And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
what do we know about this mark?
what was it?
Hi Nb, one way of answering this question is to consider the application of the mark of Cain to a group of people who were responsible for Christ's death, those who said "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25).
I am thinking of the quote below, and words and phrases like "stigma" and "object lesson" and "working ouf of the great controversy" come to mind.
---
The Jews who first aroused the rage of the heathen against Jesus were not to escape unpunished. In the judgment hall, as Pilate hesitated to condemn Jesus, the infuriated Jews cried, "His blood be on us, and on our children." The fulfillment of this terrible curse which they called down upon their own heads, the Jewish nation has experienced. The heathen and those called Christians alike have been their foes. Those professed Christians, in their zeal for Christ, whom the Jews crucified, thought that the more suffering they could bring upon them, the better would God be pleased. Many of the unbelieving Jews were therefore killed, while others were driven from place to place and were punished in almost every manner. {EW 212.2}
The blood of Christ and of the disciples, whom they had put to death, was upon them, and they were visited with terrible judgments. The curse of God followed them, and they were a byword and a derision to the heathen and to so-called Christians. They were degraded, shunned, and detested, as if the brand of Cain were upon them. Yet I saw that God had marvelously preserved this people and scattered them over the world that they might be looked upon as specially visited by the curse of God. I saw that God had forsaken the Jews as a nation; but that individuals among them will yet be converted and be enabled to tear the veil from their hearts and see that the prophecy concerning them has been fulfilled; they will receive Jesus as the Saviour of the world and see the great sin of their nation in rejecting and crucifying Him. {EW 213.1}
Ive heard about the skin color idea but Im not buying it either. Purple, green?
Interesting idea about stature. Really small or really big would stand out.
I think people were horrified when they saw him. Thinking along the lines of some beast-like characteristics. Like for instance, Horns or very strangely shaped ears. what ever it was Cain said he couldnt bear it and thought people would want to kill him.
Ive heard about the skin color idea but Im not buying it either. Purple, green?
Interesting idea about stature. Really small or really big would stand out.
I think people were horrified when they saw him. Thinking along the lines of some beast-like characteristics. Like for instance, Horns or very strangely shaped ears. what ever it was Cain said he couldnt bear it and thought people would want to kill him.
A basic question is whether the "mark" is primarily a physical characteristic, or more a matter of world-wide and universe-wide reputation.
An example is the quote below. I don't think the primary point here is a physical mark, for example purple hair, or green skin, or a hunched stature.
Another example is the quote I posted above, about how the "brand of Cain" was upon those who had rejected Christ This particular example is known to have played out over more than a thousand years.
---
Any man, be he minister or layman, who seeks to compel or control the reason of any other man, becomes an agent of Satan, to do his work, and in the sight of the heavenly universe he bears the mark of Cain. {PC 30.5}
The same question could be applied to the mark of the beast, or the seal of God in the time of trouble. The 144,000 will also have a mark, the seal of God. As I recall Ellen White stated the mark(s) is something the ANGELS can see. We will not be able to see or discern either the mark of the beast or the seal of God. If you could, it would be easy for us to see that who is with God and who is not! We have been left with counsel as to how to make that determination based on truth, not a physical mark.
Why then do the angels need to see a "mark"? Recall the war in heaven, when "almost half" (says EGW) of the angels at first sided with Lucifer. Satan didn't have a mark, it was left to the angels to discern truth from error, as will be the case for the remnant in the last days. A mark the angels can see in the last days will make a clear distinction concerning where every man stands, for good or for bad.
By the way, did you catch what Ellen White said of the number of angels in heaven who rebelled? "Almost Half"! NOT one-third as is so often misstated. The SDA pioneers knew who the dragon was in Revelation 12-1-4, what his "tail" did, what that tail represented, and how Rome tried to kill the baby Jesus. Confusion on this point is a relatively new issue within the Church (one of several errors accepted in these modern times as truth, when it is not). The devil makes his appearance in Rev. 12 in verse 7, not before.
Ive heard about the skin color idea but Im not buying it either. Purple, green?
Interesting idea about stature. Really small or really big would stand out.
I think people were horrified when they saw him. Thinking along the lines of some beast-like characteristics. Like for instance, Horns or very strangely shaped ears. what ever it was Cain said he couldnt bear it and thought people would want to kill him.
A basic question is whether the "mark" is primarily a physical characteristic, or more a matter of world-wide and universe-wide reputation.
An example is the quote below. I don't think the primary point here is a physical mark, for example purple hair, or green skin, or a hunched stature.
Another example is the quote I posted above, about how the "brand of Cain" was upon those who had rejected Christ This particular example is known to have played out over more than a thousand years.
