Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

One thing that may make people doubt that the Mark of the Beast would actually come to pass is the idea that it is foretold to be enforced by threat of execution. Most find it difficult to imagine an advanced society that would embrace such a drastic measure.

First, the Bible describes Antichrist as a great deceiver of many (Revelation 13:13). This deceit explains why the Mark will strangely make sense to a great percentage of the masses. Second, since Antichrist’s agendas will appear to solve mankind’s problems, he’ll probably have some way of presenting execution of the noncompliant as an “unavoidable evil.” Third, despite what many believe, mankind does have a sinful nature (Mark 7:21; Romans 5:12) and migrates toward evil when the forces of righteousness aren’t present. This is where the removal of what theologians call the “restraining force” comes into play.

The Restrainer

Take a look at the main passage describing this “restraining force”—referred to as “what withholdeth” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

While the wording of this passage may sound a little confusing, it describes an evil that currently awaits its moment to strike mankind, but is being held back by God’s holy forces. Note this excerpt from The Messenger:

According to this passage, many people interpret the phrase “he who now letteth will let” to indicate a force which restrains the one who “might be revealed in his time,” and whose “mystery of iniquity doth already work.” Thus, the elucidation holds that the source of evil, iniquity, and the…[spiritual evil behind] end-times manifestations already occupies this earth, awaiting his opportunity to act, while the restraining force holds this malevolence at bay “until he be taken out of the way.” This, in modern theology, becomes referred to as the “Restraining Force” which we sometimes hear spoken of regarding prophecy.[i]

According to this theology, once the restraining force has been removed, the powers of evil that have been present the earth but without free rein since the beginning will be unleashed in their full fury upon mankind. Even now, while the righteous element is at work (most people believe this is the Holy Spirit), mankind still wrestles with a sinful nature, and malevolent powers already thwart our existence. Imagine, then, a day when there is nothing present to hold back the potential impact of our already corrupt nature in conjunction with the uninhibited influence of satanic forces. Truly, on that day, nothing will seem impossible where the potential of evil is concerned.

Thus, the answer to the question in the subheading of this section is, in a word, yes. Yes, man will be depraved enough to stand by as Antichrist executes those who refuse the Mark of the Beast. For anyone who still needs convincing, however, we can see the early priming for such potentialities occurring in society today.


Some may wonder how the practice of euthanasia would prime society to accept the Mark. (An additional argument lies in the issue of the legalization of abortion, which we won’t get into here. Besides falling outside the scope of this work, these authors presume that the reader is already familiar with the pro-life argument.) The connection between execution for refusing to take the Mark and euthanasia, however, is that the death of an innocent person is sometimes considered acceptable when that death is for a greater good or diminishes suffering. So, euthanasia, while seeming by many to be justifiable under the right circumstances, prepares society to accept a mounting body count of innocents—those we may not suspect: not convicted serial killers or demented minds who were sentenced to die for heinous deeds against humanity, but rather of innocents.

In 2017, headlines surfaced alleging that the state of Oregon had passed a law allowing mentally ill patients to be starved to death. Understandably, much of the public responded with outrage to what would legally “allow for the starving and dehydrating to death of patients with dementia or mental illness.”[ii] Official response was that the bill only added new language to existing laws outlining how a committee of medical professionals could handle a scenario wherein an individual being kept alive with interventions such as life support or feeding tubes had no advocates present. The officials acknowledged that the bill needed clarification, since it allowed custodial appointees too much sovereignty over the lives of those who don’t have relatives or other guardians to make decisions for them.[iii] However, the legislation continued to move forward, and was presented to the Oregon Senate Rules Committee as a “‘simple update’ to Oregon’s current advance directive.”[iv] For many, the leap from legalized abortion to assisted suicide, followed by the inevitability of euthanasia, was an easily perceivable sequence: “When Oregon became the first state in the nation to legalize the practice of assisted suicide, pro-life advocates argued this would be a slippery slope that would lead to euthanasia.”[v]

While many only recognize the concept of euthanasia from such sci-fi movies as the aforementioned Logan’s Run, it’s actually already happening in countries such as Australia and Canada. Furthermore, prominent American politicians are becoming more outspoken regarding the possibility of it taking place here. Considering the type of people who may be candidates for euthanasia, we often picture extremely sick elderly men and women, such as those who would meet the criteria described in the Oregonian legislation: those who are on life support, who can’t speak for themselves, and who have no family guardians or advocates. There are many who would consider it a kindness to end the struggle for people in this condition.

