Back To Main Page | Email Us  


Was Chang's "Act of Defiance" a Mark (of God) in Itself?

I am pasting Jerry Jenkins' quotation taken from his very own Left Behind Message Board: (I copied this quote from The King's Tavern Message Board)

"Trust me, you have heard only Chang's side of this story. Do you think if one of the characters discovers a true account of what happened that it will jibe with Chang thinks he remembers? Do you really think we who have been as careful with Scripture as we know how would suddenly veer off course in book 8 and imply something wholly unbiblical?"

"This plot twist was my idea and of course I checked it with the best living resource a writer could have. Dr. LaHaye liked it and combed the Scriptures to be sure nothing there precluded it. I warned him to be ready for the fire storm before the whole thing was played out."

"That's where we stand now. Employing the best advice from Verbal Judo, I should have said, "Is there anything I can say (without giving the story away) that will get you to trust us until this is played out in book 9?"


No, they are not being careful with scripture, but actually priming the reader to accept what scripture condemns!  Dr. LaHaye said nothing in the scripture precluded them having a Christian take the mark of the beast and still be saved?

Is having a defiant attitude when presented with the mandate to receive the mark of the beast "a mark in itself" (presumably a mark of belonging to God)? See Left Behind pg. 421. Let's look at the context so you can see why I am placing "of God" in parentheses. 

Pastor Bruce was explaining to Chloe, a brand new convert:  "There will come a time, Chloe, that followers of  Antichrist will be required to bear the sign of the beast.  There are all kinds of theories on what form that might take, from a tattoo to a stamp on the forehead that might be detected only under infrared light.  But obviously we would refuse to bear that mark.  That very act of defiance will be a mark in itself." 

Now the obvious implication, and a most disturbing one, is that being defiant about receiving the mark of the beast is a mark of God.  When the Lord led me back to this portion in the first book, I almost fell out of my chair.  This is setting the reader up for the eighth book when defiant Chang, putting up a terrible fuss, but received the mark of the beast nonetheless...and get this...still retaining the seal of God!

 Hmmm, it seems this plot turn in The Mark was already prepared for in the very first book in the series. Here's the quote: "That very act of defiance will be a mark in itself." What is the act of defiance? Refusing to bear the mark.

Chang was quite defiant, wouldn't you say, when he was given the mark? He certainly didn't agree to it, and indeed fought to get away. But was his defiance enough to render the mark of the beast null and void? Is defiance of the mark of the beast a "mark in itself" (of God)? No, but the book is teaching its readers this unbiblical rationalization.

Let's look at this for a moment. Chang certainly made it clear that he didn't want the mark, didn't he? He fought to get away and they literally had to hold him down. According to Pastor Bruce Barnes' wording, Chang's act of defiance was "a mark in itself." Now, the context lets us know for sure that the "mark in itself" is not the mark of the beast, but the mark of God. 

How sneaky of them to do set up their readers at the beginning of the book to view defiance as the rejection of the mark of the beast, and then later, to present a scenario where a believer had the mark of defiance and thus the beast's mark did not take away the seal of God (their salvation)!

Chang did not admit to being a Christian, or refuse the mark on that basis and accept martydom. Instead, he loved his own life; he denied Christ in action by not denouncing the Antichrist and confessing Christ before men. But he was indeed defiant, and that, according to the alleged scripturally-based storyline is "a mark in itself."

Finding out that the reader was primed for this teaching back in the first book gives me cause for great concern. It is sin to plant these thoughts in the minds of believers and unsaved alike so that at a time of crisis these implanted subliminals or trigger words (that's what they are!) will be retrieved by the mind involuntarily and the person won't understand they have been conditioned to think this way.

The books also teach (by the example of the Christian characters) that it is acceptable to outwardly give the honor to Antichrist that only the Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of in order to "get along" when Antichrist rules the world.  (In other words, when the kingdom of Antichrist, the New World Order, comes into power, the Christian had better play along.)   Where in the Left Behind series does a Christian give verbal honor to Antichrist?  See the article called
Is Chang in a Special Category?

Edited Dec. 21, 2001.  There are several times in the Left Behind series where Christian characters "go along with the program" and give outward honor to Antichrist.  These are detailed in my (now free) book, GOD'S WRATH ON LEFT BEHIND -Lisa Ruby 


return to: Exposing False Doctrines in the Left Behind Series

Back To Main Page | Email Us 

Liberty To The Captives Established in June 2001