16 And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to422receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:16.And he caused all.He claims jurisdiction, in the matters here referred to, over all classes of persons, and compels them to do his will. This is the second beast, and, according to the interpretation given above, it relates to the Papal power, and to its claim of universal jurisdiction. ¶Both small and great.All these expressions are designed to denoteuniversality—referring to various divisions into which the human family may be regarded as divided. One of those divisions is into “small and great;” that is, into young and old; those small in stature and those large in stature; those of humble, and those of elevated rank. ¶Rich and poor.Another way of dividing the human race, and denoting here, as in the former case,all—for it is a commonmethod, in speaking of mankind, to describe them as “the rich and poor.” ¶Free and bond.Another method still of dividing the human race, embracingall—for all the dwellers upon the earth are either free or bond. These various forms of expression, therefore, are designed merely to denote, in an emphatic manner,universality. The idea is, that, in the matter referred to, none were exempt, either on account of their exalted rank, or on account of their humble condition; either because they were so mighty as to be beyond control, or so mean and humble as to be beneath notice. And if this refers to the Papacy, every one will see the propriety of the description. The jurisdiction set up by that power has been as absolute over kings as over the feeble and the poor; over masters and their slaves; alike over those in the humblest and in the most elevated walks of life. ¶To receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.The word here renderedmark—χάραγμα—occurs only in one place in the New Testament except in the book of Revelation (Ac.xvii.29), where it is renderedgraven. In all the other places where it is found (Re.xiii.16, 17;xiv.9, 11;xv.2;xvi.2;xix.20;xx.4), it is renderedmark, and is applied to the same thing—the “mark of the beast.” The word properly means something graven or sculptured; hence, (a) a graving, sculpture, sculptured work, as images or idols; (b) a mark cut in or stamped—as the stamp on coin. Applied to men, it was used to denote some stamp or mark on the hand or elsewhere—as in the case of a servant on whose hand or arm the name of the master was impressed; or of a soldier on whom some mark was impressed denoting the company or phalanx to which he belonged.It was no uncommon thing to mark slaves or soldiers in this way; and the design was either to denote their ownership or rank, or to prevent their escaping so as not to be detected.423Most of us have seen such marks made on the hands or arms of sailors, in which, by a voluntarytattooing, their names, or the names of their vessels, were written, or the figure of an anchor, or some other device, was indelibly made by punctures in the skin, and by inserting some kind of colouring matter. The thing which it is here said was engraven on the hand or the forehead was the “name” of the beast, or the “number” of his name,ver.17. That is, the “name” or the “number” was so indelibly inscribed either on the hand or the forehead, as to show that he who bare it appertained to the “beast,” and was subject to his authority—as a slave is to his master, or a soldier to his commander. Applied to the Papacy, the meaning is, that there would be some mark of distinction; some indelible sign; something which would designate, with entire certainty, those persons who belonged to it, and who were subject to it. It is hardly necessary to say that, in point of fact, this has eminently characterized the Papacy. All possible care has been taken to designate with accuracy those who belong to that communion, and, all over the world, it is easy to distinguish those who render allegiance to the Papal power.Comp.Notes onch. vii.3.
16 And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to422receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
16.And he caused all.He claims jurisdiction, in the matters here referred to, over all classes of persons, and compels them to do his will. This is the second beast, and, according to the interpretation given above, it relates to the Papal power, and to its claim of universal jurisdiction. ¶Both small and great.All these expressions are designed to denoteuniversality—referring to various divisions into which the human family may be regarded as divided. One of those divisions is into “small and great;” that is, into young and old; those small in stature and those large in stature; those of humble, and those of elevated rank. ¶Rich and poor.Another way of dividing the human race, and denoting here, as in the former case,all—for it is a commonmethod, in speaking of mankind, to describe them as “the rich and poor.” ¶Free and bond.Another method still of dividing the human race, embracingall—for all the dwellers upon the earth are either free or bond. These various forms of expression, therefore, are designed merely to denote, in an emphatic manner,universality. The idea is, that, in the matter referred to, none were exempt, either on account of their exalted rank, or on account of their humble condition; either because they were so mighty as to be beyond control, or so mean and humble as to be beneath notice. And if this refers to the Papacy, every one will see the propriety of the description. The jurisdiction set up by that power has been as absolute over kings as over the feeble and the poor; over masters and their slaves; alike over those in the humblest and in the most elevated walks of life. ¶To receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.The word here renderedmark—χάραγμα—occurs only in one place in the New Testament except in the book of Revelation (Ac.xvii.29), where it is renderedgraven. In all the other places where it is found (Re.xiii.16, 17;xiv.9, 11;xv.2;xvi.2;xix.20;xx.4), it is renderedmark, and is applied to the same thing—the “mark of the beast.” The word properly means something graven or sculptured; hence, (a) a graving, sculpture, sculptured work, as images or idols; (b) a mark cut in or stamped—as the stamp on coin. Applied to men, it was used to denote some stamp or mark on the hand or elsewhere—as in the case of a servant on whose hand or arm the name of the master was impressed; or of a soldier on whom some mark was impressed denoting the company or phalanx to which he belonged.It was no uncommon thing to mark slaves or soldiers in this way; and the design was either to denote their ownership or rank, or to prevent their escaping so as not to be detected.423Most of us have seen such marks made on the hands or arms of sailors, in which, by a voluntarytattooing, their names, or the names of their vessels, were written, or the figure of an anchor, or some other device, was indelibly made by punctures in the skin, and by inserting some kind of colouring matter. The thing which it is here said was engraven on the hand or the forehead was the “name” of the beast, or the “number” of his name,ver.17. That is, the “name” or the “number” was so indelibly inscribed either on the hand or the forehead, as to show that he who bare it appertained to the “beast,” and was subject to his authority—as a slave is to his master, or a soldier to his commander. Applied to the Papacy, the meaning is, that there would be some mark of distinction; some indelible sign; something which would designate, with entire certainty, those persons who belonged to it, and who were subject to it. It is hardly necessary to say that, in point of fact, this has eminently characterized the Papacy. All possible care has been taken to designate with accuracy those who belong to that communion, and, all over the world, it is easy to distinguish those who render allegiance to the Papal power.Comp.Notes onch. vii.3.
