been used of the false prophet, since it is the term reserved for the First Enemy. It is, therefore, only confusing to refer to "The First Beast " and "The Second Beast," since, in the view of the Apocalypse, there is but one: there are two Enemies" in chapter xiii., but only the First is "the beast"; the other is "the false prophet." We may feel sure, then, that the reference of the mysterious statement of verse 18 is to the First Enemy, and not to the Second.

66

The second uncertainty is due to the appearance in some manuscripts of a different reading of the number, giving 616 instead of 666. The authority, however, of this alternative reading is not very great, and its probability infinitely less, so that we are safe in assuming " Six hundred and sixty and six" to be the number given by St. John.

The interpreters of this mysterious saying may, for convenience, be divided into two main classes: (1) Those who fix their attention on the Name of the Beast; and (2) those who consider his Number to be the important point. The views of each class are supported by well-known and competent scholars, and both call for careful consideration.

وو

The first class of interpreters base their interpretation on the fact that in Greek, as in Hebrew, the letters of the alphabet have a numerical value. The "number of the name," therefore, it is said, must mean that the letters of the actual name of the Beast, when their numerical values are added together, produce a total which the Apostle declares to be "666," and the solution of the problem lies in thus ascertaining the name which he had in mind. The majority of these interpreters understand the meaning of " the number of a man to be, as Weymouth paraphrases it, "for it indicates a certain man," and therefore the problem comes to be the discovery of some particular person the letters of whose name have the numerical value of 666, and whose history is such as to make the description of the Beast applicable to him. As might be expected, the number of probable or possible guesses that can be made in this direction is almost limitless. The outstanding solution thus arrived at, however, and that with perhaps the greatest amount of support, is the one which sees here the identification of the Beast with the Emperor Nero. It would be impossible, within the limits of this article, to discuss even this one solution of the problem; it must suffice to say that its great weakness lies in the fact that, in order to produce the total of 666, "Nero Cæsar must be put into Hebrew letters, and even then a spelling of "Cæsar must be adopted which competent scholars pronounce to have been impossible in the first century.

The advocates of the various solutions proposed in this line of interpretation may be divided into those who see here the description of some person who lived in the age of St. John, those who have made it apply to personages of later centuries, and those who believe that the individual thus described has not yet appeared, but will do so before, or at the time of, the end. Ingenious, however, as many of these solutions are, it would yet seem evident that none of them can possibly square with other references to the Beast which are found in the Apocalypse. In chapter xix., for example, we are shown the Beast as playing his part in the great and final conflict between Christ and His enemies, which appears necessarily to exclude any historical personage up to the present time, nor can one suppose that even Nero, monster of wickedness as he was, could be set forth as linked with the Devil in that trio of the foes of Christ whose final doom is so terribly depicted in chapter xx., verse 10. Still more decisive is the fact that the description of any one individual, however remarkable his personality, is contrary to the whole tenor of the Apocalypse, as clearly shown by Professor Milligan and others. If their views are correct, the principles of the book would be violated by the selection of any particular man, or indeed of any particular age, for delineation. In their view the book represents the great spiritual principles at work throughout the whole history of the Church, and thus its message is for every age and not alone for one. Obviously, then, if Nero, or some contemporary of his, be indicated, the whole message concerning the Beast, however useful for St. John's age, would have no practical concern for us, just as the representation of a person yet to appear would have no real interest for the Church up to the present time. But if, as many believe, the book must have its message for all ages of the Church, that reason alone would compel us to dismiss all names of persons as unsatisfactory.

66

و,

There are still other interpreters of the class we are considering, who understand the phrase "the number of a man to mean according to human reckoning " (i.e., with letters of numerical value), and who see in the number 666 other names than those of individual men. Of these the most famous is probably that which Alford-although with great hesitancy-adopts and which reads here the word "Lateinos, thus said to represent Rome, both Pagan and Papal, both Imperial and Ecclesiastical. To those who see in the Apocalypse chronological disclosures of history, this interpretation must be more satisfactory than that which discovers the name of a person, but the view of the whole book, as given above,

وو

will still prevent many from entertaining this solution, as the objection therein indicated will equally well apply.

66

وو

66

Then we turn to the second and much smaller class of interpreters, who have seen that the key to the puzzle does not lie in the name but in the number of the Beast. They have fully appreciated the fact that in the Apocalypse the numbers used are just as truly symbols as are the other figures employed, such as stars," trees, mountains, etc., which are universally recognized to be such. Thus 7 is the number which always represents that which is infinite, or perfect, or complete, and which is so sacred from its constant connection with the Divine perfections, while 3-the 7 broken in twainrepresents just the opposite-viz., that which is finite or imperfect or incomplete; so that, for instance, as Dean Vaughan points out, 7 is often, in this book, " the emblem of the duration of the glory that shall be," and 3 the symbol "of the duration of the conflicts and tribulations of the present." Hence they interpret 666 as indicating the fact that the Beast, subtle and powerful as he may be, is always and will be always inferior to the Divine, just as 6, whether it stand by itself or be multiplied by 10 or by 100 (as in 666), must, as 6, ever be below the number 7. So Hengstenberg writes: "The 666 is, as it were, the swollen, blown-up 6-the 6 in its highest potencybut still, even when swelled up and increased to the uttermost, no more than the 6." Here (pace the historicist !) many will believe that we are on much surer ground. But this solution, standing alone, scarcely seems to account for the words " the number of a man," which must then be taken simply as equivalent to some such general phrase as "a human number," or a number known to common reckoning," which certainly seems a very redundant statement, since what other number could be used? Beside which, it is very unlike St. John, who never uses a word unnecessarily.

