Subcutaneous chip & Revelation 13

Experiments with subcutaneous chips for payments appear in the news with increasing regularity. For instance, recently on the NOS (Dutch News) website:

Eindhoven students pay with a subcutaneous chip

No longer paying with your debit card, but with a chip in your hand. That’s happening in an experiment involving six students and a lecturer from Fontys University of Applied Sciences in Eindhoven. Just over two months ago they had a chip implanted.

Twenty‑four‑year‑old IJsbrand Geutjes has a 12‑millimeter‑long rod under his skin. He can pay with it and open his school locker. “I often left my wallet in my coat pocket. That’s no longer possible. I can’t let my hand lie idle,” he tells Omroep Brabant.

IJsbrand, along with the other students, helps further develop the chip. They ensure it can do more things. Twenty‑one‑year‑old Sam Mensink wants to be able to log in to social media in the future with it. “If, for example, you’ve forgotten your Facebook password, we want you simply to place your hand on a scanner and log in that way,” he says.

Security and privacy of the chip are still under consideration. “For me, the limit is being under constant surveillance—people being able to see where you are at any given moment,” says Sam. “That’s not possible right now because the chip only works when it’s brought near a device.”

According to Sam, everyone will have such a chip in fifteen years. “You won’t feel it. I find it funny to be one of the first. Now you’re among the few, but soon we’ll say: ‘Oh, you have it too.’”

The convenience of this development is easy to imagine. A subcutaneous chip renders carrying cards and remembering passwords and login codes unnecessary. The development of this technology is inevitable—and, as Sam says above, in fifteen years everyone will have such a chip. Personally, I suspect that’s even a conservative estimate. Note that surgical implantation may eventually not even be needed, yielding to even more advanced technology.

Revelation 13

Of course, this development immediately brings to mind what is described in the final chapter of Revelation 13. There, “the beast from the earth” will demand religious worship for “the beast from the sea.” I believe (without elaborating here) that this refers to the “false prophet” who will erect an image in Jerusalem for the leader of the ten‑nation confederation in the Middle East. The erection of that image on the temple mount is called elsewhere “the abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) and will mark the beginning of the “great tribulation” for Israel (Matt. 24:21). Everyone in the land (Israel) will be forced to participate in this religious worship. Those who refuse will not receive the mark on their right hand or forehead—and will be cut off from the economy: unable to buy or sell.

Biometrics

The scenario John paints is very easily conceivable in light of this technological development. It may be only a few years away that we truly buy and sell via a mark on the body. The hand is, literally, the most convenient location, but eyes are also very suitable for authorization via iris scans. This biometric technology is already being used in many places, such as airports.

Forehead?

The word “forehead” in the translation of Revelation 13 is actually debatable. The Greek word metōpon appears only in Revelation and consists of the prefix meta (“with”) and opon meaning “sight.” That latter word is directly related to our word “optics” (viewpoint). The word metōpon does not so much refer to the forehead as to the strip beneath it: the eyes used for sight. With that in mind, the scenario becomes even more imaginable, because the mark would then be tied to the hand and the eyes.

Fallacy

A warning is in order. Many Christians believe that a subcutaneous chip—as it is coming—is “the mark of the Beast.” Indeed, “the mark of the Beast” could be a chip. But it’s a logical fallacy to assume that every chip is the mark of the Beast. A sheep is an animal, but not every animal is a sheep. The technology of a subcutaneous chip, in itself, is not wrong. It certainly is not “Beast‑like.” Only when “the false prophet” later in Israel uses it to enforce religious worship does it become “the mark of the Beast.” Not before. Until then, it is simply a technological invention, about which people can have all sorts of opinions—but calling it already “the mark of the Beast” is premature and simplistic.

Meanwhile, we see these developments proceeding at a rapid pace, and it’s hard to miss that the biblical period of “the two days” (read: two millennia) is drawing to a close. Enough reason to be highly alert—and above all to look forward to the future that has been promised to us!

Delen: