Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Revelation 13:18 - 13:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev 13:18. Ὁ ἔχων νοῦν, ψηφισάτω, Let him that hath understanding, count) It is not said, He who readeth, νοείτω, let him consider, understand, as Mat 24:15, but νοῦς, mind, understanding, is presupposed; and he who has mind already, is aroused also to computing the number of the beast, and to make a calculation. Νοῦς, the understanding, is contradistinguished from the spirit, 1Co 14:14; but here it is contradistinguished from wisdom. We must calculate: therefore it is befitting that the numbers should be precisely taken which enter into the calculation, and those which answer to the numbers entering into the calculation. He who has νοῦν, understanding, is ordered to calculate; he ought therefore to bear with calmness another who does not comprehend calculations: only let him not despise and trample upon calculations, especially ὧδε here, where such a remedy [against the delusions of the beast] is necessary for us. Look to the passage, Dan 12:4; Dan 12:10. What kind of persons are they to whom, in this business, cither diligence and understanding, or negligence, is attributed?-ἀριθμὸς γὰρ, κ.τ.λ., for the number, etc.) Each noun is without an article, in this sense, ὁ ἀριθμὸς τοῦ θηρίου ἐστὶν ἀριθμὸς ἀνθρώπου. Ἀριθμὸς, without the article, is the predicate: and ἀνθρώπου denotes a number relating to a man. Thus μέτρον, not τὸ μέτρον, ch. Rev 21:17. The particle γὰρ, for, stimulates us, affording hope, nay, even the key, for solving the number. For immediately afterwards both the quality of the number reckoned is indicated, namely, that it is the number of a man; and the quantity of the number reckoning, namely DCLXVI. I have professedly given the more laborious calculation of this number in my German Exegesis of the Apocalypse, and indeed especially in the Introduction, § 43. I will here give some scattered fragments, by means of certain aphorisms, accompanied by their own illustrations: but I should wish the severer demonstration itself to be sought from that exegesis.
§ 1. It is correctly read in Greek ἑξακόσια ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, in the neuter gender;[148] but in Latin it is also truly read, sexcenti sexaginta sex, in the masculine gender.-Many copies have the numeral letters χξς. This in Latin is DC. LX. VI. There is no vestige of any proof to show, that, in expressing numbers, the prophets and apostles, and first copyists, made use of numeral letters. On the contrary, there is reason to suppose that they did not make use of them: for these numerals would have been a hindrance in the public reading of the lessons. Undoubtedly, whether John denoted the number by χξς, or wrote it out in full, it was necessary for the reader, who was sent from Patmos into Asia, to know, whether it was to be pronounced in the masculine or the neuter gender. It will be worth while to refer to and consider Irenæu[149], Book v. ch. 29 and 30. From thence you may collect, that even then the number of the beast had been described in Greek and Latin by numeral letters, and yet not by all writers. I have shown in the Apparatus, p. 826, that Irenæus wrote his works in Greek, but with this intention, that they might immediately after be translated by others into Latin; and therefore that he had reference alike to the Latin and Greek MSS. of the Now Testament. Wherefore he treated of the number of the beast in such a manner, as that it should agree at once with the Greek and Latin reading. The Alexandrian Copy in Greek, and the Latin translator, as in other places, so in this, agree with one another: for in the former there are ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, and in the latter, sexcenti sexaginta sex. The translator, as I conceive, did not trouble himself as to the sense, in which he either read it masculine in Greek, or rendered it so in Latin: but the Greek copyist seems to have preferred this form, because in the books of the Old Testament he had for the most part been accustomed to the expression of numbers in the masculine gender; for instance, Ezr 2:13, where the same number is used, as applied to men. Thence Irenæus more than once says, sexcentos sexaginta sex. The same writer again, when he writes that the same number had been sought for in the Greek names, ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ, ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ, ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, shows that ἑξακόσια ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, in the neuter gender, was read in the Greek: for the numerical value of 666, in the abstract, could not have been sought, by means of names of this kind, in the masculine gender, but only in the neuter. In a census of men, for instance in the fourth book of Moses, which from this circumstance has the title, Ἀριθμῶν, of Numbers, and in the book of Ezra, the numbers are put in the masculine gender: but when any number is put absolutely, no other gender than the neuter is conveniently employed. Arias Montanus expresses the Greek number in the masculine gender, after the example of the Complutensians; the Complutensians thus expressed it on the authority of the Vulgate: for in the Greek MS. which was used by them in other places, and which closely resembles the Codex Seidelianus, it was χξς, as is plain from the extracts of the Codex Seidelianus, with which a friend supplied me. Many MSS., as I think, retain the neuter gender; and collators may have judged it superfluous to note down their difference from the notation χξς. For it was not until the close of his labour that Mill himself quoted the Codex Covelianus as an authority for the reading, ἑξακόσια ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, to which my Apparatus added two others, widely removed from each other, and on that account of sufficient weight.
[148] Ah Vulg. have ἑξακόσιοι ἑξηκοντα ἕξ: so Lachm. B has χξςʼ: so Tisch. Orig., 3, 414a has χξʼ. C has ἑξακόσια δέκα ἕξ. Iron. 326 writes, sexcentos sexaginta sex. In 328 also he expressly opposes δέκα, and upholds ἑξήκοντα.-E.
[149] renæus (of Lyons, in Gaul: born about 130 A.D., and died about the end of the second century). The Editio Renati Massueti, Parisinæ, a. 1710.
