Various explanations have been offered for the meaning of the number “666.” We will consider several below:

Emperor Nero?

Hebrew, Latin, and Greek letters have numeric equivalents. If we spell Caesar Nero as “Kaisar Neron,” which is the Hebrew equivalent (or transliteration), then we can add up the number of each letter. John spells other names with Hebrew endings—such as Abaddon, Apollyon, and Armageddon—so this isn’t too far removed from his normal practice.

In his book The Bible Answer Book, Preterist Hank Hanegraff writes, “Twenty-first century believers, like their first-century counterparts, can be absolutely certain that 666 is the number of Nero’s name and that Nero is the beast who ravaged the bride of Christ in a historical milieu.”^[1] Some interpreters believe that this was purposely encoded to describe Nero, so that Christians wouldn’t be openly persecuted by the Roman government.^[2] However, we might respond, if Nero was already dead at the time of this book’s writing (AD 95), why would believers be afraid of persecution from him? Even the Roman senate knew Nero was insane, censuring him in AD 68. In addition to this, there are several other problems with this interpretation:

First, it is easy to force a meaning using this methodology. For instance, it’s suspicious that we need to transliterate Nero’s name into Hebrew before adding up the numbers. Why couldn’t we just add up the numerical value in Greek? Moreover, if we transliterate into Latin, we get similar results. Some early manuscripts read “616” rather than “666.” Osborne notes, “The Latin form of ‘Nero Caesar’ transliterated into Hebrew adds up to 616.”^[3] This makes us wonder if we’re really discovering a meaning or if we’re creating one. Dr. George Salmon (mocking the idea of trying to use gematria to figure out who 666 refers to) aptly writes,

First, if the proper name by itself will not yield it, add a title; secondly, if the sum cannot be found in Greek, try Hebrew, or even Latin; thirdly, do not be too particular about the spelling… We cannot infer much from the fact that a key fits the lock if it is a lock in which almost any key will turn.^[4]

Second, it isn’t clear if we should transliterate Nero’s name in this way. Osborne writes, “The major problem is that the primary spelling of “Caesar” in Hebrew is קיסר, and the added yodh would make the tally 676. However, Aune (1998a: 770) points to an Aramaic document from Wadi Murabba at that transliterates “Nero Caesar” without the yodh, so this remains a possibility.”^[5]

Third, if this interpretation was so obvious, why wasn’t it discovered by the early church fathers? Osborne writes, “The greatest problem of linking 666 with ‘Nero Caesar’ is the absence of such an interpretation in the church fathers.”^[6]

Caligula?

Some early manuscripts state the number is actually 616 (see the NASB footnote). If this is the correct reading, then this number could refer to Roman Emperor Caligula. Walvoord writes, “Reading the number as 616 instead of 666, others find it referring specifically to Caligula (Gaius Caesar) as the Antichrist. The 616 is derived from the numerical equivalents of the Greek letters for Gaius Caesar written in the style of Caligula. Or if the Latin equivalents are used, the number 616 is reached by dropping the final n. The connection is made with Antichrist on the similarity of these Roman rulers to the future Antichrist.”^[7]

Rome in general?

Walvoord writes, “A number of other suggestions are made in that the six Roman numerals, that is, I, V, X, L, C, D, add up to 666.”^[8] Under this view, the 666 would refer to the entire Roman Empire. This, however, seems to preclude the notion that the Antichrist is a personal being, rather than a nation (c.f. comments on Rev. 13:1). However, this view is certainly a strong possibility.

The Pope?

Interpreters throughout church history have commonly accused the current Pope as being the Antichrist. Various interpreters have argued this because the Antichrist comes from the city with seven hills (Rev. 17:9). This is thought to refer to Rome, which had seven hills surrounding it. Since the papacy is based in Rome, some Protestant interpreters argue that this is good grounds for thinking that the Antichrist will come from the papacy. Currently, since Pope Francis is of Italian descent, various interpreters have revived this theory with intensity (one YouTube video with almost half a million hits boasts “100% Proof Pope Francis is Antichrist”).

While this author disagrees with various Catholic doctrines, he sees no reason to believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. For one, Revelation 17:10 states that the “seven hills” actually refer to seven kings or kingdoms: “They are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come.” At the time John wrote this, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece were in the past (“five have fallen”). Rome was currently in power (“one is”). And the kingdom of the Antichrist will occur in the still future (“the other has not yet come”).

In addition, John says that we can identify the Antichrist based on his view of Jesus. He writes, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; ³ and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world” (1 Jn. 4:2-3). Of course, the current Pope affirms the classic doctrines of Jesus’ deity and incarnation. So, this wouldn’t fit with this theory.

Symbolic of being less than Jesus?

This interpretation holds that the “666” is symbolic of being less than Jesus’ name, which can be added up to 888. The Sibylline Oracles write Jesus’ name as “888” (1.324). Osborne writes, “The name Jesus adds up to 888 (Ι = 10; η = 8; σ = 200; ο = 70; υ = 400; ς = 200), an interesting contrast to the number of the beast, 666.”^[9]

The problem with this view is twofold: First, it doesn’t explain why we need to “calculate” or literally “count” the number of the Beast. Second, it doesn’t show us how this number can help us to identify a single person.

Symbolic for humanity?

Humans were created on the sixth day (Gen. 1:25-31). Humans were also instructed to work for six days and to rest on the seventh (Ex. 20:9-10). By contrast, the number seven (used 54 times throughout Revelation—more than any other number) refers to the completion and perfection of God. Thus, under this view, the numbers 666 would refer to the humanity and imperfection of the Antichrist. Thus, John is not referring to the number of a specific “man,” but to the number “of man[kind].” Morris holds this view, and he writes, “John will then be saying that unregenerate man is persistently evil. He bears the mark of the beast in all he does. Civilization without Christ is necessarily under the dominion of the evil one.”^[10]

Once again, the problem with this view is twofold: First, it doesn’t explain why we need to “calculate” or literally “count” the number of the Beast. Second, it doesn’t show us how this number can help us to identify a single person.

Conclusion

We currently do not have a clue what this number means. However, we should trust that later generations will understand its meaning, as human history comes to a close. As God told Daniel regarding the end of history: “None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand” (Dan. 12:10 NIV).

^[1] Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Book: Volume 2 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006), #78 “What is the Meaning of 666?”

^[2] Walvoord writes, “J. B. Smith concludes that Nero is the one who is intended, with the reference purposely obscure to avoid persecution.” John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Galaxie Software, 2008), 209.

^[3] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 520.

[4] George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 230-231 (followed by Bruce, “Revelation,” 1616-17) quoted in Beale, Revelation, NIGTC, p. 721.

^[5] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 520.

^[6] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 521.

^[7] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Galaxie Software, 2008), 210.

^[8] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Galaxie Software, 2008), 209.

^[9] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 519.

^[10] Leon Morris, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 168-169.