Number of the Beast

The cryptic number 666 or, in some ancient manuscripts, 616 ( Rev. 13:18 ). It is declared to be “the number of a man” (or “a human number,” RSV ), “the number of the beast,” and “the number of his name” ( Rev. 13:17 , 18 ; 15:2 ). The reader “who has understanding” is invited to “reckon the number of the beast” ( Rev. 13:18 , RSV ), and the saved are declared in Rev. 15:2 to be those “that had gotten the victory over the beast, . . . and over the number of his name.” Seventh-day Adventist Views. In 1836 William Miller proposed that the first beast of Rev. 13 be interpreted as pagan Rome, and the second beast as papal Rome. The “number of the [first]beast” he took to be a time period of 666 years, during which the power of pagan Rome was exercised over the people of God, that is, Jews and Christians, and reckoned this from 158 B.C., when he supposed that the Jews made their league with Rome ( 1 Macc. 8:23 ff. ), to A.D. 508, when, according to his (unproved) calculation, “Paganism ceased” with the conversion of the last of the 10 kingdoms occupying the former Roman territories (William Miller, Evidence From Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ [1836], pp. 54–56, 62). This view does not seem to have been especially influential in the prophetic interpretation of Sabbathkeeping Adventists, since they very early applied the “number of the beast” to the second two-horned beast instead of to the first. In 1847 James White makes this identification and declares of this second beast: “This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Rev. 13:11–18 . His number is 666” ( A Word to the “Little Flock” [1847], pp. 8, 9). A similar understanding is reflected in his publication at the same time of a letter written by Ellen White to Joseph Bates. The manuscript of this letter, dated Topsham, Maine, Apr. 7, 1847, is not extant. Bates printed it as a broadside under the title “A Vision, Vol. I, No. 1.” As published, it contains the following statement in the context of a discussion of the symbols of Rev. 13 : “ I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the Beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope’s, and not God’s Sabbath.” In 1868 Uriah Smith explained that the number 666 in this statement, as suggested by its enclosure in parentheses, had not been in the original letter written by Mrs. White but had been inserted by Bates, as reflecting his understanding of her meaning ( The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White [1868], pp. 100–102). Smith further points out that the expression “image beast,” which she uses, is difficult to apply either to the beast to whom the image is made or to the beast that makes the image. He therefore takes this “image beast,” whose number Mrs. White declares to be “made up,” as a reference to the “image to the beast” ( Rev. 13:14 ). He suggests that this image also has a number (not necessarily 666), which, though not mentioned in Scripture, is the number to which Mrs. White refers. James White endorsed Smith’s book as a whole, stating that he had carefully read the manuscript ( Review and Herald 32:60, Aug. 25, 1868). This would appear to indicate that with the retrospect of two decades he agreed with Smith’s explanation of the passage in question. In the light of Smith’s and White’s statements it seems evident that this passage cannot be taken as a clear indication of Mrs. White’s thinking on the number of the beast. However, it does throw light on James White’s understanding of the problem in 1847. Shortly after Bates’s publication of the letter, White included it in his initial publishing venture A Word to the “Little Flock” (Brunswick, Maine, 1847, pp. 18–20). In this reprint he continued the figure 666 in parentheses, as printed by Bates, and added a footnote reference to Rev. 13:18 ( p. 19). Like Bates, at that time he obviously understood the “image beast” to be the second beast and connected it with the number 666. This identification of the number 666 with the second beast was of course in harmony with his opinion stated in one of his own essays in the same publication and cited above. The same connection was made by George W. Holt in 1850, who went on to identify this beast as “protestant and republican” ( ibid. , pp. 8, 9; G. W. Holt, in Present Truth 1:64, March 1850). Later the same year a further step was taken by Otis Nichols, who published a prophetic chart on which the two horns of the second beast are stated to be “papist and protestant,” “whose names number 666” (L. E. Froom, Prophetic Faith, vol. 4, p. 1074; see note 6). Apparently before the chart was circulated, a corrected reading was pasted over these horns: “Republicanism & Protestantism.” The intent of this interpretation seems to have been made clear by J. N. Andrews, writing the following year in the Review and Herald, where he identifies the two horns of this beast as “Republican civil power” and “Protestant ecclesiastical power,” and interprets the beast itself as the United States. Applying the number 666 to this beast, he then suggests: “The Protestant church may, if taken as a whole, be considered as a unit; but how near its different sects number six hundred three score and six, may be a matter of interest to determine” (1:81–86, May 19, 1851). In 1853 J. M. Stephenson took the alternate view that the number is that of the first beast, arguing on the basis of Rev. 15:2 that number, mark, and image all belong to the same beast. He denied that the number is to be solved by “the ancient mode of reckoning by letters,” because it is the number of a specific man, and such reckoning can apply it to many different men. The “man” he therefore took to be “the man of sin,” which he identified as the “Papal Anti-Christian church.” He declared, “We may trace the lineage