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or424the number of his name.17.And that no man might buy or sell.That is, this mighty power would claim jurisdiction over the traffic of the world, and endeavour to make it tributary to its own purposes.Comp.ch. xviii.11–13, 17–19. This is represented by saying that no one might “buy or sell” except by its permission; and it is clear that where this power exists of determining who may “buy and sell,” there is absolute control over the wealth of the world. ¶Save he that had the mark.To keep it all among its own friends; among those who showed allegiance to this power. ¶Or the name of the beast.That is, the “mark” referred to waseitherthe name of the beast,orthe number of his name. The meaning is, that he had something branded on him that showed that hebelonged to the beast—as a slave had the name of his master; in other words, there was something that certainly showed that he was subject to its authority. ¶Or the number of his name.In regard to what is denoted by thenumberof the beast, see Notes onver.18.The idea here is, that that “number,” whatever it was, was so marked on him as to show to whom he belonged. According to the interpretation here proposed, the meaning of this passage is, that the Papacy would claim jurisdiction over traffic and commerce; or would endeavour to bring it under its control, and make it subservient to its own ends. Traffic or commerce is one of the principal means by which property is acquired, and he who has the control of this has, to a great degree, the control of the wealth of a nation; and the question now is, whether any such jurisdiction has been set up, or whether any such control has in fact been exercised, so that the wealth of the world has been subject to Papal Rome? For a more full illustration of this I may refer to the Notes onch. xviii.11–13, 16, 17; but at present it may be sufficient to remark, that the manifest aim of the Papacy, in all its history, has been to control the world, and to get dominion over its wealth, in order that it might accomplish its own purposes. But, besides this, there have been numerous specified acts more particularly designed to control the business of “buying and selling.” It has been common in Rome to prohibit, by express law, all traffic with heretics. Thus a canon of the Lateran council, under Pope AlexanderIII., commanded that no man should entertain or cherish them in his house or land, ortrafficwith them (Hard.vi.,ii.1684). The synod of Tours, under the same Pope Alexander, passed the law that no man should presume to receive or assist the heretics, no, not so much as to exercise commerce with them insellingorbuying. And so, too, the Constance council, as expressed in Pope Martin’s bull (Elliott,vol. iii.pp.220, 221).
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or424the number of his name.
17.And that no man might buy or sell.That is, this mighty power would claim jurisdiction over the traffic of the world, and endeavour to make it tributary to its own purposes.Comp.ch. xviii.11–13, 17–19. This is represented by saying that no one might “buy or sell” except by its permission; and it is clear that where this power exists of determining who may “buy and sell,” there is absolute control over the wealth of the world. ¶Save he that had the mark.To keep it all among its own friends; among those who showed allegiance to this power. ¶Or the name of the beast.That is, the “mark” referred to waseitherthe name of the beast,orthe number of his name. The meaning is, that he had something branded on him that showed that hebelonged to the beast—as a slave had the name of his master; in other words, there was something that certainly showed that he was subject to its authority. ¶Or the number of his name.In regard to what is denoted by thenumberof the beast, see Notes onver.18.The idea here is, that that “number,” whatever it was, was so marked on him as to show to whom he belonged. According to the interpretation here proposed, the meaning of this passage is, that the Papacy would claim jurisdiction over traffic and commerce; or would endeavour to bring it under its control, and make it subservient to its own ends. Traffic or commerce is one of the principal means by which property is acquired, and he who has the control of this has, to a great degree, the control of the wealth of a nation; and the question now is, whether any such jurisdiction has been set up, or whether any such control has in fact been exercised, so that the wealth of the world has been subject to Papal Rome? For a more full illustration of this I may refer to the Notes onch. xviii.11–13, 16, 17; but at present it may be sufficient to remark, that the manifest aim of the Papacy, in all its history, has been to control the world, and to get dominion over its wealth, in order that it might accomplish its own purposes. But, besides this, there have been numerous specified acts more particularly designed to control the business of “buying and selling.” It has been common in Rome to prohibit, by express law, all traffic with heretics. Thus a canon of the Lateran council, under Pope AlexanderIII., commanded that no man should entertain or cherish them in his house or land, ortrafficwith them (Hard.vi.,ii.1684). The synod of Tours, under the same Pope Alexander, passed the law that no man should presume to receive or assist the heretics, no, not so much as to exercise commerce with them insellingorbuying. And so, too, the Constance council, as expressed in Pope Martin’s bull (Elliott,vol. iii.pp.220, 221).
