What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

His Number is 666

Andy C

Well-known
The first prophecy in the Bible is in Genesis 3:15, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." This is known as the protoevangelium - the first gospel. The verse introduces two elements that are the basis of Christianity—the curse on mankind because of Adam and Eve's sin and God’s provision for a Savior from sin, the Messiah (anointed one), the one who would take the curse upon Himself.

Of course, we know these prophetic words were given to Adam and Eve after their disobeying God's one and only restrictive commandment of not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For God had commanded Adam after He had placed him in the Garden of Eden, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). We also know from Genesis 3 that the serpent (possessed by Satan) had lied and manipulated Eve into eating fruit from the tree. Eve, in turn, gave some to Adam, and he ate the forbidden fruit as well.

"The enmity - the hostility and hatred - of men and demons, between whom the warfare still continues, begins here. Evil angels and also wicked men are called serpents, and even a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7), and they war against the people of God, the seed of the church, who are hated and persecuted by them, and so it has been ever since this affair in the Garden." {1}

Ultimately, however, the seed of the woman refers to Jesus Christ, who was born of a woman. And ultimately, the seed of the serpent (Satan) is the Antichrist (the beast), who will come at the end of the age. Satan's manipulations brought about the Lord's death through Judas, the Jewish Sanhedrin, and the Romans (although it was the Father's plan all along). Christ's death was considered (by God) only a "bruising of the heel" because He would be resurrected back to (eternal) life, whereas Satan and his offspring will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, the second death.

The unholy trinity's (Satan, the Antichrist, and the false prophet) ultimate fate is found in Revelation 19 and 20. "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Revelation 19:20). One thousand years (plus "a little season") later, Satan will join the beast and the false prophet in the Lake of Fire. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10).

 
There are some good questions and insights from the article:

“From the second century onward, Revelation 13:18 has been understood as a reference to the numerical value of the letters in the name of the Antichrist. Although the number 616 has some early support, Irenaeus’ testimony in favor of 666 has tremendous weight: not only is he the earliest writer to comment on the verse, but he specifically states that he consulted ancient manuscripts – ancient in the 180’s! – to confirm that they did indeed have the number 666.

Therefore, the reading “666” should confidently be regarded as the original text."

If the Textus Receptus is the correct text of Revelation 13:18, why did John use the three letters as numerals to represent the number 666 and not spell out the words (for other numbers) as he did elsewhere in Revelation and the other books that he wrote? One of the letters, the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet, stigma (previously known as digamma), was even obsolete at the time he wrote Revelation. Interestingly, the name stigma (στίγμα) is originally a common Greek noun meaning "a mark, dot, puncture," or generally "a sign," from the verb στίζω. By all rights, John should have spelled out the Greek word for "six" instead of using an obsolete letter as a numeral. Does that mean that the extant C.T. manuscripts are the correct texts of this verse (and the entire Book of Revelation) and not the Textus Receptus?”
 
On a sidenote, i don't get why a lot of bible teachers put clickbait titles of who is the Antichrist or could this be only for the article or post to say they don't know.

Why even put out those sorts of articles, as the famous catchphrase goes, "We should be focused on Jesus Christ and not the antichrist"
 
There are some good questions and insights from the article:

“From the second century onward, Revelation 13:18 has been understood as a reference to the numerical value of the letters in the name of the Antichrist. Although the number 616 has some early support, Irenaeus’ testimony in favor of 666 has tremendous weight: not only is he the earliest writer to comment on the verse, but he specifically states that he consulted ancient manuscripts – ancient in the 180’s! – to confirm that they did indeed have the number 666.

Therefore, the reading “666” should confidently be regarded as the original text."

If the Textus Receptus is the correct text of Revelation 13:18, why did John use the three letters as numerals to represent the number 666 and not spell out the words (for other numbers) as he did elsewhere in Revelation and the other books that he wrote? One of the letters, the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet, stigma (previously known as digamma), was even obsolete at the time he wrote Revelation. Interestingly, the name stigma (στίγμα) is originally a common Greek noun meaning "a mark, dot, puncture," or generally "a sign," from the verb στίζω. By all rights, John should have spelled out the Greek word for "six" instead of using an obsolete letter as a numeral. Does that mean that the extant C.T. manuscripts are the correct texts of this verse (and the entire Book of Revelation) and not the Textus Receptus?”
Ken Johnson explained that once. I've always remembered it, but I have no clue in the ton of messages on his site where to find it.

anyway.... IF I'm remembering correctly and I don't always so take me with a grain of salt....