In addition, if the bill in question is used as lawmakers state it’s intended, it applies more readily to removal of life-support than actively ending life. We believe protestors were right when they called this legislation a “slippery slope.”[vi]

The circumstances surrounding euthanasia, as it is currently being practiced in other parts of the world, are taking place in a much different context. One would be surprised to learn of the ages and condition of many who have opted for euthanasia with their families’ support. These authors find this state of affairs devastating. Between June of 2016 and July of 2019, more than 3,300 people—ranging in age from 106 to 22 years old—were euthanized in Ontario, Canada, alone.[vii] Many of the deaths were related to cancer, respiratory illness, or neurodegenerative diseases, while others were unspecified.[viii] The Australian state of Victoria has also legalized the practice, two decades after repealing what they called a “mercy killing law for the terminally ill.”[ix] In Quebec, Canada, prior legislation requiring patients to prove they had a medical condition that would render death inevitable was overturned in 2019, qualifying those who suffer a disability that negates their autonomy for assisted suicide: “Having a disability is a fate worse than death.”[x] Thus, patients who wish to die must either prove that they are terminally ill or that their suffering is “intolerable.”[xi] Sadly, this subjective term is already being brought into question regarding cases of mental illness and depressive disorders. Many young people who might be treatable could (and have been trying to) channel their suicidal tendencies toward the mission of broadening the qualifications for assisted suicide or euthanasia. Since, for many, the argument becomes that once someone is resolved to self-terminate, he or she will do so anyway, the approach fosters the notion of allowing the person to die with loved ones present, rather than alone. Similarly, the same stance is supported via the statement that a planned death relieves friends and family of the aftershock of a suicide of the terminally ill, or a drawn-out, traumatic demise riddled with suffering, and allows them the opportunity to say goodbye. There are such cases of activism on behalf of euthanasia, but these authors chose not to include them here out of respect for the brokenhearted families involved.

As for the legal parameters of euthanasia, the more it becomes what many perceive to be a viable option, we could eventually arrive at the place where the only boundaries are regarding the best interest of the individual. “As not all homicides are illegal judicially, it appears that not all euthanasia are,” stated an Annals of Neurosciences article on the topic. “The question remains who can decide in favor or against any form of euthanasia and what safety net has to be there to protect patient’s best interest.”[xii]

Many become highly impassioned about this topic, and it’s easy for some folks to see both sides of the issue as defensible. The problem arises in the ambiguity of the bill that surfaced in Oregon regarding those who cannot advocate for themselves. In such cases, who has the final authority? And here’s another question: What if similar circumstances were to emerge after some swiftly moving epidemic of a disease with only one cure (administered via the Mark and required immediately to reduce the risk to public health)? What type of legal authority might be released to officially—even temporarily, under emergency conditions—make such judgment calls?

Desperate times do call for desperate measures, don’t they?

If the public becomes complacent about the unnecessary or premature deaths of innocent people, our mindset shifts into a more casual (conditioned, desensitized) approach to seeing others die. Then, in times of crisis, we may be willing to embrace measures that previously would have seemed inconceivable. Just as abortion allows us to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents each year in the name of convenience, increased acceptance of euthanasia could cause society to remain silent while growing numbers of lives are claimed under the labels of “preserving dignity” and “showing kindness.” After this conditioning has had its season (similar to the ninth or tenth “white night”), a new crisis could enable the masses to more easily adopt another point of view of killing those who have done nothing wrong other than to refuse the mandated “treatment.”

UP NEXT: Shocking Revelations Human About Nature

If you would like more information on the topics covered in this article series, see the book Dark Covenant by Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, available below:

[i] Horn, Tom. The Messenger: It’s Headed Towards Earth! It Cannot Be Stopped! And It’s Carrying the Secret of America’s, the Worlds, and Your Tomorrow! (Crane, MO: Defender Publishing; 2020) 166.

[ii] “Oregon Senate Committee Votes Out SB 494, Endangers Patients with Mental Illness or Dementia.” Oregon Right to Life. 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[iii] Kasprak, Alex. “Is An Oregon Bill Designed to ‘Allow Starving Mentally Ill Patients to Death’?” March 5, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[iv] “Oregon Senate Committee Votes Out SB 494, Endangers Patients with Mental Illness or Dementia.” Oregon Right to Life.

[v] Ertelt, Steven. “Oregon Bill Would Allow Starving Mentally Ill Patients to Death.” Life News. February 5, 2018. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Slayton, Scott. “Over 700 People in Ontario Died from Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide in 2019.” Christian Headlines. July 18, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] “Australian State Legalizes Voluntary Euthanasia.” DW. Online. June 16, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[x] “Canada Opens Door to Expanding Assisted Dying.” BBC Online. February 24, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Srivastava, Vinod. “Euthanasia: A Regional Perspective.” Annals of Neurosciences, vol. 21,3 (2014): 81–2. doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.210302.


Category: Featured, Featured Articles