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his numberissix hundred threescoreandsix.18.Here is wisdom.That is, in what is stated respecting the name and the number of the name of the beast. The idea is, either that there would be need of peculiar sagacity in determining what the “number” of the “beast” or of his “name” was, or that peculiar “wisdom” was shown by the fact that the number could be thus expressed. The language used in the verse would lead the reader to suppose that the attempt to make out the “number” was not absolutelyhopeless, but that the number was so far enigmatical as to require much skill in determining its meaning. It may also be implied that, for some reason, there was true “wisdom” in designating the name by this number, either because a more direct and explicit statement might expose him who made it to persecution, and it showed practical wisdom thus to guard against this danger; or because there was “wisdom” or skill shown in the fact that a number could be found which would thus correspond with the name. On either of these suppositions, peculiar wisdom would be required in deciphering its meaning. ¶Let him that hath understanding.Implying (a) that it waspracticableto “count the number of the name;” and (b) that it would require uncommon skill to do it. It could not be successfully attempted by all; but still there were those who might do it. This is such language as would be used respecting some difficult matter, but where there was hope that, by diligent application of the mind, and by the exercise of a sound understanding, there would be a prospect of success. ¶Count the number of the beast.Inver.16 it is “the number of his name.” The word here rendered “count”—ψηφισάτω—means, properly, to count or reckon with pebbles, or counters; then to reckon, to estimate. The word here meanscompute; that is, ascertain the exact import of the number, so as to identify the beast. The “number” is that which is immediately specified, “six hundred threescore and six”—666. The phrase “the number of the beast” means, that somehow this number was so connected with the beast, or would so represent its name or character, that the “beast” would be identified by its proper application. The mention inver.17 of “thenameof the beast,” and “thenumberof his name,” shows that this “number” was somehow connected with his proper designation, so that bythis he would be identified. The plain meaning is, that the number 666 would be so connected with hisname, or with that which would properly designate him, that it could be determined who was meant by finding that numberinhis name or in his proper designation. This is the exercise of the skill or wisdom to which the writer here refers: substantially that which is required in the solution of a riddle or a conundrum. If it should be said here that this is undignified and unworthy of an inspired book, it may be replied, (a) that there might be some important reason why the name or designation should not be more plainly made; (b) that it was important, nevertheless, that it should be so made that it would be possible to ascertain who was referred to; (c) that this should be done only in some way which would involve the principle of the enigma—“where a known thing was concealed under obscure language” (Webster’sDict.); (d) that the use of symbols, emblems, hieroglyphics, and riddles was common in the early periods of the world; and (e) that it was no uncommon thing in ancient times, as it is in modern, to test the capacity and skill of men by their ability to unfold the meaning of proverbs, riddles, and dark sayings.Comp.the riddle of Samson,Ju.xiv.12,seq.See alsoPs. xlix.4;lxxviii.2;Eze.xvii.2–8;Pr.i.2–6;Da.viii.23. It would be asufficientvindication of the method adopted here if it was certain or probable that a direct and explicit statement of what was meant would have been attended with immediate danger, and if the object could be secured by an enigmatical form. ¶For it is the number of a man.Various interpretations of this have been proposed. Clericus renders it, “The number is small, or not such as cannot be estimated by a man.” Rosenmüller, “The number indicatesa man, or a certain race of men.” Professor Stuart, “The number is to be computedmore humano, notmore angelico;” “it is a man’s number.” De Wette, “It is such a number as is commonly reckoned or designated by men.” Other interpretations may be seen in Poole’sSynopsis. That which is proposed by Rosenmüller, however, meets all the circumstances of the case. The idea is, evidently, that the number indicates or refers to a certain man, or order of men. It does not pertain to a brute, or to angelic beings. Thus it would be understood by one merely interpreting the language, and thus the connection demands. ¶And his numberissix hundred threescoreandsix.The number of his name,ver.17. This cannot be supposed to mean that his name would be composed of six hundred and sixty-six letters; and it must, therefore, mean that somehow the number 666 would be expressed by his name in some well-understood method of computation. Thenumberhere—six hundred and sixty-six—is, in Walton’sPolyglott, written out in full:Ἑξακόσιοι ἑξάκοντα ἕξ. In Wetstein, Griesbach, Hahn, Tittmann, and the common Greek text, it is expressed by the charactersχξϛʹ= 666. There can be no doubt that this is the correct number, though, in the time of Irenæus, there was in some copies another reading—χιϛʹ= 616. This reading was adopted by the expositor Tychonius; but against this Irenæus inveighs (Liv. v.c.30). There can be no doubt that the number 666 is the correct reading, though it would seem that this was