of every Protestant church back to the mother of harlots [ Rev. 17:15 ].” “These divisions [of Protestantism] have continued dividing and subdividing until, according to the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge , they now number about six hundred three score and six” ( Review and Herald 4:166, Nov. 29, 1853). The following year J. N. Loughborough quoted Stephenson in the second installment of an article in The Two-Horned Beast that appeared in the Review and Herald (5:79, Mar. 28, 1854). M. E. Cornell took 666 to represent the “Protestant sectarian bodies” ( ibid. 6:43, Sept. 19, 1854). In 1855 Andrews wrote again on the subject, still applying the number to the second beast, developing his argument that this beast is the United States, and identifying the “image of the beast” ( v. 15 ) as “apostate religious bodies”: “The image it appears is made up by legalizing the various classes that will acknowledge the blasphemous claims of the beast. . . . It is thus that we understand the number of the beast” ( ibid. 6:204, Apr. 3, 1855). This view was maintained by Andrews in a reprint of the series dated 1864 ( The Three Angels of Revelation XIV. 6–12 , p. 95). However, in 1866 Uriah Smith proposed a radically different interpretation. As Stephenson had done, he connected the number 666 with the first beast, and saw it as symbolizing the papacy. The “name” for which the number stands he took to be the Latin title VICARIVS FILII DEI, “Vicar of the Son of God,” the sum of whose letters in Roman numerals equals 666. This phrase, though not a part of the official papal title, is the equivalent of a common term for the pope, and made its initial appearance about A.D. 760 in the false Donation of Constantine (see SB No. 1751 ). Andreas Helwig ( c. 1572–1643) had proposed this title as the name cryptically referred to by the “number of the beast.” Concerning this title, Smith declared that “the most plausible name we have ever seen suggested as containing the number of the beast, is the blasphemous title which the pope applies to himself, and wears in jeweled letters upon his miter or pontifical crown” ( Review and Herald 28:196, Nov. 20, 1866). In an 1877 reprint of his book The Three Angels of Revelation XIV. 6–12 , Andrews also adopted this view ( p. 109). Smith continued this interpretation throughout the various editions of his highly influential Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation , and largely through the medium of this book his view has come to be held widely among Seventh-day Adventists. However, no proof for his assertion that these words appear on the papal crown has been discovered (see SB , No. 1750 ; C. D. Vineyard, “The Papal Tiara” [unpublished M.A. Thesis, S.D.A. Theological Seminary, 1951]). Although there is nothing to be found in the published writings of Ellen White on the interpretation of the number 666, she clearly taught that this number is to be identified with the first beast of Rev. 13 , which beast represents the papacy ( GC 445). The NT and the Early Church. The scheme of adding up the numerical values of the letters in a name or word, as demonstrated above in the term VICARIVS FILII DEI, is an ancient practice known as gematria. This was possible in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, as in each of these languages letters were used for numerals. In the two latter languages all letters of their alphabets were given numerical value in alphabetical order, running in succession through the units, tens, and hundreds. Thus any name could have a number. Numerous examples of this appear in ancient literature and inscriptions. At Pompeii (before A.D. 79) two instances have been found: in one a man speaks of his lady and declares, “The number of her honorable name is 45”; in another the writer declares, “I love her whose number is 545.” Similarly the epitaph on a Jewish grave from the time of Alexander Severus (A.D. 222–235) reads: “I proclaim Gaios to be equal in number to these two, both holy and good”; here the name Gaios and the Greek words hagios (“holy”) and agathos (“good”) each total 284. An interpretive use of gematria in rabbinical literature appears in the midrash on Lev. 16:3 ff. : “There are three hundred and sixty-five days in the solar year. The numerical value of hassat\an (Satan) is three hundred and sixty-four. This alludes to the fact that during all the days of the year Satan brings accusations, but he does not bring any accusations on the Day of Atonement.” Similarly in Christian exegesis gematria is found in the Epistle of Barnabas (first half of the second century). Commenting on the statement that Abraham circumcised 318 men of his household ( Gen. 14:14 ; 17:23–27 ), Barnabas 9:8 declares: “Notice that it first says ‘ten and eight,’ and then, in a separate phrase, ‘three hundred.’ As to the ‘ten and eight’: ‘ten’ = I, ‘eight’ = H. There you have IESUS [ Gr. IHSOUS]. But since the Cross, prefigured by a T, was to be the source of grace, it adds the ‘three hundred.’ It therefore points to Jesus in two letters, and to the Cross in one.” These examples illustrate the wide use of gematria in the ancient world. From the beginning, Christians seem to have understood the number of the beast as gematria. Our earliest evidence comes from Irenaeus of Lyons ( c. A.D. 180), who discusses the question at length. He confesses doubt as to the meaning of the number, which suggests that no tradition concerning this had been handed down through the churches of Asia, from which Irenaeus had come, for elsewhere he is in possession of a number of such traditions attributed to John, preserved there. Irenaeus sees several significances in the number: it is the age of Noah at the Flood ( Gen. 7:6 ; 600 years) plus the dimensions of Nebuchadnezzar’s image ( Dan. 3:1 ; 60 x 6 cubits); it also represents for him the division of world history into six periods of one thousand years each. Prophetically, however, he takes it as gematria and suggests three words as possible solutions: euanthas (e=5, u=400, a=1, n=50, th=9, a=1, s=200), a name similar to one, euantheµs (“beautifully flowering”), given the god Dionysus, and a not uncommon personal name that may have been adapted purposely to total 666, but with no ascertainable relationship to the figure portrayed in Revelation v= rRe 1:1; lateinos (l=30, a=1, t=300, e=5, i=10, n=50, o=70, s=200), “Latin”—“for,” he points out, “the Latins are they who at present bear rule”; and teitan (t=300, e=5, i=10, t=300, a=1, n=50), his own preferred solution, which seems to be a variant spelling of “Titan,” referring to the mythological Titans who rebelled against their father, the god Uranus. Irenaeus notes that the term was also applied to the sun. Though he does not say so, in addition there may be an implied reference in this name to the Emperor Titus (A.D. 79–81), who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. Irenaeus concludes, however, that the meaning of the number cannot be known with certainty, though he is satisfied that it applies to antichrist. Commentators throughout ancient and medieval times proposed these and many similar terms and phrases with no greater likelihood of probability. Thus the Venerable Bede ( c. 672–735), in addition to Irenaeus’ teitan , which he defines as “giant, . . . as if he excells all things in power,” gives two additional names that he had borrowed from other commentators, antemos (a=1, n=50, t=300, e=5, m=40, o=70, s=200), which he understands to mean “contrary to honor,” and arnoume (a=1, r=100, n=50, o=70, u=400, m=40, e=5), which he defines as the verb “to deny,” obviously taking it as the Greek verb arneomai . 666 or 616? Already in Irenaeus’ day, within a century of the writing of Revelation, there was a question whether the number should be 666 or 616. Irenaeus says that the reading “666” was found “in all the most approved and ancient copies” of Revelation and was testified to by those who had themselves seen John. However, the reading “616” survives in Codex Ephraemi (C) from the fifth century and in minuscules 5 and 11, as well as in an ancient commentary falsely attributed to Augustine. At the same time there is evidence that some early texts probably did not contain v. 18 at all: while the commentary of Pseudo-Augustine gives the number as 616, the text on which it is based, as well as the related commentary of the Spanish monk Beatus ( d. A.D. 798), both omit the verse. As these works probably are based on a lost commentary by Ticonius (A.D. 390) from North Africa, it seems likely that from the fourth century at least there was an Old Latin text in which this verse did not appear. A number of modern scholars have favored the originality of the reading 616. It is pointed out that this is the lectio difficilior , that is, “the more difficult reading”: it is easier to account for an original 616 having been “rounded off” into 666 than vice versa. It is sometimes interpreted as standing for Gaios Kaisar (3 + 1 + 10 + 70 + 200 + 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100), “Gaius Caesar,” that is, Caligula (A.D. 37–41), the first emperor to have demanded sacrifice to himself as a god. Thus he conceivably could have been seen as a prototype of the antichrist to come. Deissmann and Cullmann suggest that it represents the phrase Kaisar theos (k=20, a=1, i=10, s=200, a=1, r=100, th=9, e=5, o=70, s=200; “Caesar god”). This could reflect the pretensions of Caligula or perhaps of Diocletian (during whose persecution the Revelation probably was written), who proclaimed his own divinity and insisted on emperor worship. Others have defended the priority of 616 on the thesis that Nero, not Diocletian, is the figure intended, and have seen the solution in a Hebrew writing of his name, nrw qsr , “Nero Caesar,” which in Hebrew numerals also equals 616 (n=50, r=200, w=6, q=100, s=60, r=200). In this connection 666 is also frequently interpreted of Nero, his name being spelled in Greek fashion ( Neroµn ) but in Hebrew letters, nrwn qsr (n=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, q=100, s=60, r=200). Thus the suggestion has been made that both numbers are really variants of one original cryptogram. This is probably the most widely adopted solution among scholars today. However, several factors have been pointed out that appear to militate against this interpretation. First, if it is granted that the Revelation was intended to be understandable to its initial readers in their context, it is questionable that the Christians of the province of Asia would have understood a gematria based on the Hebrew alphabet. While this would not have been impossible (Irenaeus, as far away as Gaul and writing regarding the Valentinians, a heresy centered at Rome, argues a question of gematria on the name of Jesus [ Ieµsous =888] by appealing to the priority of a Hebrew spelling), it does appear improbable from the fact that twice in the Revelation the writer feels the necessity of explaining to his Greek-speaking readers that certain terms are Hebrew ( Rev. 9:11 ; 16:16 ). Second, the Hebrew spelling qsr for “caesar” is defective, the usual form being qysr , although a few examples of the former have been found, and this unusual form possibly could have been intended for the sake of the number 666. Third, it is highly questionable whether the number is to be understood as that of a specific emperor or any individual man, as the beast represents an institution rather than a person. In favor of the originality of 666 it may be said that the oldest manuscripts, and the vast majority of manuscripts of all textual groupings, read 666.