One of the earlier church fathers probably Irenaus as this article alludes to explained the problem because it was causing a stir in his day. It was a known transcription error introduced by accident - the name of the scribe I think was known, and it caused problems then down to today as some used it to focus in on as a possible alternate and possibly the real thing.

The actual reading should be 666 and the letter number thing is because letters in Hebrew as well as in Greek of that time were also numbers. So letters stood in as numerals. When John speaks of 200 million army in Rev. that number is from the Hebrew idiom myriads upon myriads which was a multiplication of numbers that comes out to 200 million but the idiom means an uncountable number.
 
Does that mean that the extant C.T. manuscripts are the correct texts of this verse (and the entire Book of Revelation) and not the Textus Receptus?”
Many scholars believe that the so-called Critical Text manuscripts are indeed the most accurate we possess. From a lay point of view I tend to agree. But I do want to interject that regardless of whether it's the Textus Receptus, Critical Text, or any other manuscript tradition, the Word of God is still accurately conveyed to us. After decades of study I can confidently state that no significant doctrine is affected by any differences. We can be confident that regardless of what translation (provided that it's a legitimate translation) we choose, we WILL find God's Word presented to us.
 
I would offer 666 is the number metaphor used in parables to represent unredeemed mankind as the beast of the field of clay.

6 used three times denotes the end of a matter. Three is used that way throughout in parables

Like Holy, Holy, Holy. . . . God alone .

Six, six, six . . . dying mankind

The key to understand I believe is the use of the word "mark", used 8 times in Revelation. Sign twice. Having to do with the mark or power of one name. Cain

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

His name one name

Because no signs were given to wonder after believers having prophecy as perfect or complete

Seeing it is Satan not subject to the gospel (unseen spiritual understnding (the god of confusion) The king of lying signs to wonder after as is true prophecy.

He would turn the word "mark: used 8 times into a sign used 2 times not distinguishing the spiritual difference.

Signs point ahead Mark my word follows

The foundation of the mark his name (Cain) in Genesis not Revelation.
.
The buying and not selling the proverb. Buy the gospel truth and sell it not . . .with it pray for understanding (the mark of his word)

Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

Not after the father of lies the god of worldly goods. The lust of the flesh moving to the lust of the eyes the two building blocks of false pride

.Look to the Spiritual mark not an iteral sign to wonder, wonder, marvel after as if God was still brining new prophecy.

God sent the apostles Abel with the gospel marking the first martyr. Not a sign to wonder after.

God cursed the ground causing a work that was too much labor to eat to live .A punishment he could not bear not having Christ like his brother Abel

Cain the marked man knew it was the death penalty and tried to bargain for parole. By the mark of his eternal word, the Holy Father promised those who did rescue Cain from the death sentence they themselves would be under the yoke of death Not yoked with Christ as was Abel making the daily labor lighter as Emanuel

Genisis 4:10-15;And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.;And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;;When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.;And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.;Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.;And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark (not sign) upon Cain, (the mark of his name) .lest any finding him should kill him.(the mark of his name).
 
There is a lot to deal with in your post. Please understand that I am not wanting to embarrass or denigrate you in any way. You are my Christian brother. But as a pastor I need to deal publicly with what you have posted publicly.

First, and most importantly, you are seeing Cain and Abel as types; however you are interpreting them as non-believer (Cain: without Christ) and the believer (Abel: with Christ.) You claim God sent Abel with the gospel. Respectfully, scripture does not say what you believe. Rather, you are imposing on it your interpretation. This is what is called eisegesis (reading into the text), not exegesis (reading out of the text, which is the basis of all Bible hermeneutics.) Yes, faith as the basis of relationship with God is established in Genesis, but through Abraham (as is attested to in the New Testament through the apostle Paul) but the gospel (which is based on the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ) was not revealed until Christ came and died. It was not proclaimed by Abel. He was the first innocent victim of man; but he was not an apostle, nor did he carry the gospel.