sometimes expressed in letters, and sometimes written in full. Wetstein supposes thatbothmethods were used by John; that in the first copy of his book he used the letters, and in a subsequent copy wrote it in full. This inquiry is not of material consequence.It need not be said that much has been written on this mysterious “number,” and that very different theories have been adopted in regard to its application. For the views which have been entertained on the subject, the reader may consult, with advantage, the article in Calmet’sDict., under the word “Antichrist.” It was natural for Calmet, being a Roman Catholic, to endeavour to show that the interpretations have been so various, that there could be no certainty in the application, and especially in the common application to the Papacy. In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the passage, the followinggeneralremarks may be made, as containing the result of the investigation thus far:—(a) There was somemysteryin the matter—some designed concealment—some reason why a more explicit statement was not adopted. The reason of this is not stated; but it may not be improper to suppose that it arose from something in the circumstances of the writer, and that the adoption of this enigmatical expression was designed to avoid someperil to which he or others might be exposed if there were a more explicit statement. (b) It is implied, nevertheless, that itcouldbe understood; that is, that the meaning was not so obscure that, by proper study, the designed reference could not be ascertained without material danger of error. (c) It requiredskillto do this; either natural sagacity, or particular skill in interpreting hieroglyphics and symbols, or uncommon spiritual discernment. (d) Some man, or order of men, is referred to that could properly be designated in this manner. (e) The method of designating persons obscurely by a reference to the numerical signification of the letters in their names was not very uncommon, and was one that was not unlikely, in the circumstances of the case, to have been resorted to by John. “Thus, among the Pagans, the Egyptian mystics spoke of Mercury, or Thouth, under the name 1218, because the Greek letters composing the word Thouth, when estimated by their numerical value, together made up that number. By others, Jupiter was invoked under the mystical number 717; because the letters of Ἡ ΑΡΧΗ—Beginning, orFirst Origin, which was a characteristic of the supreme deity worshipped as Jupiter, made up that number. And Apollo under the number 608, as being that ofηυςorὑης, words expressing certain solar attributes. Again, the pseudo-Christian, or semi-Pagan Gnostics, fromSt.John’s time and downwards, affixed to their gems and amulets, of which multitudes remain to the present day, the mystic wordαβρασαξ[abrasax] orαβραξας[abraxas], under the idea of some magic virtue attaching to its number 365, as being that of the days of the annual solar circle,”&c.See other instances referred to in Elliott,iii.205. These facts show that John would not be unlikely to adopt some such method of expressing a sentiment which it was designed should be obscure in form, but possible to be understood. It should be added here, that this was more common among the Jews than among any other people. (f) It seems clear that someGreekword is here referred to, and that the mystic number is to be found in some word of that language. Thereasonsfor this opinion are these: (1) John was writing in Greek, and it is most natural to suppose that this would be the reference; (2) he expected that his book would be read by those who understood the Greek language, and it would have been unnatural to have increased the perplexity in understanding what he referred to by introducing a word of a foreign language; (3) the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and not those of the Hebrew, are expressly selected by the Saviour to denote his eternity—“I am Alpha and Omega,”ch. i.8, 11; and (4) the numerals by which the enigma is expressed—χξϛʹ—are Greek. It has indeed been supposed by many that the solution is to be found in the Hebrew language, but these reasons seem to me to show conclusively that we are to look for the solution in someGreekword.The question now is, whether there is any word which corresponds with these conditions, and which would naturally be referred to by John in this manner. The exposition thus far has led us to suppose that the Papacy in some form is referred to; and the inquiry now is, whether there is any word which is so certain and determinate as to make it probable that John meant to designate that. The wordΛατεινος—Lateinos, the Latin[Man]—actually has all the conditions supposed in the interpretation of this passage. From this word the number specified—666—is made out as follows:—Λ Α Τ Ε Ι Ν Ο Σ30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 = 666In support of the opinion that this is the word intended to be referred to, the following suggestions may be made: (a) It is a Greek word. (b) It expresses the exact number, and corresponds in this respect with the language used by John. (c) It was early suggested as the probable meaning, and by those who lived near the time of John; who were intimately acquainted with the Greek language; and who may be supposed to have been familiar with this mode of writing. Thus it was suggested by Irenæus, who says, “It seems to me very probable; for this is a name of the last of Daniel’s four kingdoms; they beingLatinsthat now reign.” It is true that he also mentions two other words as those whichmaybe meant—ευανθας, a word which had been suggested by others, but