§ 2. The number 666 is a certain [fixed] one, and is not put for an uncertain one.-We drew this inference a little while ago, in a summary manner, from the very command to calculate. We will hear Joh. March on the same subject. “Carolus Gallus,” he says, “thinks that he has made some important discovery, in believing that the word ‘man’ is put collectively for men, and then, that a number of men signifies a very numerous multitude. But the Hebrew phrase, which he adduces by way of proof, is altogether opposed to his hypothesis. For they (the Hebrews) use the phrase, ‘men of number’ [Marg. and Hebr. Eze 12:16], for a few, etc. But that opinion appears to be one which ought above all others to be rejected by us, which will have it, that a definite number is here put for an indefinite one, as when 144,000 are given to the Lamb; and that a great number is then denoted, either of blasphemies and errors of Antichrist, which errors make up a body so compact and bound together, that the members depend mutually upon one another; or [as others say] a great number of Papists, followers of Antichrist, in which the Romish beast prides himself, and far surpasses other holy and reformed churches. Gallus prefers this latter sense; but Durham the former, who contends at great length, that the name ought to denote the doctrines by which those devoted to the beast are distinguished, even by reason of the contradistinction to the elect, who have the name of the Father on their forehead; moreover, that the phrase, to number, is sometimes used for, to weigh together with judgment; comp. Dan 5:27; and that theological wisdom deduces inferences from doctrines and facts, rather than from letters. In reply to these things, it will suffice to have remarked in few words, that when a fixed character is assigned to the beast in the designated number of the name, and when the computation of that number is enjoined upon men, it ought altogether to be understood in a definite sense; and the more so even on this account, because this is not a round number, nor is there in it any allusion to any other calculation of men or opinions, which is elsewhere celebrated. I add, that if it were only a multitude indefinitely that is intended, whether it were of errors, or of persons in error, there would here be need of no such great understanding and attention as that which John requires. I still wonder by what means the number 666 can be taken for a great multitude, and that, too, by comparing it with the elect 144,000, since the latter greatly exceed the former. Gallus acknowledges this, and boldly changes the 666 men into so many myriads of men,” etc.-Comm. on Ap. p. 589, etc. Another interpretation takes the 666 for 6666, the 6666 for a legion, and the legion for a multitude of enemies of the Church. Contrary to this is the opinion of Zeger, who in his Epanorthotes thus comments: “There appears to be an allusion and reference to that name of the legion, which comprises 6666: and while this first number [figure] is taken away, it seems to be insinuated, that very great resources, both of strength and of subjects, have been subtracted from the devil by Christ, so that he cannot now boast and say, as he formerly did, My name is Legion.” Meyer, on Ap. fol. 55, is not at variance with both interpretations; and many things may be advantageously observed, either with reference to both or with reference to either of them. 1) Hesychius, in his Lexicon, is the only one who affirms that the legion consists of 6666 men, unless the copyist intentionally added the lesser sixes [numbers of six]. Weighty writers of military affairs speak otherwise, as Vegetius. l. ii. c. 2, 6. It is certain that the legion cannot be made to consist of 6666 men, so as to fall in with the time of John or the time of the boast. 2) The thousandth number in an epoch, and in the numbers of years from the creation of the world, is not expressed among the Hebrews: and we even now want proof that this custom prevailed among them in the time of John. An anonymous writer, indeed, who is said to have been Tobias Littleton, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and who wrote The Final Downfall of Rome, which was published at London A. 1655, and wished to persuade the English who were living at Rome that the downfall of that city would take place in the 666th year after the thousandth, was mistaken. Among the Romans, whom no one has referred to this point, in a large amount the sestertium [a thousand sesterces] is not expressed. In all other computations, in every nation, it is not the largest, but the smallest part, which is especially accustomed to be omitted. 3) The Hebrews were compelled to use this abbreviation, through want of letters by which they might express thousands; but John had at hand the well-known Greek letters, by which he might, express the whole, σχξς, 6666. 4) The Hebrews supply the defect by a formula expressed by קטון לפרט, to which the formula of our ancestors, nach der mindern Zahl, sometimes answers. But John puts the number absolutely. 5) Without having recourse to the number of a thousand and its ellipsis, without having recourse to the legion and its metalepsis, a tenth part of the legion, the cohort, and thus 666 or 600 (just as six hundred is proverbially used [for any large number]), or 555 or 500 (see Vegetius, as quoted above), might more easily have been put or taken for an indefinite multitude. 6) But neither does one legion nor one cohort always promiscuously represent a great multitude, but according to the given circumstances; for instance, with reference to the one possessed, Mar 5:9. At other times many legions are rather used to express a multitude; for instance, of angels, Mat 26:53. 7) A multitude would comprise, under the number of the boast, either the seducers only, or the seduced also. But it cannot comprise the seduced, for they are much more numerous, Rev 13:8 : nor the seducers, for they either have no government at all, or that of a democracy, or an aristocracy, or a monarchy; and any one of these will repel the notion of a multitude. But they have, in my opinion, a government, and that monarchical; and as in a monarchy the denomination is wont to be derived, not from many, much less from very many, but from are that which is especially needed in the case of the beast is, that there may be a place where the seven heads and the ten horns may be fixed. 8) No one who shall have weighed the system of the numbers of this book, the whole picture of the beast, and especially the close of this thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse, will say that a multitude, whether great or lessened, is indefinitely denoted. The same interpretation of the number of the beast by a reference to the Roman legion, is refuted by the Acta Basileensia, etc., published A. 1730, p. 42, etc.
