MARKS IN THE BIBLE

This reference to “Marks” above does not refer to John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, and the otherwise unknown disciple of Peter mentioned in I Peter 5:13. Instead I am referring to physical marks on the body and how they figure in biblical narratives and teachings.

Of course, such disfigurations can take various forms. So correspondingly, there are several Hebrew and Greek words which have been translated as 'marks.' In the Old Testament we encounter oth, qaaqa, and tau, while stigma, charagma and kausteriazo are represented in the New Testament writings. The definitions of these words overlap to some extent, but linguistic scholars see the following distinctions between them:

oth – Strong and others call this “a sign.” Kruger says that “it serves as a mean of transmitting information. The content of this information is determined by the context in which it is used.” Thus, it may serve as a memorial, evidence, something leading to faith in God, confirmation, motivation, etc.

qaaqa – This was specifically a cross mark. (Strong) It only appears in Leviticus 19:28 (see below),

tau – Kruger defines the noun as a mark or signature (as in Job 31:35) and relates it to the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet which took the form of a cross.

stigma – It was a point or puncture according to Strong and is defined by Vine as “a tattooed mark or mark burnt in, a brand.”

charagma – This word represented an impressed or engraved mark (Strong) and it is used exactly seven times in the book of Revelation. Vine states that a “stamp” is another translation. And Martin relates it to verbs indicating to burn or brand with a hot iron.

kausteriazo – Here we have a rare Greek word specifically meaning “to mark by branding.” It is the origin of our English word 'cauterize'.

The main occurrences of these words in the Bible are discussed below with comments from scholars regarding their significance in specific passages.

Genesis 4:15

In this verse we are introduced to the famous “mark of Cain,” which in popular parlance usually means a visible sign that a person is evil. Thus, during my lifetime it was applied by Christian teachers and preachers to the prominent birthmark on Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's forehead. But, in fact, that is not the meaning in the context of Genesis at all.

It was granted at Cain's request after he had killed his brother and was exiled by God. This whole passage brings up a host of questions that are not answered in the Bible: Why did Cain feel that people would harm him? Who were these people? What did the mark look like? How would these presumably hostile people understand the nature of the mark?

One thing the text makes clear is that it was intended as a mark of God's protection on Cain. And thus we can see that it is actually the second time in the Bible that God showered his grace on sinful mankind. The first such event was when Adam and Eve similarly disobeyed God's directions and were exiled. But before that happened, God fashioned garments for the pair of them to protect them from the elements.

Leviticus 19:28

Ross explains that the Old Testament prohibition against putting marks on your body referred to pagan customs. But for followers of the true God, “There should be no disfiguration (see also 1 Cor. 6:18-20 which reminds believers that their bodies belong to God).”
Wenham adds: “This is usually taken to be simply a prohibition of pagan mourning rites, but there is more to it than this. Mourning was not discouraged, only those customs which involved physical disfigurement. This law conforms to other holiness rules which seek to uphold the natural order of creation and preserve it from corruption...Man is not to disfigure the divine likeness implanted in him by scarring his body. The external appearance of the people should reflect their internal status as the chosen and holy people of God (Deut. 14:1-2).”

Isaiah 44:5

This is a difficult passage to decipher since the literal Hebrew reads, “will write his hand to Yahweh.” As Whybray says, “There is no agreement about the meaning of this phrase. The two main possibilities are that such a person will inscribe the words “property of Yahweh” on his hand (perhaps by tattooing) or that he will write the words on a document with his hand...The reference may be to the practice of marking slaves with the names of their masters (cf. also Ezek. 9:4), but it is not to be taken literally.” Because of the interpretive difficulties involved here, no further comments would be helpful at this time.

Ezekiel 9:4-6

Martin points out that “the remnant of Israelite faithful are marked with the Heb. letter Tau as a pledge of their safety against the day of judgment (Ezek. 9:4); the letter Tau in ancient script was a cross, a feature giving rise to later Christian speculation); and especially where Yahweh's people are bidden to inscribe his name on their hands as a promise of fidelity (Isa. 44:5).”