concerning which he makes no remarks, and which, of course, must have been destitute of any probability in his view; andΤειταν, which he thinks has the clearest claimsfor admission—though he speaks of the wordLateinosas having a claim of probability. (b) This word would properly denote the Roman power, or the thenLatinpower, and would refer to that dominion as a Latin dominion—as it properly was; and if it be supposed that it was intended to refer to that, and, at the same time, that there should be some degree of obscurity about it, this would be more likely to be selected than the wordRoman, which was better known; and (c) there was aspecialpropriety in this, on the supposition that it was intended to refer to thePapalLatin power. The mostappropriateappellation, if it was designed to refer to Rome as acivilpower, would undoubtedly have been the wordRoman; but if it was intended to refer to theecclesiasticalpower, or to the Papacy, this is theveryword to express the idea. In earlier times the more common appellation wasRoman. This continued until the separation of the Eastern and Western empires, when the Eastern was calledGreek, and the Western theLatin; or when the Eastern empire assumed the name ofRoman, and affixed to the Western kingdoms one and all that were connected with Rome the appellation ofLatin. This appellation, originally applied to thelanguageonly, was adopted by the Western kingdoms, and came to be that by which they were best designated. It was the Latin world, the Latin kingdom, the Latin church, the Latin patriarch, the Latin clergy, the Latin councils. To useDr.More’s words, “TheyLatinizeeverything: mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, bulls, are conceived in Latin. The Papal councils speak in Latin, women themselves pray in Latin. The Scriptures are read in no other language under the Papacy than Latin. In short, all things are Latin.” With what propriety, then, might John, under the influence of inspiration, speak, in this enigmatical manner, of the new power that was symbolized by the beast asLatin.The only objection to this solution that has been suggested is, that the orthography of the Greek word isΛατινος—Latinos, and notΛατεινος—Lateinos, giving the number 661, and not 666; and Bellarmine asserts that this is the uniform method of spelling in Greek authors. All that is necessary in reply to this is to copy the following remark from Professor Stuart,vol. ii.p.456: “As to the form of the Greek wordΛατεινος[Lateinos],viz., thatειis employed for the Latin long [ī], it is a sufficient vindication of it to citeΣαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Αντωνεῖνος, Ατεῖλιος, Μετεῖλιος, Παπεῖριος, Ουεῖβιος,&c.Or we may refer to the custom of the more ancient Latin, as in Plautus, of writingibyei;e.g.,solitei, Diveis, captivei, preimus, Lateina,&c.” See this point examined further, in Elliott,iii.210–213.As a matter of historical interest, it may be observed that the solution of the difficulty has been sought in numerous other words, and the friends of the Papacy and the enemies of the Bible have endeavoured to show that such terms are so numerous that there can be no certainty in the application. Thus Calmet (Dict.art.“Antichrist”), after enumerating many of these terms, says: “The number 666 is found in names the most sacred, the most opposite to Antichrist. The wisest and best way is to be silent.”We have seen that, besides the nameLateinos, two other words had been referred to in the time of Irenæus. Some of the words in which the mysterious number has been since supposed to be found are the following:—נרון קסרNeron Cæsar = 50 + 200 + 6 + 50, and 100 + 60 + 200 =666Diocles Augustus (Dioclesian) =DCLXVI.C. F. Julianus Cæsar Atheus (the Apostate) =DCLXVI.Luther—לולתר= 200 + 400 + 30 + 6 + 30 =666Lampetis,λαμπετις= 30 + 1 + 40 + 80 + 5 + 300 + 10 + 200 =666η Λατινη βασιλεια= 8 + 30 + 1 + 300 + 10 + 50 + 8 + 2 + 1 + 200 + 10 + 30 + 5 + 10 + 1 =666Ιταλικα εκκλησια= 10 + 300 + 1 + 30 + 10 + 20 + 1 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 30 + 8 + 200 + 10 + 1 =666Αποστατης(the Apostate) = 1 + 80 + 70 + 6 + 1 + 300 + 8 + 200 =666רומיית(Roman, sc.Sedes) = 200 + 6 + 40 + 10 + 10 + 400 =666רמענוש(Romanus, sc.Man) = 200 + 40 + 70 + 50 + 6 + 300 =666It will be admitted that many of these, and others that might be named, are fanciful, and perhaps had their origin in a determination, on the one hand, to findRomereferred to somehow, or in a determination, on the other hand, equally strong,notto find this; but still it is remarkable howmany of the most obvious solutions refer to Rome and the Papacy. But the mind need not be distracted, nor need doubt be thrown over the subject, by thenumberof the solutions proposed. They show the restless character of the human mind, and the ingenuity of men; but this should not be allowed to bring into doubt a solution that is simple and natural, and that meets all the circumstances of the case. Such a solution, I believe, is found in the wordΛατεινος—Lateinos, as illustrated above; and as that, if correct, settles the case, it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further. Those who are disposed to do so, however, may find ample illustration in Calmet,Dict.art.“Antichrist;” Elliott,HoræApoca.iii.207–221;Prof.Stuart,Com.vol. ii.Excursusiv.;Bibliotheca Sacra,i.84–86; Robert Fleming on theRise and Fall of the Papacy, 28,seq.; De Wette,Exegetisches Handbuch, N.T.,iii.140–142; Vitringa,Com.625–637, Excursusiv.;Nov. Tes. Edi. Koppianæ,vol. x.b,pp.235–265; and the Commentaries generally.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his numberissix hundred threescoreandsix.