In face of the fact that this great puzzle of the Apocalypse has occupied the attention of countless scholars in all ages of the Church, and that no really satisfactory answer at any rate, none that commands anything like a general acceptancehas yet been found, it would, indeed, be impertinent to put forward a solution as being a final discovery. The following thoughts, therefore, must not be considered as more than tentative and suggestive.

"of

In the first place, the assumption by so many interpreters that the "name" of the Beast has the meaning of a literal title is more than improbable. Again and again in Holy Scripture, as every student knows, the name is used as being equivalent to "the character or "the attributes." In

Isa. ix. 6, for instance, the list of titles given were never actually borne by our Lord, but they do express His attributes. In the Apocalypse this use of "name" is frequent enough, as in such passages as iii. 12, xiv. 1, xvii. 5, xix. 13, 16, and xxii. 4, where this sense of the word is perfectly clear. The use even of a definite title, merely as a spiritual symbol of character, is found in xi. 8, where the names given to "the great city are literally impossible, but which accurately represent its character (see also viii. 11, ix. 11). This is surely, then, the meaning of the "name" of the Beast.

66

This meaning is confirmed by the words of xv. 2. In no possible sense could the victors by the glassy sea be said to come victorious" from a literal name, expressed by the numerical value of letters of the alphabet; such a statement would be meaningless. But that they come victorious from that character which was sought to be impressed upon them is easy to understand.

66

This throws light also upon the two "marks" of the Beast in verse 17. The difference there would appear to be that in the one case the character (“the name ") was imprinted, clear and distinct, for all to see; in the other, while it was still imprinted, it was to some extent concealed under the symbol of "number." The same double imprint, one plainly visible and one partially concealed, is indicated in verse 16 by the forehead" and the "right hand."

66

Then, in the next place, it is not a little curious that scarcely any interpreter seems to have noted the care with which St. John refrains from saying that 666 is "the number of the name of the Beast," as he might well be expected to do, and as apparently nearly everybody supposes that he does! As he had just mentioned that number of the name in the previous sentence, it is surely highly significant that he should not now repeat the phrase, but write instead" the number of the Beast.' Remembering the minute care which marks the choice of every expression in the Apocalypse, it would seem that there must be some definite reason for this change in phraseology. May not that reason be that the "number of the name " and " the number of the Beast" are not, as always assumed, identical, but that there are in St. John's mind two numbers, perfectly distinct from each other, the one symbolizing the name of the Beast, the other symbolizing the Beast himself-the actual figures of the one not being given (since it is only the concealed form of the name, or character, of the Beast), but the other, because of the importance of its teaching concerning the Beast himself, being definitely stated as 666? Then the reason for that change of phrase becomes perfectly clear-viz., to prevent

the confusion of two symbolic numbers, one unstated and one stated.

In the third place, what is the true rendering of åpilμòs уàр ȧvОрúжоν orí? The Authorized Version, the Revised Version, and the American Version alike translate-" for it is the number of a man." But must the anarthrous άνθρωπος in Greek necessarily have an article in English? May not the sense here be generic as is that of the anarthrous avoporos in many passages of the Septuagint ?-e.g., 2 Chron. xiv. 11: μὴ κατισχυσάτω πρός σε ἄνθρωπος-Let not man prevail against Thee. Ps. vii. 4: Τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι μιμνήσκῃ αὐτοῦ; What is man that Thou art mindful of him? Ps. cii. 15: *Ανθρωπος, ὡσεὶ χόρτος αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ—Man, his days ai are as grass. Why, then, should we not translate in the same way here, so that the rendering would be, "For it is the number of man" ? In xxi. 17 we have a somewhat similar sentence; the Revised Version renders " According to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel "; but does not the anarthrous noun give a better sense here also ?—“ According to the measure of man, that is [because the cubit was originally the length of the human forearm], of angel "angel "being anarthrous also, as in Acts xxiii. 8.

Obvi

How does this affect the whole view of the Beast? ously it sweeps away entirely all possible reference to an individual or to any historical fact. But the interpretation which sees in the Beast the World-power as opposed to Christ (i.e., the world of ungodly men) is immensely strengthened thereby, for then we have St. John's plain declaration that the Beast is Man (i.e., Humanity), as looked at apart from God, unregenerate, evil, inimical to Him and to His Church, which corresponds to the undoubted teaching of other parts of the Apocalypse (ix. 20, 21, xvi. 21).

But if there be here such a plain statement as this of the meaning of the symbol, wherein lies the wisdom and the understanding which is so strongly emphasized? It must lie, in that case, not in the identification of the Beast (thus plainly declared), but in the application to him of the number 666. Here the minority of interpreters, already alluded to, are on the right track; unregenerate humanity is not only always against God," but it ever falls short of the sacred 7 of the Divine power and glory; it can never-try as it may be more than the lesser 6, and therefore, in its conflict with God, its final defeat and overthrow are certain from the beginning. Not only so, but as in this book the number 12 is symbolical of the Church (that is, of man reconciled to God and made one with Him by faith in Jesus Christ), so is this figure 6

66