We must be clear that as a defining aspect of our creation, the image of God in us is not erased by the fall. The image of God is not a property that can be abstracted from us; to ask what aspect of humanity contains the image of God is to make a mistake. Understood in its plainest terms, the language of Genesis 1 states that man in his entirety is the image of God.

Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 64.

Nonetheless it is also the case that at least three dimensions of this image are mentioned in one place or another in the Scriptures as the assembly’s proofs illustrate. Genesis 1 mentions that humanity was made in God’s likeness, immediately after which we are told that men and women are to exercise dominion over the creatures of this world (Gen. 1:26). Colossians 3 mentions that Christians are being remade in the image of God, and special mention is made that we are being renewed in knowledge (Col. 3:10). Ephesians 4 tells us that the new man in Christ is ‘created after the likeness of God’, and that means, at the very least, a creation ‘in true righteousness and holiness’ (Eph. 4:24).

In picking up these themes the assembly is probably not setting up ‘dominion’, ‘knowledge’, ‘righteousness’, and ‘holiness’ as a complete catalogue of ways in which man images God’s glory, although the confession and both catechisms give them unique prominence. These things are simply brought into view because they are aspects of the image of God that are severely tarnished in the fall, and restored in the sanctifying work of the Spirit. This is a doctrine which has implications for the way in which we live, as James notes in his Epistle (James 3:9). It speaks today for those who would end the lives of unborn children, avoid the company of people from another race, argue for the superiority of one gender over another, or care about chimps more than children. The image of God is important for ethics: it is as much an equalizer among humans as it is an ‘elevator’ over all other creatures.

Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 64-65.

Identifying the nature of the divine image has preoccupied students and pastors for a long time. . . .

Genesis teaches us many things about the image of God — what I call “divine image bearing.” . . .

So how do we understand divine image bearing in away that does not stumble over these issues [i.e., ascribing image of God to human abilities or properties or the soul] and yet aligns with the description in Genesis? Hebrew grammar is the key. The turning point is the meaning of the preposition in with respect to phrase “in the image of God.” In English we use the preposition in to denote many different ideas. That is, in doesn’t always mean the same thing when we use the word. For example, if I say, “put the dishes in the sink,” I am using the preposition to denote location. If I say, “I broke the mirror in pieces,” I am using in to denote the result of some action. If I say, “I work in education,” I am using the preposition to denote that I work as a teacher or principal, or in some educational capacity.

This last example directs us to what the Hebrew preposition translated in means in Genesis 1:26. Humankind was created as God’s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translation makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God’s representatives on earth. To be human is to image God.

This is why Genesis 1:26-27 is followed by what theologians call the “dominion mandate” in verse 28. The verse informs us that God intends us to be him on this planet. We are to create more imagers (“be fruitful and multiply . . . fill”) in order to oversee the earth by stewarding its resources and harnessing them for the benefit of all human imagers (“subdue . . . rule over”).

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 40-43.

From the beginning, however, Reformed theologians have incorporate also the essence of man in the image of God. Heppe is wrong when he asserts that Calvin and Zanchius did not teach this. While Calvin does make a distinction between the soul’s substance and its gifts, he expressly states that the image of God consisted in “those marks of excellence with which God had distinguished Adam over all other living creatures,” and that consequently it also consists in integrity. All the Reformed theologians agreed with this; only Coccejus, presenting an alternative view, taught that while the soul and its properties were presupposed by the image of God, they were not its content but only the canvas, so to speak, on which God painted his image. The image itself, according to Coccejus, consisted only in the gifts, as taught by 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 4:24, and Colossians 3:10. Others put it this way: the image of God consists antecedently in man’s spiritual nature, formally in sanctity, and consequently in dominion. As a rule, however, Reformed theologians continued to speak of the image of God in a broader and a narrow sense. In Holy Scripture, they read that man, on the one hand, is still called the image of God after the fall and should be respected as such (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9); and that, on the other hand, he had nevertheless lost the primary content of the image of God (i.e., knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) and only regains those qualities in Christ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). By observing this distinction in Scripture and incorporating it into their theology, Reformed theologians have maintained the bond between the physical and the ethical nature of man, and thereby also at this point (the relation between nature and grace) kept themselves from falling into various errors. Soon an additional distinction arose that was especially worked out in the doctrine of the covenant of works. This distinction answered the question what Adam had to become, not what Adam was. It is only in these three areas, the image of God in the broad sense, the image of God in the narrow sense, and the development or destination of the image of God — that is, in the doctrine of the covenant of works — that the locus of the image of God can be treated to the full extent. . . .

In our treatment of the doctrine of the image of God, then, we must highlight, in accordance with Scripture and the Reformed confession, the idea that a human being does not bear or have the image of God but that he or she is the image of God. As a human being a man is the son, the likeness, or offspring of God (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Luke 3:38; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9).