18.Here is wisdom.That is, in what is stated respecting the name and the number of the name of the beast. The idea is, either that there would be need of peculiar sagacity in determining what the “number” of the “beast” or of his “name” was, or that peculiar “wisdom” was shown by the fact that the number could be thus expressed. The language used in the verse would lead the reader to suppose that the attempt to make out the “number” was not absolutelyhopeless, but that the number was so far enigmatical as to require much skill in determining its meaning. It may also be implied that, for some reason, there was true “wisdom” in designating the name by this number, either because a more direct and explicit statement might expose him who made it to persecution, and it showed practical wisdom thus to guard against this danger; or because there was “wisdom” or skill shown in the fact that a number could be found which would thus correspond with the name. On either of these suppositions, peculiar wisdom would be required in deciphering its meaning. ¶Let him that hath understanding.Implying (a) that it waspracticableto “count the number of the name;” and (b) that it would require uncommon skill to do it. It could not be successfully attempted by all; but still there were those who might do it. This is such language as would be used respecting some difficult matter, but where there was hope that, by diligent application of the mind, and by the exercise of a sound understanding, there would be a prospect of success. ¶Count the number of the beast.Inver.16 it is “the number of his name.” The word here rendered “count”—ψηφισάτω—means, properly, to count or reckon with pebbles, or counters; then to reckon, to estimate. The word here meanscompute; that is, ascertain the exact import of the number, so as to identify the beast. The “number” is that which is immediately specified, “six hundred threescore and six”—666. The phrase “the number of the beast” means, that somehow this number was so connected with the beast, or would so represent its name or character, that the “beast” would be identified by its proper application. The mention inver.17 of “thenameof the beast,” and “thenumberof his name,” shows that this “number” was somehow connected with his proper designation, so that bythis he would be identified. The plain meaning is, that the number 666 would be so connected with hisname, or with that which would properly designate him, that it could be determined who was meant by finding that numberinhis name or in his proper designation. This is the exercise of the skill or wisdom to which the writer here refers: substantially that which is required in the solution of a riddle or a conundrum. If it should be said here that this is undignified and unworthy of an inspired book, it may be replied, (a) that there might be some important reason why the name or designation should not be more plainly made; (b) that it was important, nevertheless, that it should be so made that it would be possible to ascertain who was referred to; (c) that this should be done only in some way which would involve the principle of the enigma—“where a known thing was concealed under obscure language” (Webster’sDict.); (d) that the use of symbols, emblems, hieroglyphics, and riddles was common in the early periods of the world; and (e) that it was no uncommon thing in ancient times, as it is in modern, to test the capacity and skill of men by their ability to unfold the meaning of proverbs, riddles, and dark sayings.Comp.the riddle of Samson,Ju.xiv.12,seq.See alsoPs. xlix.4;lxxviii.2;Eze.xvii.2–8;Pr.i.2–6;Da.viii.23. It would be asufficientvindication of the method adopted here if it was certain or probable that a direct and explicit statement of what was meant would have been attended with immediate danger, and if the object could be secured by an enigmatical form. ¶For it is the number of a man.Various interpretations of this have been proposed. Clericus renders it, “The number is small, or not such as cannot be estimated by a man.” Rosenmüller, “The number indicatesa man, or a certain race of men.” Professor Stuart, “The number is to be computedmore humano, notmore angelico;” “it is a man’s number.” De Wette, “It is such a number as is commonly reckoned or designated by men.” Other interpretations may be seen in Poole’sSynopsis. That which is proposed by Rosenmüller, however, meets all the circumstances of the case. The idea is, evidently, that the number indicates or refers to a certain man, or order of men. It does not pertain to a brute, or to angelic beings. Thus it would be understood by one merely interpreting the language, and thus the connection demands. ¶And his numberissix hundred threescoreandsix.The number of his name,ver.17. This cannot be supposed to mean that his name would be composed of six hundred and sixty-six letters; and it must, therefore, mean that somehow the number 666 would be expressed by his name in some well-understood method of computation. Thenumberhere—six hundred and sixty-six—is, in Walton’sPolyglott, written out in full:Ἑξακόσιοι ἑξάκοντα ἕξ. In Wetstein, Griesbach, Hahn, Tittmann, and the common Greek text, it is expressed by the charactersχξϛʹ= 666. There can be no doubt that this is the correct number, though, in the time of Irenæus, there was in some copies another reading—χιϛʹ= 616. This reading was adopted by the expositor Tychonius; but against this Irenæus inveighs (Liv. v.c.30). There can be no doubt that the number 666 is the correct reading, though it would seem that this was sometimes expressed in letters, and sometimes written in full. Wetstein supposes thatbothmethods were used by John; that in the first copy of his book he used the letters, and in a subsequent copy wrote it in full. This inquiry is not of material consequence.
It need not be said that much has been written on this mysterious “number,” and that very different theories have been adopted in regard to its application. For the views which have been entertained on the subject, the reader may consult, with advantage, the article in Calmet’sDict., under the word “Antichrist.” It was natural for Calmet, being a Roman Catholic, to endeavour to show that the interpretations have been so various, that there could be no certainty in the application, and especially in the common application to the Papacy. In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the passage, the followinggeneralremarks may be made, as containing the result of the investigation thus far:—(a) There was somemysteryin the matter—some designed concealment—some reason why a more explicit statement was not adopted. The reason of this is not stated; but it may not be improper to suppose that it arose from something in the circumstances of the writer, and that the adoption of this enigmatical expression was designed to avoid someperil to which he or others might be exposed if there were a more explicit statement. (b) It is implied, nevertheless, that itcouldbe understood; that is, that the meaning was not so obscure that, by proper study, the designed reference could not be ascertained without material danger of error. (c) It requiredskillto do this; either natural sagacity, or particular skill in interpreting hieroglyphics and symbols, or uncommon spiritual discernment. (d) Some man, or order of men, is referred to that could properly be designated in this manner. (e) The method of designating persons obscurely by a reference to the numerical signification of the letters in their names was not very uncommon, and was one that was not unlikely, in the circumstances of the case, to have been resorted to by John. “Thus, among the Pagans, the Egyptian mystics spoke of Mercury, or Thouth, under the name 1218, because the Greek letters composing the word Thouth, when estimated by their numerical value, together made up that number. By others, Jupiter was invoked under the mystical number 717; because the letters of Ἡ ΑΡΧΗ—Beginning, orFirst Origin, which was a characteristic of the supreme deity worshipped as Jupiter, made up that number. And Apollo under the number 608, as being that ofηυςorὑης, words expressing certain solar attributes. Again, the pseudo-Christian, or semi-Pagan Gnostics, fromSt.John’s time and downwards, affixed to their gems and amulets, of which multitudes remain to the present day, the mystic wordαβρασαξ[abrasax] orαβραξας[abraxas], under the idea of some magic virtue attaching to its number 365, as being that of the days of the annual solar circle,”&c.See other instances referred to in Elliott,iii.205. These facts show that John would not be unlikely to adopt some such method of expressing a sentiment which it was designed should be obscure in form, but possible to be understood. It should be added here, that this was more common among the Jews than among any other people. (f) It seems clear that someGreekword is here referred to, and that the mystic number is to be found in some word of that language. Thereasonsfor this opinion are these: (1) John was writing in Greek, and it is most natural to suppose that this would be the reference; (2) he expected that his book would be read by those who understood the Greek language, and it would have been unnatural to have increased the perplexity in understanding what he referred to by introducing a word of a foreign language; (3) the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and not those of the Hebrew, are expressly selected by the Saviour to denote his eternity—“I am Alpha and Omega,”ch. i.8, 11; and (4) the numerals by which the enigma is expressed—χξϛʹ—are Greek. It has indeed been supposed by many that the solution is to be found in the Hebrew language, but these reasons seem to me to show conclusively that we are to look for the solution in someGreekword.