Lightfoot arrives at the same conclusion by a different course of argument, when he thus writes:- “The 42 months and 1260 days, also a time, times, and half a time, are SHORT PHRASES taken from Daniel, who, when he employs that made of speaking, describes the rage of Antiochus, and the trampling under foot of Religion, which was about last during the space of three years and six months. Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7; Dan 12:11, in which certain times of adversity and affliction (and NOT ANY DEFINITE PERIOD) seem to be marked out. This meaning of expressions of this kind prevailed everywhere among the Jewish writers”.-Chron. N. T. on Ap. xi. The two examples which he there subjoins are foreign to the purpose; and since the numbers in the same, and the very numbers used by Daniel, have a precise meaning, the numbers used in the Apocalypse ought not, as though they merely contained an allusion to those of Daniel, to be weakened, but to be taken with equal precision. Otherwise, in fact, the number of the for LXX. weeks. which Lightfoot takes precisely, would skill, because it is a round number, have to be taken as a certain number for an uncertain one, by some allusion or other (an error, which God forbid that any fall into!)
In short, the indefinite interpretation is as though he should say: A multitude is designed in general terms: there is to need of an arithmetical computation, by which the numbers are solved in a specific sense. But the text says, Count. And since that is not said at random, but to point out the hope of finding, we now proceed to make the computation.
§ 3. Another number adapted to the explanation of the number of the beast by calculation, and that affording proper facility [for counting], both ought to be sought in the text, and is found, viz. that of XLII. months.-The prophecy. 1) bids us to compute; 2) names the numbers of the beast; 3) names the numbers of a Man 1:4) and says that it is 666. All these things are pertinent to the subject; and we will look to them in the order of the Apocalypse, that is, in retrograde order.
1) The number is said to be 666, the adjective alone being expressed
Rev 13:1) The number is said to be 666, the adjective alone being expressed. A number expressed both by an adjective and a substantive (for instance, ten months, a hundred drachmæ, a thousand soldiers), the one of which we call the reckoning number, the other the number reckoned, needs no explanation. But when a number is presented to us which requires solution, then either the substantive is expressed, as, for instance, pieces of money; and the adjective is to be sought for and inferred, for instance, five myriads: Act 19:19; also Luk 14:28 : or the adjective is given, as 666, and so the substantive is to be sought for which is to be joined to it; a mode which, except in enigmas, and undoubtedly here, in a prophetical enigma, scarcely comes into use. The adjective, 666, I say, is given, and that so plainly, that it needs no further solution. It remains, that there should be traced out, and made up by calculation, not indeed another mere numeral adjective, by which no progress would be made, but a noun substantive, and that of a specific meaning, for which a general term of number is substituted. Be that of whatever kind it may, its ellipsis (the readers being now prepared by the ellipsis of the noun tongue and horsemen, in the first and second woe, to submit more readily to that in the third woe, ch. Rev 9:11; Rev 9:16, note),-the ellipsis, I say, is certainly that of a substantive: the only question is, whether the 666 are as it were points, such as are accustomed to be sought in systems of years; or men, or times, or anything else which occurs to the mind. In the meantime there appears to be a great difference between the two computations; for in the former case the subject of inquiry is the reckoning number, which is easily to be explained by arithmetic; but in the other, such as is the matter now under consideration, the subject of inquiry is the reckoned number, requiring a greater amount of the power of interpretation.
Wherefore 2) There occurs the mention of “the number of a man,” which is undoubtedly the cause of a difference: whence it is more fully evident, that the reckoned number is that which we are commanded to search out; for no reckoning number is found in the universe different from “that of a man.”[150] It is of no use to pursue this subject further.
[150] Bengel is wishing to prove that the noun to be understood to the adjective 666 is years, and these common years: for it is expressly said, “it is the number of a man.” 666 is a human number in contradistinction to the much longer prophetical year, Rev 9:15; not angelic-human, as the 144 measuring reeds, Rev 21:17.-E.
3) It is to be observed, that the number is said to be that of one beast, not of many beasts: and that it is the number of the beast itself, and not that of the name of the beast, which is proposed for computation
A number indeed is both assigned to the name of the beast repeatedly, and in Rev 13:18, only to the beast itself: and Rupertus Tuitiensis on Ap. p. 380, that I may not appear too minute in my inquiries, has seriously remarked, that the number of the beast is one thing, and the number of his name another; and Potter, in his Interpretation of the number 666, ch. 1, where he quotes many who agree with him, and this is proved by the very peculiarity of the expression. For there occurs, I. The beast; II. His name; III. The number of his name; IV. The number of the beast: and the fourth ought no more to be confounded with the others, than the others ought to be confounded with one another. Since however no number of the name of the beast is indicated apart from the number of the beast, I will readily acknowledge, that the latter is to be investigated by means of the former. In the meantime the prophetic phraseology is to be precisely adhered to, and the peculiarity of the well-weighed expression is to be followed. It is not said that the number of the name of the beast is to be computed, but the number of the beast. Moreover the number both of the beast himself and of one beast only, is a proof, that there is a number or multitude of accidents: for a number indeed of beasts would denote a number which was made up of the substances of many beasts taken together; but the number of the beast is that which is made up of certain accidents of one beast taken together. And since this is the number of the accidents, those accidents are inherent in the beast himself: For as, if the days of the beast were spoken of, I should take those days for a certain duration of the beast himself: so the number of accidents of the beast ought to be looked for in the beast itself, and not outside of him.
4) Here we are commanded not only to number, but to compute. The word is ψηφισάτω, not ἀριθμησάτω, comp. ch. Rev 7:9. “The peculiar number of the beast,” says Cassiodorus, in his Complexiones on this passage, “is explained under a certain method OF CALCULATION.” Now calculation and computation cannot be carried on in such a matter, except by taking in another number. Potter says, in accordance with reason, “Neither addition, nor subtraction, nor multiplication, nor division, can be carried on, unless two numbers at least are given, so that a third number may be sought out, which must be either their sum, or the remainder, or the product, or the quotient.” Whence the same writer, without noticing another number, which was expressed in a twofold manner, looked to the number 666 itself, endeavouring to extract its square root. See by all means the treatise quoted, ch. 10. What if there should be in the context another number expressed (as Potter required), and that too a more easy one, from which we may elicit a noun adapted to this adjective? Shall we imagine that it is accidentally presented to us? Lo! here are at hand 42 months, Rev 13:5. Receive that which is produced with a soul desirous of truth, and take it. The 42 months are times: therefore the 666 are also times. For what accidents except times, can one suppose, are possibly contained beneath the number 666?