You further claim the curse on Cain was to death. But God said that any who harme Cain would be punished seven times greater (Genesis 4:15). In other words He put His protection around him on this earth. Scripture just not say that Cain was destined for Hell. That would depend on whether he ever repented or not. Whether he ever did so, Scripture does not say. On the other hand, we do know Cain felt great fear for his punishment-- to be driven from the fertile land and be alone in the wilderness, away from the protection of his family and the provision of their fertile fields. The ground he defiled with his brother's blood would be cursed to him. This was his earthly punishment. But whether he ever turned back to God for forgiveness, we cannot know. However, we know after Cain went out from Eden and began his dynasty and Eve brought forth another son whom she named Seth and Seth, himself, began to have children, that at that time men began to call on the name of the Lord (Genesis 4:26). So, God --being love and always being filled with mercy, seeking that none be lost but all come to salvation-- may well have given Cain opportunities to repent while nonetheless requiring him to suffer the earthly consequences of his sin, just as happens with all of us.

I don't have time to deal with every single thing you've written, but I respectfully point out that you seem to have fallen into a common trap of finding a word in one place and applying its meaning or significance elsewhere. For example you take the word "mark" as in the mark that God placed on Cain and apply it to the mark of the beast. There is (and again I say this respectfully) absolutely no such connection given in Scripture ... unless we impose the idea ON Scripture; thus again engaging in unscriptural eisegesis rather than accurate exegesis.

Here's another example. You say "the Lord set a mark (not sign) upon Cain, (the mark of his name). And on this you are pinning the teaching you are offering. But when you try to differentiate between Mark and sign you are ignoring the fact that the Hebrew word (אוֹת --pronounced owth) translated mark actually means "sign". And then you make an unwarranted leap and claim that the mark was the mark of Cain's name! This is what I am concerned about: imposing our thoughts on what Scripture plainly says. Hanging doctrines on words and word interpretations is not sound practice.

There is no mystery in the meaning of scripture. There is no need for us to try to determine links between one thing and another. God has made plain His Word. We do not need to look for mystical concepts or hidden connections or meanings. Yes, there are definitely types in the Old Testament; but they are clearly revealed in their New Testament anti-types. This is one of the ways in which God reveals the unity and cohesion of His Word. Every --and I mean EVERY-- single thing about Christ and His ministry and sacrifice is pictured in the Old Testament, not just in prophesies but in the tabernacle (and later the temples built on that model), its design and construction, ALL its accoutrements, its rituals, and its sacrifices. And all of the lessons of the Christian experience can be seen in the experiences of Israel as revealed in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Meanwhile every single piece of Scripture from Genesis 1:1 to Malachi 4:6 is "is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). To which we may add the entire of the New Testament. But nowhere in any of those 31,102 verses of Scripture are there hidden meanings. God made His Word plain for all to understand.

With the greatest respect I must state that the type of Bible interpretation in which you are engaging is erroneous and flies in the face of all established methods of interpretation. What you are doing is not new: Many have done it over the years; but it is not right. I know you are sincere and mean well, but to take words and transfer meanings from one place to another and assign spiritual significances to them that do not flow from their immediate context leads to dangerously inaccurate interpretations and teachings. I am not trying to embarrass or humiliate you, nor denigrate your beliefs. But as a pastor given the responsibility for the spiritual well-being and growth of this flock I must stand for sound doctrine and accurate interpretation of Scripture.
 
God has made plain His Word. We do not need to look for mystical concepts or hidden connections or meanings.
I think many people get mixed up because they read "expert" essays and articles about what the Bible does or does not say instead of actually reading the Bible. This is just a pet peeve of mine. I don't care what so and so says about the Bible; what does the Bible say? It does take some time, but the Bible will interpret itself. God gave us His word to be easily understood. A good study Bible helped me immensely. (Edit) This is not to say there are not a lot of excellent and knowledgeable writers, just that you have to always verify against the actual Word.
 
Back
Top