The beast must refer to heathen Rome and the seven heads to seven emperors. This is evident
from the allusion to the "seven mountains," that is, the seven-hilled city (urbs septicollis) on which
the woman sits, 17:9. But not a few commentators give it a wider meaning, and understand by the
heads as many world-monarchies, including those of Daniel, before Christ, and extending to the
last times. So Auberlen, Ganssen, Hengstenberg, Von Hofmann, Godet, and many English divines.- The numerous interpretations of the mystic number of the beast may be reduced to three
classes:
(a) The figures 666 represent the letters composing the name of a historical power, or of a
single man, in conflict with Christ and his church. Here belong the explanations: Latinus,
Caesar-Augustus, Nero, and other Roman emperors down to Diocletian. Even such names as Julian
the Apostate, Genseric, Mohammed (Maometis), Luther (Martinus Lauterus), Joannes Calvinus,
Beza Antitheos, Louis XIV., Napoleon Bonaparte, the Duke of Reichstadt (called "King of Rome"),
Napoleon III., have been discovered in the three sixes by a strange kind of imposition.^1266
(b) The number is chronological, and designates the duration of the life of the beast, whether
it be heathenism, or Mohammedanism, or popery.
(c) The number is symbolical of Antichrist and the anti-Christian power.
We now proceed to the principal interpretations.
Latinus or the Roman Empire.
Lateinos (Λατεῖνοςfor λατῖνος,Latinus), i.e., the Latin or Roman empire. This is the
numerical value of 666 in Greek: λ= 30 +α= 1 + = 300 + ε = 5 + ι= 10 + ν= 50 + ο= 70 + = 200
= total 666. The Greek form Λατεῖνοςis no valid objection; for ει often represents the Latin long i,
as in Ἀντονεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Παπεῖρος Σαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖος.J. E. Clarke shows that ἡ Λατινὴ
βασιλεία, "the Latin empire," likewise gives the number 666.^1267
This interpretation is the oldest we know of, and is already mentioned by Irenaeus, the first
among the Fathers who investigated the problem, and who, as a pupil of Polycarp in Smyrna (d.
155), the personal friend of John, deserves special consideration as a witness of traditions from the
school of the beloved disciple. He mentions three interpretations, all based on the Greek alphabet,
namely Εὐανθας(which is of no account), Λατεινος(which he deems possible), and Τειταν, i.e.,
Titus (which he, upon the whole, prefers), but he abstains from a positive decision, for the reason
that the Holy Scripture does not clearly proclaim the name of the beast or Antichrist.^1268
The interpretation Latinus is the only sensible one among the three, and adopted by
Hippolytus, Bellarmin, Eichhorn, Bleek, DeWette, Ebrard, Düsterdieck, Alford, Wordsworth, Lee,
and others.
(^1266) These pious absurdities are surpassed by the rationalistic absurdity of Volkmar, who (in his Com. on the Apoc., 1862, p.
197) carries the imaginary hostility of John to Paul so far as to refer "the false prophet" (Rev. 16:13; 19:20) to the Apostle of
the Gentiles, because he taught (Rom. 13) that every soul should be subject to the then reigning Nero (ie., the beast)! Even
Hilgenfeld (Einleit. p. 436) and Samuel Davidson (I. 291), while agreeing with Volkmar in the Nero-hypothesis, protest against
such impious nonsense.
(^1267) See Lee, Com. p. 687. Adam Clarke regarded this unanswerable.
(^1268) Adv. Haer., v. 30, §§3 and 4. Josephus, from prudential regard to his patrons, the Flavian emperors, withheld the interpretation
of the fourth beast and the stone cut out of the mountain in Daniel’s vision. Ant. x. 10, § 4. On which Havercamp remarks: "Nor
is this to be wondered at that he would not now meddle with things future; for he had no mind to provoke the Romans by speaking
of the destruction of that city, which they called the eternal city."
A.D. 1-100.