§ 4. A number is elegantly used for the number of times, for times, years, etc.-This sentiment, the beast has 666 days, years, etc., when it has now been found out, may be suitably expressed in the following words: the number of days, of years, etc., of the beast are 666. But it is a much more suitable expression, compute the number 666, whereby a problem in particular is proposed for solution, so that the sense may be, compute 666, that you may ascertain whether they are days, years, etc.: nor will you be able to devise an easier formula of proposing this problem. What? not even in a categorical enunciation is it foolish to express times either by ellipsis or by trope. For thus the Septuagint, Job 36:26, ὁ Ἰσχυρὸς ΠΟΛΥΣ, God is great, that is, eternal; for it adds, ἀριθμὸς ἐτῶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀπέραντος. So 2Ch 30:5, לרב, according to the meaning given by some interpreters, denotes often, much, for many years. In the commencement of his eighth book on the Republic, Plato, describing the period of states with the well-known obscureness of his numbers, uses the words τριὰς πεμπὰς, κ.τ.λ., and the very word ἀριθμὸς, absolutely, meaning times: and among all writers, πεντὰς, δεκὰς, εἰκὰς, τριακὰς, hebdomas, are used for a number of days. Caius says of Cerinthus, according to Eusebius, l. iii. Hist. Eccl. c. 25, ἀριθμὸν χιλιονταετίας λέγει γίνεσθαι. Hesychius, σάρος, ἀριθμός τις παρὰ Βαβυλωνίοις. It is a number of years, on which the Ordo Temp, treats, p. 323. Pliny, Hist. Natur. lib. viii. c. 6, says, Seven years being added to the former NUMBER (the 472d year of the city). Orosius, in his Apol. pro Lib. Arb., calls that the number of the world, which he had a little while before called the fulness of the appointed times, p. 753. The phraseology is very similar: The number of the beast, the number of the world. The Latin prologue to Mark: a fast of number, that is, of 40 days. Ticonius, on Rev 11:3, says, He spoke of the NUMBER of the last persecution, and of future peace, and of the whole time from the Passion of the Lord, etc. Time and place have many points of resemblance. It is a resemblance, that Xenophon in his Cyropœdia says, ἀριθμὸν ὁδοῦ, the number of a journey, for length. Add Eurip. ed. Gr. p. 290, r. 3, ed. Lat. Part II. p. 232; Eus. Præp. Ev. f. 228, ex Afric.
§ 5. The 42 months and the number 666 are equal.-The duration of the locusts, under the first woe, is twice expressed by five months: to the angels of the Euphrates, under the second woe, there is given an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year; and that body of horsemen, two myriads of myriads (200,000,000), is equalled to this space. Thus, under the third woe, 42 months of the power which the beast has, and the number 666 of the same beast, are equal.
§ 6. The form of expression respecting “the number of a man” implies 666 ordinary years, and by way of contradistinction to this, 42 prophetical months.-The number of the beast is said to be the number of a man. This expression, of a man, either denotes a man definitely or indefinitely. If definitely, it has reference either to the beast with ten horns, or to the man computing. There is no need of either of these in a matter which is of itself obvious; and neither would tend to aid the calculation. Therefore it must be used indefinitely, whence the article is not added in the Greek: therefore the genitive singular, of a man, is used for human, as ὀστᾶ ἀνθρώπου, 1Ki 13:2 (that is, ὀστᾶ ἀνθρώπσα, Num 19:16); σωτηρία ἀνθρώπω, Psa 60:11 [see marg. of Engl. Version]; μάχαιρα ἀνθρώπου, Isa 31:8. Moreover it is either human number of times, or a number of human times. It is not the former: for it would then have to be a human number, either of years, or months, or days: but 666 years very far exceed the age of man: but 666 days or months are far too short to express the duration of the beast; and such an ellipsis of days or months is unusual: finally, the word, months, is already preoccupied by the opposite 42 months. Therefore it is a number of times, human, or belonging to man. But the expression, the number of a man, is used for this very conveniently. For as in Gal 6:11, the greatness [of size] which belongs to the whole epistle is assigned to the letters; and as the curtailing, by which a longer interval is curtailed, is assigned to days, Psa 102:24-25; and the middle, which belongs to greater times of the world, is assigned to years, Hab 3:2 so, on the other hand, there is sometimes given to a collective noun a predicate, adapted to the individual things separately: Pro 30:26, οἱ χοιρογρύλλιοι ἔθνος οὐκ ἰσχυρόν: also, the days of My people are as the days of a tree, Isa 65:22,-of the people, that is of the individuals among the people. Among the Romans, Gallia Togata. And this metalepsis was especially befitting in a prophetical enigma, until the units of the times being found out, might themselves support the epithet, human, which was meanwhile sustained by the number, but was properly designed for themselves. Now since it is settled that the epithet, human, is taken indefinitely, and has reference to the individual times, it is evident of itself that such times are even passed by the beast, and, which falls in elegantly with the sense, by the computer of the number. Thus it is also in the case of the measures of the new Jerusalem, which are said, not universally, but each severally, to be the measure of a man, that is, of the angel, ch. Rev 21:17; and likewise the angel who measures partakes of the measure of a man, which is indefinitely that of an angel.
