Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 13:18 - 13:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_13:18. As John wants to designate the χάραγμα definitely, and that, too, in the form of the ἀριθμὸς τοῦ ὁνόματος of the beast (Rev_13:17), he mentions first of all, that wisdom and understanding are required for the comprehension of this mysterious mark. The formula ώδε ή σοφ . ἐστιν receives its peculiar meaning[3385] through the context, especially through the express demand Ὁ ἜΧΩΝ ΝΟῦΝ ΨΗΦΙΣΆΤΩ , Κ . Τ . Λ . A reckoning ( ΨΗΦΙΣΆΤΩ ) is properly required, because the subject has reference to a number, and the value of its letters; yet the invitation to solve the puzzle intelligibly is supported by the explicit remark that the solution can actually be found,[3386] because the number is meant in the ordinary way: ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν . These words do not declare that the number describes the name of any particular human person,[3387]—in order to express which, John would have had to attach a τινὸς , or, after his way,[3388] a ἑνὸς , to ἀνθρ .,—but, as also the γὰρ , and the omission of the art. before ἀριθμ . indicate, that the ἀριθαὸς τοῦ θηρίου express the ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου in a human way, and therefore according to the value of the letters current with every one. The key to the mystery of the numerical name is, therefore, readily found; but wisdom and understanding are necessary in order to use this key properly. That this is not so easy, the history of the exposition shows, as it[3389] gives the report of hundreds of attempts to solve the puzzle, which failed just because it was not understood, on the part of the large number of men which may contain the names of thousands, how to decipher the only correct name.
With the statement of this riddle John concludes the description of the beast, which thus reaches the most significant climax: καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ÷î ϛʹ. The αὐτοὺ belongs to the conception τοῦ θηρίου ,[3390] just as ΨΗΦ . Τ . ἈΡΙΘΜῸΝ Τ . ΘΗΡ . was expressed, yet in the sense that the ἉΡΙΘΜ . ΤΟῦ ΘΗΡΊΟΥ is meant as the ἈΡΙΘΜ . ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΟς ΤΟῦ ΘΗΡ ., Rev_13:17.
Without all doubt the number to be indicated means ÷É Ϛʹ, i.e., 666; for what Irenaeus[3391] reports of those who received the number ÷É Ϛʹ, 616, is the less applicable for causing any doubt with respect to the certainty of the received reading ÷É Ϛʹ, as Irenaeus himself decidedly advocates the latter reading by asserting for it the authority of all good and ancient MSS., and an express tradition which he derived from the author of the Apoc. himself.
In order to find the interpretation of the enigmatical number commended by John to Christian understanding, the indications afforded by the nearer and more remote context are certainly to be observed, which show the entire class of attempts at interpretation to be impossible, and urge the correct interpretation:—
[3385] Cf. Rev_13:10.
[3386] Against Irenæus, L. V., c. 30. Cf. Intro., p. 75. Andr.: ὁ χρόνος ἀποκαλύψει . Hofmann, who even assumes that John himself did not know the name signified by the number; Luthardt, etc. Cf. Intro., p. 42.
[3387] Beda, Grot., Ew. i., Züll., Hofm. (Schriftbew., ii. 637), Volkm., Klief., etc.
[3388] Rev_8:13.
[3389] Cf. Wolf, Curae, on this passage; Heinrichs, Excursus 4., De antichristo, et imprimis monogrammate illo, cap xiii. 18, numerum exprimente, vol. ii. p. 235. Züllig, Excurs. ii., 232.
[3390] This reference is not, as Klief. says, “an evasion,” but a philological necessity, which, of course, cannot be acknowledged, if, upon the basis of Rev_13:18 ( ἁρ . γ . ἀνθρ .), it be asserted (Klief.) that the beast is a man, since the number of the beast designates a man. But in truth, the ἀνθρ . is only a qualitative designation of the ἀριθμὸς , so that it is directly impossible to refer the αὐτοῦ in the closing words to ἀνθρ . It can refer only to the chief conception which is designated by repetition in Rev_13:17 ( τ . ἀρ . τ . ὁν . αὐτοῦ ) and Rev_13:18 ( τ . ἁρ . τοῦ θηριοῦ ).
[3391] L. V., c. 30: “I do not know how it is that some have erred, following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting fifty numbers, wishing that only one be instead of six decades. This 1 think was the fault of the copyists,” etc.