---
Any man, be he minister or layman, who seeks to compel or control the reason of any other man, becomes an agent of Satan, to do his work, and in the sight of the heavenly universe he bears the mark of Cain. {PC 30.5}
Nowhere does the Bible say a "third of the angels". Ellen White specifically says, "Then Satan exultingly pointed to his sympathizers, comprising nearly one-half of all the angels, and exclaimed, These are with me!"{The Signs of the Times, January 9, 1879 par. 9}, also {1SP 22.2}, {SR 18.1}, {TA 43.1} Ellen White said one-half, not Satan.
Rev. 12:1 A woman, the true church. The sun, the light of the gospel dispensation. The moon, the Mosaic dispensation. A crown of twelve stars, the twelve apostles. A great red dragon, pagan Rome. (See verses 4 and 5.) Heaven, the space in which this representation was seen by the apostle.
Verse 4: His tail, Roman military/civil authority, removed a third part of the Jewish system of government, the office of "king". Leaving only the Sanhedrin and the priests.
See also Revelation 8:12 a "third part" of the "sun", the "moon" and the "stars". NOTE: the flag of the Roman military displayed a red dragon! Nowhere in the bible is satan said to be "red", with a "tail"!
Verse 7 A war in heaven, against God, the Father of Christ. The was was not against His Son, Jesus, but against Father, God. This was carried on by the "dragon", unqualified, not red, not with a tail. This is Lucifer!
[4] And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Ellen White specifically says, "Then Satan exultingly pointed to his sympathizers, comprising nearly one-half of all the angels, and exclaimed, These are with me!"{The Signs of the Times, January 9, 1879 par. 9}, also {1SP 22.2}, {SR 18.1}, {TA 43.1}
EGW is relating what Satan claims to be his. Its a lie.
Not one pioneer, nor Ellen White at any point suggested or implied that the devil was red, with a tail. Rev. 12:3 is pagan Rome. Disneyland says otherwise, I don't use Disneyland to interpret scripture, and no one should. The pioneers were perfectly united on the correct interpretation on Rev. 12:1-4.
Not one pioneer, nor Ellen White at any point suggested or implied that the devil was red, with a tail. Rev. 12:3 is pagan Rome. Disneyland says otherwise, I don't use Disneyland to interpret scripture, and no one should. The pioneers were perfectly united on the correct interpretation on Rev. 12:1-4.
IN THE TWELFTH CHAPTER OF REVELATION WE HAVE AS A SYMBOL A GREAT RED DRAGON. IN THE NINTH VERSE OF THAT CHAPTER THIS SYMBOL IS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: AND THE GREAT DRAGON WAS CAST OUT, THAT OLD SERPENT, CALLED THE DEVIL, AND SATAN, WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD; HE WAS CAST OUT INTO THE EARTH, AND HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM. UNDOUBTEDLY THE DRAGON PRIMARILY REPRESENTS SATAN. BUT SATAN DOES NOT APPEAR UPON THE EARTH IN PERSON; HE WORKS THROUGH AGENTS. IT WAS IN THE PERSON OF WICKED MEN THAT HE SOUGHT TO DESTROY JESUS AS SOON AS HE WAS BORN. WHEREVER SATAN HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTROL A GOVERNMENT SO FULLY THAT IT WOULD CARRY OUT HIS DESIGNS, THAT NATION BECAME, FOR THE TIME, SATAN'S REPRESENTATIVE. THIS WAS THE CASE WITH ALL THE GREAT HEATHEN NATIONS. FOR INSTANCE, SEE EZEKIEL 28, WHERE SATAN IS REPRESENTED AS ACTUAL KING OF TYRE. THIS WAS BECAUSE HE FULLY CONTROLLED THAT GOVERNMENT. IN THE FIRST CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA, ROME, OF ALL THE PAGAN NATIONS, WAS SATAN'S CHIEF AGENT IN OPPOSING THE GOSPEL, AND WAS THEREFORE REPRESENTED BY THE DRAGON. {GC88 679.4}
refulgent, the Great Controversy specifically references Rev. 12, the NINTH verse. This commentary on the war in heaven begins with verse 7. THIS IS LUCIFER's rebellion in heaven! Rev. 12:1-6 is dealing with God's people and the birth of the Missiah.
NOTE: The Great Controversy in no way supports a conclusion that Rev. 12:1-6 have anything to do with Lucifer. The devil is red with a tail? The devil is laughing at such a ridiculous conclusion found nowhere in the Bible.
Rev 12:1-6, and the pioneers: "Under the symbols of the great red dragon, a leopard-like beast, and a beast with lamblike horns, the earthly governments which would be especially engaged in trampling upon Gods law and persecuting His people, were presented to John. Their war is to be carried on till the close of time. The people of God, symbolized by a holy woman and her children, are represented as greatly in the minority. In the last days, only a remnant still exists. John speaks of them as those that "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." {Signs of the Times, February 8, 1910 par. 3}
[4] And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
The tail here is symbolic not physical as some might think. Satan drew 1/3 of the angels by his tales. In other words, his lies.
Not one pioneer, nor Ellen White at any point suggested or implied that the devil was red, with a tail. Rev. 12:3 is pagan Rome. Disneyland says otherwise, I don't use Disneyland to interpret scripture, and no one should. The pioneers were perfectly united on the correct interpretation on Rev. 12:1-4.
IN THE TWELFTH CHAPTER OF REVELATION WE HAVE AS A SYMBOL A GREAT RED DRAGON. IN THE NINTH VERSE OF THAT CHAPTER THIS SYMBOL IS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: AND THE GREAT DRAGON WAS CAST OUT, THAT OLD SERPENT, CALLED THE DEVIL, AND SATAN, WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD; HE WAS CAST OUT INTO THE EARTH, AND HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM. UNDOUBTEDLY THE DRAGON PRIMARILY REPRESENTS SATAN. BUT SATAN DOES NOT APPEAR UPON THE EARTH IN PERSON; HE WORKS THROUGH AGENTS. IT WAS IN THE PERSON OF WICKED MEN THAT HE SOUGHT TO DESTROY JESUS AS SOON AS HE WAS BORN. WHEREVER SATAN HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTROL A GOVERNMENT SO FULLY THAT IT WOULD CARRY OUT HIS DESIGNS, THAT NATION BECAME, FOR THE TIME, SATAN'S REPRESENTATIVE. THIS WAS THE CASE WITH ALL THE GREAT HEATHEN NATIONS. FOR INSTANCE, SEE EZEKIEL 28, WHERE SATAN IS REPRESENTED AS ACTUAL KING OF TYRE. THIS WAS BECAUSE HE FULLY CONTROLLED THAT GOVERNMENT. IN THE FIRST CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA, ROME, OF ALL THE PAGAN NATIONS, WAS SATAN'S CHIEF AGENT IN OPPOSING THE GOSPEL, AND WAS THEREFORE REPRESENTED BY THE DRAGON. {GC88 679.4}
In my opinion, and as I noted earlier, Cain did not receive a literal, visible mark. It quickly became obvious to anybody that engaged with Cain on any level they were dealing with an idiot. Everything the man tried to do, didn't work out. Cain was an utter failure in all regards, and this quickly became apparent to anyone he was around. Today we would say, "____ (Cain, Jim, John) was a marked man", no one wanted anything to do with him. In a similar manner (as I noted earlier) the "mark of the beast" is only physically visible to the angels. But any person of God will quickly figure out, that those who support a false Sabbath are "marked"! Regardless of how lovely, how sincere, how deeply earnest, or how kind they are, those who honor the true Sabbath will know for a certainty just who they are dealing with. After all, Satan himself appears to be an angel of light, a wonderful being! How will you know if he is of God, or not? By first knowing the truth on the Sabbath issue!
refulgent: the statement on page GC88, 679.4 is NOT from Ellen White, it is the APPENDIX and it IS misleading! It says Rev. 12:9 makes reference to a "great red dragon", IT DOES NOT SAY THAT! Verse 9 speaks of "a" dragon, unqualified. Not red, not with a tail (and that's TAIL, not TALE). Signs of the Times, 1899 correctly identifies the RED DRAGON as an earthly power. Which power? Rome of course! Nowhere in the bible, the Great Controversy or any of the writings of Ellen White is a "great red dragon" identified as Satan.
Well, I suppose it could have been visible, but I doubt it. If it was visible, what would people make of such a mark? In a similar manner, we know the "mark of the beast" is not a literal mark, but the people of God would very quickly conclude that this person is a marked man based on his doctrinal positions. Including atheist, Muslim, false Christian, etc. The saints are "sealed". Is that a literal mark? I don't think so, but I'm sure the angels can see it!
Yes, I agree that there WILL be some kind of identification required for buying and selling. To one degree or another, that has always been the case throughout history. Id required! For a check, insurance, driver's license, passport, and entry to certain places, the list is long. It will vary from nation to nation but it will surely increase and become a significant problem when the early time of trouble and Sunday laws come into effect. Not only in America but around the world. Christians who keep Sabbath will be "marked", as it were!
Thumbs up 