We have seen in § 5, that the number 666 and 42 months are equal to each other. Therefore the 666 times of man are 666 ordinary years of men; and, on the contrary, the 42 months, inasmuch as in the text they are not said to be the months of a man, are truly prophetical months. Q. E. D.
Thus at length (I use an ad hominem argument) justice is done to the Vulgate translator, who writes, as we have remarked, § 1, sexcenti sexaginta sex. If DIoCLes aVgVstVs, as Bossuet says, or any other name of this kind, would fill up the number of the beast by its 666 points, the Suppositio Materialis [see Append. Techn.] would require sexcenta, etc., the neuter absolute having the force of a substantive; wherefore even Rupertus Tuitiensis, in resolving the word DICLUX, which was invented by Ambrose Ansbert out of DCLXVI, was not able to retain sexcentos, etc., but says that it made sexcenta sexaginta sex: Comm. on Ap. p. 379: which very neuter gender, you may see on this passage, is used by many interpreters willingly, and by Romanists sometimes against their will. Now they ought to bring forward some who read sexcentos sexaginta sex; otherwise they will not be able to absolve the Translator, so highly extolled at Trent, from an error, and that of a serious character (for the subject is both a most weighty one, and the reading in the Latin copies is most unvarying). Those sexcenti sexaginta sex are so many years. Innocent III. long ago interpreted it by years in his Epistle to ALL the faithful of Christ, in aid of the Holy Land, A. 1213, and, to omit others of the intermediate ages, F. Louis S. Francisci, in his Cycle of Secrets, p. 917, edit. Rom. This stricture of Innocent, if there be added to it the parallelism of the 42 months, the length of the first and second woes, which is analogous to these, the intervals after the first and the second woe, the union of the beast and the woman, must persuade even those who depend on pontifical authority, of the true interpretation of the whole prophecy.
We return to the subject itself. The ellipsis of a “year” is of frequent occurrence. Xenophon, οἱ δέκα ἀφʼ ἥβης, who are passing the tenth year from their puberty. Plato, lib. vi. de legib., κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν δὲ εἶναι καὶ μὴ μακρότερον χρὴ τὴν ἱερωσύνην ἐκάστῳ. ἔτι δὲ μὴ ἔλαττον ἑξήκοντα ἡμῖν εἴη γεγονὼς ὁ μέλλων καθʼ ἱεροὺς νόμους περὶ τὰ θεῖα ἱκανῶς ἁγιστεύειν. Polybius, ὀκτωκαίδεκα γεγονὼς, of eighteen years. But Dio Cass. appropriately to this passage, τόσα γέγονα, as though he should say, this is my number, that is, of years. The two last instances are contained in the Greek ellipses of Bos; and, from all the instances which he has collected of substantives that are usually omitted, you may perceive that nothing but ἔτος is suitable to this passage. In Daniel mention is made of LXX. weeks, the word, yearly times, being understood. Therefore ὁ ἀριθμὸς τοῦ θηρίου is equivalent to ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν ἐτῶν τοῦ θηρίου, just as ἀριθμὸς γενημάτων is equivalent to ἀριθμὸς ἐνιαυτῶν γενημάτων, Lev 25:15-16.
This ellipsis of years is not without advantage. If they had been expressly mentioned by name, the reader would have been liable to confound together times strictly and figuratively denoted, with an error which would create many disturbances; whereas now ordinary years conceal their own title, in sight of the prophetic months. So much the less ought the human times to cause us any difficulty in this book, since they are so sparingly and providently attempered with so many prophetical times, and so therefore without any danger of their being confounded with one another. For we do not pass by a leap, but we are gradually led from the prophetic times to the ordinary years which are here indicated by the ellipsis, and then in succession to the ordinary years, which are expressly mentioned as such in ch. 20. But the ellipsis even contributes to the seasonableness of the enigma, not only with reference to the beast, to whom, in the same mysterious manner as to the king of Babylon of old, the number and consummation of his kingdom is written before his eyes, Dan 5:26, but also with reference to the saints, who would have been disheartened by the long duration of those most sorrowful times, if they had known it, both on their own account and on account of their friends; for they did not imagine that so many years remained, even to the world itself. But it is evident that they, both before the Reformation and afterwards, were long supported by that hope, that the war against the saints would quickly come to an end. It was plainly to their own great advantage that they did not comprehend the age of the beast (for it was not then at hand). At one time the beast was acquainted with the times, and not with himself; the saints were acquainted with the beast more than with his times: now both the beast and his number, or, in other words, his times, will together become more and more known.
As to what remains, it is a question whether the number of 666 years in the Greek text is to be taken in the masculine or neuter gender. If the former, the reading is ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἓξ ἐνιαντοί; if the latter, it is ἑξακόσια ἑξήκοντα ἓξ ἔτη. But in truth the neuter gender, to which we gave the preference, § 1, is far superior to the masculine, as we shall presently, § 7, more fully ascertain.