“This sign functioned as a symbol or mark of identification. In Ezek 9:4,6 an angelic being is told to 'put a mark (taw) on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament.' This mark was meant to distinguish them from those unconcerned over the apostasy of the city and to protect them in the day of judgment.” (Kruger)

Galatians 6:17

In this verse, Paul says, “Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.”

“It is probable that the Apostle refers to the physical sufferings he had endured since he began to proclaim Jesus as Messiah and Lord...It is probable, too, that this reference to his scars was intended to set off the insistence of the Judaizers upon a body-mark which cost them nothing. Over against the circumcision they demanded as a proof of obedience to the law he set the indelible tokens, sustained in his own body, of his loyalty to the Lord Jesus. As to the origin of the figure, it was indeed customary for a master to brand his slaves, but this language does not suggest that the Apostle had been branded by His Master...It is true such markings [made by devotees of pagan gods] were forbidden by the law, Lev. 19:28, but then Paul had not inflicted these on himself. The marks of Jesus cannot be taken to be the marks which the Lord bears in His body as a consequence of the Crucifixion; they were different in character.” (Hogg and Vine)

And Mikolaski treats Paul's words as “an appeal born of deep feeling that he be spared the further distress of persecution in view of the sufferings he has already experienced (cf. Acts 14:8,19; 2 Cor. 11:23-28), which are sufficient evidence of his devotion to Christ.”

There is another Old Testament reference which I feel may be at the back of this passage, namely Genesis 4:15. In that earlier narrative, Cain is condemned by God to be an eternal wanderer, and Cain replies by bemoaning the fact that wherever he goes people will try to kill him. God's mark on him will, however, save him from that fate. To me, this is at least superficially similar, in a quite different way, to Paul claiming the marks on his body as immunity from others “bothering” him.

I Timothy 4:2

This sole occurence of a derivative of kausterion is found here. Knight mentions several alternative interpretations of this verse but discards them in favor of understanding the mark as being 'cauterized,' “i.e., made insensible to the distinction between right and wrong (see Eph. 4:19).” This understanding “seems more in accord with Paul's evaluation in Rom. 1:18, 28-32, of conduct contrary to God's moral standards, where a sense of self-consciouslness is also present, as here.” Thus, we are obviously not thinking of a physical mark but a figurative one instead.

Book of Revelation

There are two classes of marks mentioned in this book. Martin explains in regard to Revelation 13:11-18 that “all trading is possible only as men have the 'mark' (charagma) of the first beast on their right hand or forehead. That 'mark' is identified with the beast's name or number (v. 18). Contrast Rev. 7:3ff. where a similar 'mark' denotes divine protection.”

Again, in my mind I am powerfully reminded of the parallel to Genesis 4:15, where the mark on Cain similarly indicated that he was under God's protection. That background is certainly more sure than the flights of fancy of Hal Lindsay and other “experts” who explain that in the future, only those who are loyal to the satanic world leadership will be given a tattoo that scanners can read as they attempt to check out at a grocery store.

A Probably Irrelevant and Irreverent Conclusion

I was attending our usual Sunday school class one morning when it was not my turn to teach. The teacher for the day ended up his lesson early and so he opened up the class to any questions whatsoever that anyone might have relating to the Bible. (That is certainly something that I would never have had the nerve to do.) Sure enough, out of the clear blue, one of our class members said she needed some advice on how to handle a problem in her extended family. It concerned a young man, a Christian, who had had an ichthys tattooed on his arm. The man's parents were very upset since that appeared to disobey God's command in Leviticus (see above).

After our teacher hemmed and hawed trying to think of something to say, I came to his rescue (sort of) by quoting Paul's words in Galatians 6. I don't think it answered the lady's question in the least, but it did get a big laugh from the rest of the class and took up enough time that the teacher could quickly close the class with a prayer.