(1) All expositors enter into an erroneous course who, in spite of the declaration of the text, understand the number not as τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ θηρίου ; i.e., who have held it as any thing else than a definite name expressed in numbers. Therefore, not only is such play-work to be rejected of itself, as that of Zeger[3392] and of Coccejus,[3393] but also all Apocalyptic chronology based upon the number 666. With what confidence this was formerly held, is to be seen from the fact that in the Wittenberg Bible of the year 1661, the note (Luther’s gloss) is given: “It is 666 years: so long does the worldly papacy stand.” The master in the sphere of Apocalyptic arithmetic—in which men even like Isaac Newton have erred[3394]—was Bengel, whose piety remains worthy of respect because it believed that even in the spaces of time which are regarded as revealed in the Apoc., the holy ways of God are to be discerned, although not only is the excessive curiosity which muddled that piety reproved by the wording and spirit of Act_1:7. Mat_24:36,[3395] but also the entire theory, as it is built by Bengel upon this text, is deprived of a foundation and basis by making the text itself speak of nothing less than of 666 years. Bengel’s system of Apocalyptic chronology depends essentially upon the fact, that, in order to gain first an arithmetical proportion upon which to work, he combines the 666 years, as ordinary years, with the 3½ times or 42 “prophetical months,”[3396] that thereby he may attain the various chronological determinations,[3397] which he then applies to the history of the popes.
[3392] Viz., that the name Legion, Luk_8:30, is meant, viz., six thousand six hundred and sixty-six, but after a withdrawal of six thousand caused by Christ’s victory.
[3393] Viz., that the Catholic additions to apostolic doctrine are meant, the jus canonicum, espedially the liber sextus, since the number six remains if six hundred and sixty-six be divided by twelve.
[3394] Cf. Lücke, p. 1036.
[3395] In a remarkable way, Bengel (Erkl. Offenb., p. 1090) attempts to prove that Act_1:7 does not testify against his method of “Apocalyptic chronology.” The Lord, he says, gave his apostles “no pure repulse,” but only informed them that the knowledge of the day and hour did not belong to the apostolic office.
[3396] Rev_12:6; Rev_12:14.
[3397] 666, 777 years.
(2) Against the method, given in the text, for finding the name of the beast from the number 666, in such a way that the numerical value of the letters forming the concealed name gives that sum, Vitringa and Hengstenb. object, with their peculiar interpretation, rejected already by Vitr. and Coccejus. Because, in Ezr_2:13, a head of a family, Adonikam, with 666 sons, is mentioned, the Apoc. number is therefore regarded as referring to this name, àÄãÇÉðÄé÷Èí (the Lord sets up), and thus, in the sense of Rev_13:4,[3398] the antichristian arrogance of the beast deifying itself is indicated. Besides, Hengstenb. finds even in the number 666 itself the sign of that which is contrary to God, because, “as the swollen six,” it always remains a world-number, and can never be reduced to the godly number seven.[3399] But even apart from this last mode of trifling, and without considering that it yields a Hebrew name,—while only a Greek name is to be expected,—a mere play-work would be found therein, entirely spiritless, and not in harmony with the holy earnestness of John, if, without all inner reference to the supposed name, it would be referred to the number of children of Adonikam. Yet the name Adonikam could be meant in the assumed sense if that head of a family had had 777 sons.
[3398] 2Th_2:4.
[3399] Cf. C. a Lap. and Lnthardt, who refer the antichristian number 666 as in antithesis to the number 888 with which in the Sibyll. Orac., L. I., p. 176, ed. Serv. Gall., the name Ἰησοῦς is described; Herd., etc., mention that the serpentine form ξ occurs between the letters χς , i.e., the monogram of the name of Christ.