§ 7. These 666 years have an appendage.-The 666 and the 1000 years, or ἔτη, are properly opposed to each other. The beast rages 666 years: they who had not worshipped the beast reign 1000 years. Moreover 666 are to 1000 years as nearly as possible in the same ratio as 2 to 3; but precisely as 3 are to 2, so are 1000 expressed years to 666 666/999 2/3, and this fractional number agrees with the ellipsis, leaving the word year to be understood: for each unit of the number of the beast is a figurative year, but is so with the addition of a few hours; which addition does not take away the truth of the ordinary year, but yet makes the title of year in some degree inappropriate. Thus the number 666 and the 1000 years mutually confirm and explain one another. It has occurred to some, doubtless from that hypothesis of the Apocalyptic year which contains 360 days, that is, the same number of years,-that 1000 years may be taken for 360 thousands of ordinary years. And although this thought is very absurd, yet it may have no slight influence with him who has been struck with the accurate analogy of the Apocalyptic times. Now, it is not only in this one place, but also previously in the number 666, that ordinary years and those “of a man” are employed. On the other hand, because the thousand years are said to be ἔτη, the number of 666 years is furnished with the most appropriate word to be supplied, viz. ἔτος, and the confusion between ordinary and prophetical times is thereby the more avoided; for a prophetical year in this book is called ἐνιαυτὸς, ch. Rev 9:15, but here they are ἔτη, which are partly expressed and partly understood. Indeed ἐνιαυτὸς has something more of a general meaning than ἔτος. Whence the comic writer said, ἐτῶν ἐνιαυτοὺς, and Plato in his Cratylus does not vary much from him. It has a closer reference to this, that the noun ἐνιαυτὸς is used for denoting any positive year, so to speak, while ἔτος is only used to denote the natural year. Apollodorus, lib. iii., speaking of Cadmus, ἀΐδιον ἐνιαυτὸν ἐθήτευσεν ἄρει· ἦν δὲ ἐνιαυτὸς τότε ὄκτω ἔτη. And the LXX., Deu 31:10, μετὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη, ἐν καιρῷ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς ἀφέσεως: and thus continually, Lev 25:10; Lev 25:10; Lev 25:52; Lev 27:18; Jdg 10:8. Whence it comes to pass, that in innumerable places the noun ἔτη is construed with any cardinal number whatever, and often a large number; whereas ἐνιαυτὸς is never so used, but for the most part indefinitely, or in the singular number: Gen 47:28; 2Sa 21:1 : compared with 1Ki 14:21; 2Ki 24:18; 2Ch 22:2. And this difference between the words ought not to be neglected, because it is peculiar to the Greeks, and not customary with us.
We have thus far discussed the subjects which we proposed, § 3. For the subject, viewed in this light, plainly, 1) consists of ψήφοι, elements of calculation, and contains division, multiplication, subtraction, and addition; and by means of those elements of calculation, first, its noun, years, is connected with the adjective itself 666; and then many other computations also are made from these. 2) It squares with the number of the beast, properly so called. 3) It introduces the number of the times of a Man 1:4) and the 666 years.
§ 8. Hence several lesser periods of times are resolved.-After the analogy of 42 months, other periods, for instance, the five months of the first woe, the hour and day and month and year of the second woe, are easily resolved; and the history corresponds, as we have shown at the proper places. But the question respecting the precise length of the Apocalyptic hour itself separately, of the day, the month, and the year, might be omitted. If, however, it is inquired into, it is easily deduced from those things which we have said. A month is the twelfth part of a year; a year has 365 97/400 days; a day has 24 hours: and with this natural division the prophetical corresponds. Moreover, since the 42 prophetical months are 666 2/3 ordinary years, the length of the prophetical times readily presents itself. In short, each measure of ordinary time is with reference to prophetical time, as 190 1/2 0/1 to 1, or as 4000 to 21.
§ 9. In the same manner greater periods also of time are resolved.-We propose this progressive system:-
A Half-time contains of ordinary years, 111 1/9
A Time (καιρός), 222 2/9
The Number of the beast, 666 6/9
Time 1, 2, and 1/2, 777 7/9
A Short Time, 888 8/9
A Millennium, 999 9/9
A Chronus (period), 1111 1/9
An Age, 2222 2/9, etc
The connection of the prophecy and the series of events confirm this as approximating to the length of periods thus increasing: but this exact length is recommended first of all by the analogy of the number 666 and of 1000 years; and in the next place it is confirmed by the system of septenaries resulting from it. For if, with astronomical strictness, you should resolve all the steps of this progression into days, the second step will give pure weeks of days, whilst the first will give as many half weeks (and this is the peculiar reason why the first is called ἥμισυ καιροῦ, half a time, and not until the second is there said to be καιρὸς, a time): then, as is the ratio either of the first or of the second step, so is that of the others, which are multiplied out of the first or even out of the second. Thus the System of sevens, which Moses and the Prophets so frequently employ in times, and the Apocalypse in actions, unexpectedly displays itself also from the times of the Apocalypse affording thus a remarkable test of true analysis. But the proper place for this demonstration is in the Order of Times, c. 11 and 12.
§ 10. This analysis of times, though intermediate, ought not to be thought foreign to the subject.-The prophetic day of about six months, for instance, ought not to be thought to be inconsistent with the sense of a day of the heavens, or an ordinary day. The Apocalypse itself suggests half times: ch. Rev 8:1, Rev 11:9, Rev 12:14; and other interpreters, proceeding from different ways, have long ago arrived at half forms of times. Seb. Meyer calls the 42 months, the 1260 days; and the 1, 2, and 1/2 times, the half of a week of years; but without. any further explanation. John Napeir endeavours to resolve the seven periods of time which he lays down from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the world, from the fact, that there are seven great Jubilees; not entire, of 490 years: therefore the HALVES consist of 245 years. See Expl. Apoc. Part i. Prop. 5. Molinæus thinks, that the 1260 years of the beast in the exercise of his power are a week; so that the half week of the two slain witnesses denotes a persecution of 630 years, which are the HALF of 1260 years. See Accompliss. des Proph. p. 357. Nor are these influenced so much by the truth of the reasons, as by the probable appearance of the fact alone. Aretius on this passage proceeds more speciously, mutually comparing the 1335 days of Daniel and the number 666. A space of six months is not only a part of a time, but it is also a time: and as the Indians, according to Curtius, had their month divided into 15 days (whence the Malabars at the present time account the 14 semicircles of the 7 planets for fourteen worlds); and the Chinese fix 24 semi-solar months in the year: so some of the ancients not unskilfully marked out one year by summer, and another by winter, as Pliny remarks, l. vii. c. 48. And Plutarch, Censorinus, and others, remark that the year was also terminated in six months among the Egyptians, and from them among the Greeks, and undoubtedly so among the Carians and Acarnaniaus, between whom Patmos was situated, and indeed it was very near to Caria. See Jo. Hiskiæ Cardilucii T. I. Evang. Naturwissenschaft in Præf., and Fabricii lib. de Mensibus, pp. 7, 8, and 153. The history of Thucydides is arranged by winters and summers. The ancient Saxons divided the year into two Malinas, autumnal and vernal, as Martinius remarks from Scaliger in his Lexicon Etym. col. 1438. And in all the intercourse of civil life a space of time consisting of six months was of very frequent occurrence. There were many magistracies of six months’ duration, as, for instance, the tribuneship mentioned by Pliny, Ephesians 4, l. 4. The fasces of the consuls were formerly given for six months: and at the present day, Academic officers and others. The Romans had rings for summer and winter: whence the six months’ gold, in Juven. Sat. vii. Those skilled in civil law cite six-monthly counsels of princes. See P. Fabri Præf. to his Semestria; for by this title he and other civil lawyers, and Dorscheus of divines, inscribed some of their writings: and at the present day Semestria are in existence among the French in forensic practice. James Cappellus suspects that the patriarchal years before Abraham were held by the Alexandrians to be of six months, when he is comparing the Alexandrian era of the creation of the world with the Jewish. Disp. Sedan. T. I. p. 1048. Comp. the things related by Calvis. upon A.M. 3185, taken from John George Herbart of Hohenburg. With astrologers sometimes, when they conjecture future things from celestial phenomena, a day by a mystic calculation denotes six months. See Zimmermann’s Tr. on the Comet of the year 1680, p. 101. With this especially agrees that solemnly observed division of the year into two equal parts among the Israelites, that is, into two periods of six months, one of which parts was reckoned from the beginning of the months, the other from the beginning of the year, viz. in spring and in autumn. See Ord. Temp. pp. 19, 27 [Ed. ii. pp. 16, 23]. Nor is it in the first month that the Jews increase the age by the addition of the year; but it is in the beginning of the seventh month, for instance, that they would begin to write A.M. 5500, instead of 5499, with the approbation of Moses: Exo 23:16; Exo 34:22. At any rate, from the time of Moses a period of six months was always very remarkable among the Israelites in life and its vicissitudes: and the courses of the priests divided the year into two periods of about six months. Moreover there was an interval of six months between the forerunner John and Christ Jesus Himself: Luk 1:36. R. Ase had his disciples with him six months in every year; he ordered them to be at home six months. We have not collected these things to demonstrate the precise length of the prophetical day, but only for the purpose of showing that that length ought not to appear so strange to us. We have derived the demonstration itself from a different source.
§ 11. Nay, it is only thus that interpretations branching off into intricate and extreme points are avoided.-The year-day, which many Protestants have long defended, is longer, and much longer, than truth permits; the ordinary day, which is maintained by Romanists and some of our more recent writers, is shorter, and much shorter, than truth permits. I have demonstrated both these points in my German Introduction, § 38, etc. It is evident that these are the two chief sources from which so many false interpretations have flowed. The truth lies between the two. Whoever is able to entrust himself to this will be in safety. See on Rev 13:1, Prop. 10. Obs. 29.
§ 12. Therefore both the months of the beast and his number, and the number of his name, have a system free from difficulty.-The 666 2/3 years, which equal the months of the beast and the number of the beast (see Erkl. Offenb. p. 133), had their commencement, when the event was proceeding from the beginning of ch. 13 to the middle of Rev 13:5, at the commencement of the pontificate of Cœlestine II. on September 25th A. 1143. Gregory VII. began to be independent of the Roman Emperor, Cœlestine II. of Rome itself, during the flourishing period of which the beast is not. At that time, therefore, power was given absolutely to the beast. The number of the name of the beast began from Gregory VII., who claimed for the Roman Pontiff alone the name of Pope, in the most exalted sense. They have that name who embrace and approve of the most disgraceful novelty of Gregory as something divine. Thus the number of the name of the beast is known from the number of the beast, and somewhat exceeds it. This method is easy and simple, by which the number of the name of the beast is explained. But there are some who think that it may possibly be the case that, as the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, that is, Jesus, is equivalent to 888 (see Estius on this passage), so the name of His adversary has the number 666 according to the numeral value of letters. “Nor is that to be passed over in this place,” says Neuhusius, “which historians have remarked, that the Number of the name assumed by the Pope is generally ominous of the duration of his life and reign. Certainly Alexander II. departed this mortal life in the second year of his pontificate, Clement III. in the third year, Victor IV. in the fourth, Pius V. in the fifth, Leo X. in the tenth, Gregory XIII. in the thirteenth, Sixtus V. in the fifth. By a like fatality, Benedict II., Sixtus II., Anastasius II., John II., Martin II., Nicholas II., died in the second year of their reign. Stephen III., Martin III., Clement III., Nicholas III., in the third year of their supreme power. Felix IV., Martin IV., Nicholas IV., Paul IV., Benedict IV., Clement IV., in the fourth; Boniface V. in the fifth; Innocent VIII, in the eighth, ceased to be among the living.”-Lib. ii. Fatid. Sacror. c. 31. G. Burius, in Notitia Pontificum, sect. xvi., has noticed similar instances, not only in years, but also in months. It was with this feeling that many have long since sought for the number 666 in many names. We have before brought forward some things from Irenæus; and of these, who has not spoken of ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ? And we may conjecture how this might, even at that time, have occurred to any one. In the Sibylline books, which the ancients greatly regarded, it is said, lib. viii., λίνος αὐτὸν ὀλεῖται. Now in many sovereignties, the first and the last sovereigns are found to have been distinguished by the same name; and the first Bishop of Rome was not Peter, but Linus: and therefore, although an ancient error speaks of a second Peter, as the last, a more ancient opinion seems to have fastened upon a second Linus (with what amount of truth, does not affect the argument). In Latin, LInVs seCVnDVs might perhaps be equivalent to 666: but such signatures are accustomed to be noticed among their subjects at the first time, whence some regard them as omens, and not at the last. However that is, ΛΙΝΟΣ is equivalent to 360. There is therefore wanting the number 306, that is, TEA. By a combination of the letters TEA and ΛΙΝΟΣ, the well-known word ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ was formed. Or else they had heard that the name of the beast would be Latin, as about to occur in the Latin language, and not in Hebrew or Greek; and by a “Suppositio Materialis” [See Append. Techn. Terms], they interpreted that of the name Λατεῖνος itself. Whether the former or the latter was the case, Λατεῖνος ought not to have been put with E; for the Greek EI, with a consonant following, is expressed in Latin by I, as εἰκὼν, icon: but the Latin I does not pass into ΕΙ in Greek, nor is Λατεῖνος borne out by analogy: for it is not written Ἀκυλεῖνος, κ.τ.λ., but Ἀκυλῖνος, Ἀλβῖνος, Ἀκραγαντῖνος, Ἀλεξανδρῖνος, Ἀντωνῖνος, Ἀρκτῖνος, Ἀρχῖνος, Βροντῖνος, Καλουῖνος, Καρῖνος, Κολλατῖνος, Κρατῖνος, Κρισπῖνος, Κουαρτῖνος, Κωνσταντῖνος, Λεοντῖνος, Λευῖος, Λιβερτῖνος, Λογγῖνος, Μακρῖνος, Μαξιμῖνος, Μαρῖνος, Νερυλλῖνος, Νιγρῖνος, Ξιφιλῖνος, Πισῖνος, Σαβῖνος, Σατορνῖνος, Στασῖνος, Ταραντῖνος, Τιγελλῖνος, Φιλῖνος, Φλωρεντῖνος. It would be tedious to collect more instances. In Irenæus himself, Ἰουστῖνος, Οὐαλεντῖνος, Ὑγῖνος, Φλωρῖνος, are uniformly written with the simple I: and thus also Λατῖνος, which very word is used in the Sibylline books with I, at one time long, and at another time short. And thus in one MS. of Andreas, Λατῖνος is replaced by the copyist, correcting the text, contrary to the design of Andreas: in a second, at the word Λατεῖνος there is added διὰ διφθόγγου, with an open acknowledgment of the license which is frequently used by the Greeks in Greek chronologies, as it is by the Germans in German. For on account of the same number 666, they made Τειτὰν out of Τιτὰν, Παπεῖσκος out of Παπίσκος, Ἀρνοῦμε out of Ἀρνοῦμαι. But there ought to be no place for a license of this kind in a matter of such great importance. Andreas of Cæsareia, or they who have enlarged upon his works, have added other names, for the sake of exercise, after the example of Hippolytus. Among these, BENEDICTUS is especially remarkable, not only in the Augustan Codex, which superadds one name upon another, but even in the Sylburgian edition: nor however does that Benedict of Nursia, of whom Andreas might have heard, and whom Nic. Mulerius brings forward on this place, appear to have been the person intended by any Greek copyist: for the Menologia of the Greeks also preserves his memory on the 14th of March; but the person meant was Benedict IX., Pontiff of Rome. sILVester seCVnDVs, who occurs to Caspar Heunischius, is not a dissimilar instance: for Silvester was on the Papal throne, when the 1000th year from the birth of Christ was reckoned; Benedict, when the 1000th year from His death; and at one or the other of these thousandth years, as though the thousand years mentioned in ch. 20 had elapsed, the ancients expected the kingdom of the beast (as it is plainly seen from Andreas, for the name ΒΕΝΕΔΙΚΤΟΣ, as it appears, furnished some ingenious reader of his with the number 666): nor has the fame of that Benedict the support of such authorities at the present day, as that of Silvester. We have, as I think, bestowed sufficient labour upon the consideration of the opinions of the ancients. Scherzer, above others, in Syst., p. 865, has thought it worth while to recount even more recent inventions, or rather trifles; and Wolf., in vol. iv. Curar., p. 545. Therefore we may pass them by: that however may be added, which Christopher Seebach, in his Germ. Key to Ap., p. 309, ἐπαῤῥησιάσατο: but the name LUDoVICVs has been certainly less forced [to yield the 666], which a treatise, published in Belgic and German, with the title, The Faith and Patience of the Saints, ch. 23, has applied to this, although even that disastrous persecution of the Reformers in the kingdom of the Gauls did not attain to the great force implied in this number; and evidently the name to which this number is given ought to be found, if anywhere, in the series of the Popes. Some, with Vitringa, who, on Ap. p. 629, quotes that writer who is in other places unnamed, and his book, question the numeral power of the Latin letters: but Baudius, Ep. 79, cent. 1, proves that they all have that power, except D; Scaliger, following Priscian, in his book respecting causes, L. L., ch. xli., proves that they all without exception have it. We think that these subtleties may be omitted. The number, even of the name of the beast, has, as we have seen, another meaning.[151]
[151] Bengel, J. A. (1866). Vol. 5: Gnomon of the New Testament (M. E. Bengel & J. C. F. Steudel, Ed.) (W. Fletcher, Trans.) (248-329). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.