The question now is, whether there is any word which corresponds with these conditions, and which would naturally be referred to by John in this manner. The exposition thus far has led us to suppose that the Papacy in some form is referred to; and the inquiry now is, whether there is any word which is so certain and determinate as to make it probable that John meant to designate that. The wordΛατεινος—Lateinos, the Latin[Man]—actually has all the conditions supposed in the interpretation of this passage. From this word the number specified—666—is made out as follows:—
Λ Α Τ Ε Ι Ν Ο Σ30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 = 666
Λ Α Τ Ε Ι Ν Ο Σ
30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 = 666
In support of the opinion that this is the word intended to be referred to, the following suggestions may be made: (a) It is a Greek word. (b) It expresses the exact number, and corresponds in this respect with the language used by John. (c) It was early suggested as the probable meaning, and by those who lived near the time of John; who were intimately acquainted with the Greek language; and who may be supposed to have been familiar with this mode of writing. Thus it was suggested by Irenæus, who says, “It seems to me very probable; for this is a name of the last of Daniel’s four kingdoms; they beingLatinsthat now reign.” It is true that he also mentions two other words as those whichmaybe meant—ευανθας, a word which had been suggested by others, but concerning which he makes no remarks, and which, of course, must have been destitute of any probability in his view; andΤειταν, which he thinks has the clearest claimsfor admission—though he speaks of the wordLateinosas having a claim of probability. (b) This word would properly denote the Roman power, or the thenLatinpower, and would refer to that dominion as a Latin dominion—as it properly was; and if it be supposed that it was intended to refer to that, and, at the same time, that there should be some degree of obscurity about it, this would be more likely to be selected than the wordRoman, which was better known; and (c) there was aspecialpropriety in this, on the supposition that it was intended to refer to thePapalLatin power. The mostappropriateappellation, if it was designed to refer to Rome as acivilpower, would undoubtedly have been the wordRoman; but if it was intended to refer to theecclesiasticalpower, or to the Papacy, this is theveryword to express the idea. In earlier times the more common appellation wasRoman. This continued until the separation of the Eastern and Western empires, when the Eastern was calledGreek, and the Western theLatin; or when the Eastern empire assumed the name ofRoman, and affixed to the Western kingdoms one and all that were connected with Rome the appellation ofLatin. This appellation, originally applied to thelanguageonly, was adopted by the Western kingdoms, and came to be that by which they were best designated. It was the Latin world, the Latin kingdom, the Latin church, the Latin patriarch, the Latin clergy, the Latin councils. To useDr.More’s words, “TheyLatinizeeverything: mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, bulls, are conceived in Latin. The Papal councils speak in Latin, women themselves pray in Latin. The Scriptures are read in no other language under the Papacy than Latin. In short, all things are Latin.” With what propriety, then, might John, under the influence of inspiration, speak, in this enigmatical manner, of the new power that was symbolized by the beast asLatin.
The only objection to this solution that has been suggested is, that the orthography of the Greek word isΛατινος—Latinos, and notΛατεινος—Lateinos, giving the number 661, and not 666; and Bellarmine asserts that this is the uniform method of spelling in Greek authors. All that is necessary in reply to this is to copy the following remark from Professor Stuart,vol. ii.p.456: “As to the form of the Greek wordΛατεινος[Lateinos],viz., thatειis employed for the Latin long [ī], it is a sufficient vindication of it to citeΣαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Αντωνεῖνος, Ατεῖλιος, Μετεῖλιος, Παπεῖριος, Ουεῖβιος,&c.Or we may refer to the custom of the more ancient Latin, as in Plautus, of writingibyei;e.g.,solitei, Diveis, captivei, preimus, Lateina,&c.” See this point examined further, in Elliott,iii.210–213.
As a matter of historical interest, it may be observed that the solution of the difficulty has been sought in numerous other words, and the friends of the Papacy and the enemies of the Bible have endeavoured to show that such terms are so numerous that there can be no certainty in the application. Thus Calmet (Dict.art.“Antichrist”), after enumerating many of these terms, says: “The number 666 is found in names the most sacred, the most opposite to Antichrist. The wisest and best way is to be silent.”
We have seen that, besides the nameLateinos, two other words had been referred to in the time of Irenæus. Some of the words in which the mysterious number has been since supposed to be found are the following:—
It will be admitted that many of these, and others that might be named, are fanciful, and perhaps had their origin in a determination, on the one hand, to findRomereferred to somehow, or in a determination, on the other hand, equally strong,notto find this; but still it is remarkable howmany of the most obvious solutions refer to Rome and the Papacy. But the mind need not be distracted, nor need doubt be thrown over the subject, by thenumberof the solutions proposed. They show the restless character of the human mind, and the ingenuity of men; but this should not be allowed to bring into doubt a solution that is simple and natural, and that meets all the circumstances of the case. Such a solution, I believe, is found in the wordΛατεινος—Lateinos, as illustrated above; and as that, if correct, settles the case, it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further. Those who are disposed to do so, however, may find ample illustration in Calmet,Dict.art.“Antichrist;” Elliott,HoræApoca.iii.207–221;Prof.Stuart,Com.vol. ii.Excursusiv.;Bibliotheca Sacra,i.84–86; Robert Fleming on theRise and Fall of the Papacy, 28,seq.; De Wette,Exegetisches Handbuch, N.T.,iii.140–142; Vitringa,Com.625–637, Excursusiv.;Nov. Tes. Edi. Koppianæ,vol. x.b,pp.235–265; and the Commentaries generally.