(3) We have not only in the wording of Rev_13:17-18, the clear direction for seeking a name in the enigmatical number; but the Apoc. as a whole, and the context of ch. 13 especially, compel us to reckon that name from no other than the Greek alphabet. A scientific expositor at the present day no longer attempts to introduce the Latin alphabet[3400] or those of modern languages.[3401] It is only either the Greek or the Hebrew alphabet that can enter into consideration. The application of the latter is apparently urged by the O. T. character of the Apoc.[3402] Züllig thus finds the name Balaam in the designation of Jos_13:33, which,[3403] however, has nothing to do with the θηρίον of whose name it treats. Such interpretations would suit better, as that invented by Ewald for the (false) number 616, øåí ÷éñø , i.e., Cæsar at Rome, or that received by Hilgenf., Renan, etc.,[3404] ðøéï ÷ñø ,[3405] if the presumption that Nero were to be identified with the beast were correct,[3406] and if the introduction of the Hebrew alphabet were not arbitrary. Irenaeus, Primas, Victorin., Beda, Andr., Areth., Wetst., Grot., Calov., Eichh., Ew. i., De Wette, Stern, Rinck, Lücke, Bleek, etc., are correct in their attempt to find the number indicated by the name in the Greek alphabet; for although the Apoc., in its entire mode of presentation and in its style, shows a strongly impressed O. T. type, ye t it is intended for the Greek-speaking reader, and, therefore, takes the formula A and Ù [3407] from the Greek alphabet, as also, in its references to O. T. passages, it is not altogether independent of the version of the LXX.[3408] But of the Greek interpretations that have been attempted, most miscarry, because they are either in form intolerable, or without meaning and definite reference. Here belong the solutions εὐάνθας , ἅντεμος ,[3409] ἀρνοῦμε ,[3410] τεὶταν ,[3411] ὁ νικητής ,[3412] ἁντίδοκος ,[3413] Οὔλπιος ,[3414] λαμπέτης , κακὸς ὁδηγος , ἄμνος ἄδικος , etc.[3415] Ingenious is the solution commended by Märcker.[3416] He reckons, according to the Greek alphabet, the numerical value of the initials of the names of the emperors, from Octavianus to the tenth following, Vespasian, inclusive of the three emperors of the interregnum,
Galba, Otho, and Vitellius,—by reckoning the numerical sign ί as the tenth, and so obtaining the letters οʹ , τʹ , γʹ , κʹ , υʹ , γʹ , οʹ , οʹ , οʹ , ιʹ , which, according to their numerical value, give correctly 666, and besides can be combined in the name of the beast, ὀγκότογιον , so that the result is an indication of the vastness and pride ( ὄγκος ), and of the peculiar garment (toga) in the Roman Empire. This solution is a flagrant act of trifling, to which, besides, a counterpart is offered. It is false, therefore, already, because nothing justifies us in taking the names of the ten emperors as a basis, among which the last is figured only as a numerical sign. The combined name of the beast expresses little.
Kienlen, resorting to the Hebrew alphabet, derives the name of Domitian.
Kliefoth says that no name whatever is mentioned, but only the antichristian character of the beast, which, in every gradation of the world-power indicated by the number six, does not, nevertheless, reach the number seven which symbolizes the divine.
Irenaeus already was acquainted with that solution of the puzzle, which alone corresponds to all demands,
Λατεῖνος , i.e., according to the value of the letters: 30 + 1 + 300 + 5 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 200 = 666. So Calov., Eichh., Ew. i., De Wette, Ebrard, etc. Irenaeus, indeed, preferred the name Τεῖταν , yet said: “But the name Λατεῖνος also has the number 666, and it is very probable, since the last kingdom has this name. For the Latins are they who now rule.” Against this interpretation it dare not be objected, that the usual form of the name is Λατῖνος ; for although this is never found in analogous forms, like Σαβεῖνος , Παπείρος , etc., the very nature of the case has determined such a departure from what is usual, for the sake of the riddle. Yet, e.g., in the sibylline books,[3417] the name χρὶστος is changed into χρεῖστος , because in the acrostic description of the words Ἰησοῦς χρῖστος , θεοῦ υἰος , κ . τ . λ ., not ι , but only an ει , can be introduced. But if the name of the beast be Λατεῖνος , there is conveyed by this numerical name the most definite designation of the beast as the Roman Empire, not of any individual emperor, and the exposition of ch. Rev_13:1 sqq., is expressly confirmed. [See Note LXXIV., p. 388.]
[3400] Cf. Bossuet’s interpretation: DIoCLes aVgVstVs = Diocles or Diocletian Augustus, by reckoning only one part of the letters. Similar artificial expedients in Vieg. and the Catholics, who derived the names Martin Luther, John Calvin, Beza antitheos, and the like, reckoning sometimes in German, and sometimes In Greek and Hebrew; while, on the contrary, the old Protestants conjectured the names of Popes, Jesuits, etc.
[3401] Cf. Gerken, with his numerous interpretations with respect to the history of Napoleon.
[3402] Cf. Intro., p. 63.
[3403] Only that Züll., in order to conform to the number 666, must put ÷ñí instead of the äÇ÷å̇ñÇí .
[3404] Cf. De Wette.
[3405] It ought to be ð Ø÷éñø , i.e., Nero Cæsar.
[3406] Cf., on the other hand, on Rev_13:3.
[3407] Rev_1:8, Rev_22:13.
[3408] Cf. Rev_12:5.
[3409] Interpreted as “contrary to honor.”
[3410] Interpreted “denying.” Both these interpretations rejected already by Beda.
[3411] Irenaeus, Beda, Wetst., found therein an allusion to the Emperor Titus.
[3412] Stern.
[3413] Rinck, who has to reckon the smooth breathing as 1, in order to avoid the result 665.
[3414] Interpreted “Ulpius Trajan,” which must reckon ας instead of á ϛ
[3415] Cf., already, Andr.
[3416] Stud. u. Krit., 1868, p. 699.
[3417] L. VIII., p. 723, ed. Serv. Gall.
LXXIV. Rev_13:18. ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἑξ