance to God and submission to worldly forces. In today’s world, we might find echoes of this ancient struggle in systems of power that demand our complete allegiance, whether political, religious, economic, or social. The challenge for Christians, as it was for the early church, persists: to remain faithful to God’s law in a world that seeks to mark them with the demands of earthly powers.
Spiritual submission, as portrayed in Revelation, is not limited to passive acknowledgment of divine authority but requires an active alignment of one’s life with God’s principles. For modern believers, this involves navigating ethical dilemmas, such as choosing integrity over convenience or financial success when fairness or honesty is at stake. Similarly, advocating for the fair treatment of marginalized groups or promoting policies that uphold dignity and equity demonstrates how submission to God’s will transcends personal piety, extending into tangible, transformative engagement with the world. Such actions embody the values of God’s kingdom, where love and justice prevail over exploitation and indifference.
This commitment also calls for resisting materialism, standing firm in ethical convictions, and refusing to participate in exploitative practices, even when doing so may come at personal or professional cost. For example, ecological stewardship is an increasingly critical area where believers can choose to honor God by refusing to support destructive practices that prioritize profit over the well-being of creation. Such decisions exemplify the counter-cultural life Revelation envisions, where loyalty to God’s eternal kingdom outweighs allegiance to worldly systems.
The wrath of the beast — a secular power (which besides autocratic might become global at some point in the future) — has always targeted any human being who is not ready to bend to its will and authority. Whether on social, political, economic, or religious grounds, this battle persists for those who stand for their dignity and integrity, against the Behemoth’s agenda. John the Revelator’s message clearly resounds through history, calling every man and woman who loves freedom and justice to hold their ground and resist. Do not give in or give up, for God is on your side! Every rising beast will eventually fall, and your reward of justice will come.