Two things are implied in this doctrine. The first is that not something in God — one virtue or perfection or another to the exclusion of still others, nor one person — say, the Son to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit — but that God himself, the entire deity, is the archetype of man. Granted, it has frequently been taught that man has specifically been made in the image of the Son or of the incarnate Christ, but there is nothing in Scripture that supports this notion. Scripture repeatedly tells us that humankind was made in the image of God, not that we have been modeled on Christ, but that he was made (human) in our likeness (Rom. 8:3; Phil 2:7-8; Heb. 2:14), and that we, having been conformed to the image of Christ, are now again becoming like God (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 1 John 3:2). It is therefore much better for us to say that the triune being, God, is the archetype of man, while at the same time exercising the greatest caution in the psychological exploration of the trinitarian components of man’s being.

On the other hand, it follows from the doctrine of the human creation in the image of God that this mage extends to the whole person. Nothing in a human being is excluded from the image of God. While all creatures display vestiges of God, only a human being is the image of God. And he is such totally, in soul and body, in all his faculties and powers, in all conditions and relations. Man is the image of God because and insofar as he is truly human, and he is truly and essentially human because, and to the extent that, he is the image of God. Naturally, just as the cosmos is an organism and reveals God’s attributes more clearly in some than in other creatures, so also in man as an organism the image of God comes out more clearly in one part than another, more in the soul than in the body, more in the ethical virtues than in the physical powers. None of this, however, detracts in the least from the truth that the whole person is the image of God. Scripture could not and should not speak of God in a human manner and transfer all human attributes to God, as if God had not first made man totally in his own image. And it is the task of Christian theology to point out this image of God in man’s being in its entirety.

God is, first of all, demonstrable in the human soul. According to Genesis 2:7, man was formed from the dust of the earth by having the breath of life breathed into his nostrils and so becoming a living soul. . . .

Belonging to the image of God, in the second place, are the human faculties. While the spirit is the principle and the soul of the subject of life in man, the heart, according to Scripture, is the organ of man’s life. It is, first, the center of physical life but then also, in a metaphorical sense, the seat and fountain of man’s entire psychic life, of emotions and passions, of desire and will, even thinking and knowing. From the heart flow “the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23). . . .

In the third place, the image of God manifests itself in the virtues of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness with which humanity was created from the start. . . .

In the fourth place, also the human body belongs integrally to the image of God. A philosophy which does not know or rejects divine revelation always lapses into empiricism or rationalism, materialism or spiritualism. But Scripture reconciles the two. Man has a “spirit” (pneuma), but that “spirit” is psychically organized and must, by virtue of its nature, inhabit a body. It is of the essence of humanity to be corporeal and sentient. hence, man’s body first (if not temporally, then logically) formed from the dust of the earth and then the breath of life is breathed into him. He is called “Adam” after the ground from which he was formed. He is dust and is called dust (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 103:14; Job 10:9; 33:6; Isa. 2:22; 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; “from the earth, a man of dust,” 1 Cor. 15:47). The body is not a prison, but a marvelous piece of art from the hand of God Almighty, and just as constitutive for the essence of humanity as the soul (Job 10:8-12; Ps. 8; 139:13-17; Eccles. 12:2-7; Isa. 64:8). It is our earthly dwelling (2 Cor. 5:1), our organ or instrument of service, our apparatus (1 Cor. 12:18-26; 2 Cor. 4:7; 1 Thess. 4:4); and the “members” of the body are the weapons with which we fight in the cause of righteousness or unrighteousness (Rom. 6:13). It is so integrally and essentially a part of our humanity that, though violently torn from the soul by sin, it will be reunited with it in the resurrection of the dead. . . . It is always the same soul that peers through the eyes, thinks through the brain, grasps with the hands, and walks with the feet. . . . It is one and the same life that flows throughout the body but operates and manifests itself in every organ in a manner peculiar to that organ. Now, this body, which is so intimately bound up with the soul, also belongs to the image of God. . . .

Just as God, though he is a spirit (pneuma), is nevertheless the Creator of a material world that may be termed his revelation and manifestation, with this revelation coming to its climax in the incarnation, so also the spirit of man is designed for the body as its manifestation. The incarnation of God is proof that human beings and not angels are created in the image of God, and that the human body is an essential component of that image. From the beginning creation was so arranged and human nature was immediately so created that it was amenable to and fit for the highest degree of conformity to God and for the most intimate indwelling of God. God could not have been able to come man if he had not first made man in his own image. And precisely because the body, being the organ of the soul, belongs to the essence of man and to the image of God, it originally also participated in the immortality. God is not a God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. 22:32). Death is a consequence of sin (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 cor. 15:21, 56). In the case of Adam, however, this immortality did not consist in a state of not being able to die (non posse mori), or in eternal and imperishable life, but only in the condition of being able not to die (posse non mori), the condition of not going to die in case of obedience. This state was not absolute but conditional; it depended on an ethical precondition. It is not correct, therefore, to say with Pelagians, Socinians, Remonstrants (etc.) that man was created mortal and that death is a given with the material organism, and therefore the normal and natural state of man. On the other hand, there is nevertheless an essential difference between Adam’s not-going-to-die as long as he remained obedient and the not-being-able-to-die, which he was to receive as the reward for his obedience. Just as in Adam’s case knowledge, righteousness, and holiness are still devoid of the gift of perseverance (donum perseverantiae), so immortality was not yet totally integrated into inamissible eternal life. Adam’s human nature was created so that, in case of his violation of God’s commandment, it could and had to die. Adam was still a man of dust from the earth; only Christ is the Lord from heaven; the natural is first, then the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:45f.). Now through his body man was bound to earth but could also exercise dominion over the earth. Dominion over the earth, like immortality, is a part of the image of God. True, the Socinians went much too far when they located the entire being of man and the entire content of the image of God in dominion. Nonetheless, Genesis 1:26, 28; 2:19-20; 9:2-3; and Psalm 8:7-9 clearly teach that dominion is closely tied in with the creation in God’s image and given with it. It is not an external appendix to the image; it is not based on a supplementary special dispensation; but being the image of God, man is thereby at the same time elevated above all other creatures and appointed lord and king over them all.

Finally, also belonging to this image is man’s habitation in paradise (Gen. 2:8-15). Holiness and blessedness belong together; every human conscience witnesses to the fact that there is a connection between virtue and happiness; the ethical dimension and the physical dimension, the moral and the natural order in the world, being and appearance, spirit and matter — these may not be opposites. Congruent with a fallen humanity, therefore, is an earth that lies under a curse; a place of darkness therefore awaits the wicked in the hereafter; the righteous will one day walk in the light of God’s countenance; the not-yet-fallen but still earthy man makes his home in a paradise.

So the whole human being is image and likeness of God, in soul and body, in all human faculties, powers, and gifts. Nothing in humanity is excluded from God’s image; it stretches as far as our humanity does and constitutes our humanness. The human is not a divine self but is nevertheless a finite creaturely impression of the divine. All that is in God — his spiritual essence, his virtues and perfections, his immanent self-distinctions, his self-communication and self-revelation in creation — finds its admittedly finite and limited analogy and likeness in humanity. . . . In the teaching of Scripture God and the world, spirit and matter, are not opposites. There is nothing despicable or sinful in matter. The visible world is as much a beautiful and lush revelation of God as the spiritual. He displays his virtues as much in the former as in the latter. All creatures are embodiments of divine thought., and all of them display the footsteps or vestiges of God. But all these vestiges, distributed side by sided in the spiritual as well as the material world, are recapitulated in man and so organically connected and highly enhanced that they clearly constitute the image and likeness of God. The whole world raises itself upward, culminates and completes itself, and achieves its unity, its goal, and its crown in humanity. In order to be the image of God, therefore, man had to be a recapitulation of the whole of nature. . . . There is not a single element in the human body that does not also occur in nature around him. Thus man forms a unity of the material and spiritual world, a mirror of the universe, a connecting link, compendium, the epitome of all of nature, a microcosm, and, precisely on that account, also the image and likeness of God, his and heir, a micro-divine being (mikrotheos). He is the prophet who explains God and proclaims his excellencies; he is the priest who consecrates himself with all that is created to God as a holy offering; he is the king who guides and governs all things in justice and rectitude. And in all this he points to One who in a still higher and richer sense is the revelation and image of God, to him who is the only begotten of the Father, and the firstborn of all creatures. Adam, the son of God, was a type of Christ.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, 550-562.

But what is meant by “image of God”? Some have argued that the image of God is found exclusively in man’s soul, and not his body, since God is a pure spirit. Of these, some have said that the soul itself bears the image of God, while others have said that it contains that image. However, it is a mere assumption to say that the body cannot be (in part) the image of God. Perhaps this notion is a holdover from the ancient pagan notion that the spirit is good and the (material) body evil. At any rate, it would seem to be more scriptural simply to affirm that man (in the totality of his physical-spiritual being) is (rather than merely contains) the image of God. In Scripture the soul (or mind) is shown to be a union of body and spirit, and not just a spirit contained within a body. In any case, man’s capacity to exercise lordship over the earth as God’s image-bearer was as physical as it was spiritual.

G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 58.

Easy riches in crypto currency, high flying stock, condo flipping, and dotcom stocks (i.e., 2017, 2013, 2005, 1999, respectively) will always have appeal, and there will never be a shortage of media shows discussing (in hindsight) the “success” stories of such “easy riches.” There will never be a shortage of paid salespeople promising more of the same.

David Bahnsen, The Case for Dividend Growth, 49.

If God be not the creator of substance ex nihilo, as well as the former of worlds and of things, he cannot be absolutely sovereign in his decrees or in his works of creation, providence or grace. On every hand he would be limited and conditioned by the self-existent qualities of pre-existent substance, and their endless consequences. But the Scriptures always represent God as the absolute sovereign and proprietor of all things. Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Reve. 3:11; Neh. 9:6.

A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 81-82.

The sovereign Creator is sovereign Savior.

God did not build a wide bridge part-way to heaven. No, in Jesus Christ he built a secure bridge all the way to heaven. Bless God that all ‘those whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30). . . . If you would like to ‘make your calling and election sure’ (2 Pet. 1:10), then trust in Jesus Christ. Yield obedience to God’s Word (Rom. 11:33).

Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 58.

“Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?”

Job 2:10

shall we receive good ] That is, be patient in adversity, as we rejoice when he sendeth prosperity, and so to acknowledge him to be both merciful and just.

English Annotations (1645)

The object of all textual criticism is to recover so far as possible the actual words written by the writer. But in order to do this properly the critic has to explain how each successive deviation from the original came to be currently adopted, and frequently he finds the clue enabling him to do this in the history of some later period, which gives some reason for a textual variation. In these researches it sometimes happens that the discoveries of the textualist are of great value to the historian; for the corrupt reading of some important document often explains otherwise inexplicable phenomena in the history of ideas or the conduct of a controversy.

Kirsopp Lake, The Text of The New Testament, 1.

It must, however, be remembered that great caution is required in deciding whether a reading is certainly corrupt or only possibly so. And the [textual] critic has always to be ready to revise his judgment. He ought always to be suspicious of readings, but far more suspicious of his own conclusions.

Kirsopp Lake, The Text of The New Testament, 4-5.

FYI – Quickly drafted this and did not proofread, so it may contain some errors. Double check sources. Speculation and interpretations all over the place.

The beast out of the earth also has a number. Verse 18 says, “Here is wisdom.” Notice that it doesn’t say, “Here is a riddle for you to solve if you’re clever enough.” Many people have attempted to interpret the number of the beast, and their theories range from the pope’s phone number, to a special number on a computer, to the name of a particular man reduced to a number by a code. These ideas are simply ludicrous. John’s advice is clear. In speaking of wisdom, he says, “Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his numbers is Six hundred threescore and six” — that is, 666. In Scripture, the number six is often a symbol of fallen man, with all his sins and shortcomings. Hendriksen explains this succinctly: “Six is not seven, and never reaches seven. It always fails to attain to perfection; that is, it never becomes seven. Six means missing the mark, or failure. Seven means perfection or victory. Rejoice, O Church of God! The victory is on your side. The number of the beast is 666, that is, failure upon failure upon failure. It is the number of man, for the beast glories in man; and must fail.”

The number of the beast, then, is the number identifying those who do not fear God. The sixes of the beast fall far short of the sevens of the Holy Trinity. So those with the mark of the beast are ungodly. They refuse to worship God, preferring lies about Him rather than the truth, and going their own way into increasing ungodliness.

Do you have any spiritual insight, wisdom, or understanding about what is going on in this world and behind it? Have you seen what this world and its ideologies, institutions, and personalities add up to? They are marked with 666, the number of human failure. John wants us to be wise about the world in which we live, which is pervaded by the spirit of antichrist. This world can be so impressive and intimidating that we are afraid to call it what it is. But John says the world is doomed to fail.

2016 AD — Joel R. Beeke, Revelation (in the The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament), 368-369.

The indication of the person who is the Beast, is described in verse 18, Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

God did not want to name him explicitly. He does not want everyone to know him. Yet He did not want him to remain completely unknown, but shows him to those to whom He reveals secret wisdom. The secrets of the LORD are with them that fear Him.

The Greeks calculated with their alphabet.  Their letters were also numbers. That means that one word can represent a certain matter, place, or person, as well as a number. This was the number 666. The Greek letters, which were used for this number, were also a number of man, spelling a human name. Shortly after the time of the apostles the number 666 translated to the name LATEINOZ [sic], the first king of the region where Rome is located. The land was called Latium after him. And the language they spoke was called the Latin language, as it is still called.

And so this number 666, which spells Lateinoz, leads as by the hand to Rome and in Rome to the pope, who established himself within the church. Then it was referred to as the Latin Church, to make a distinction with the Eastern Church, which was referred to as the Greek Church. Until today the service is still executed in Latin. The pope is still writing his bulls and decrees in the Latin language. This name and his number clearly show that the pope is the Antichrist …”

1700 AD — Wilhelmus à Brakel, Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation, Loc. 4212.

The conjectures as to the interpretation of this number [666] have been endless. Quite commonly it is supposed to express the numerical value of the letters which compose the Hebrew name KRON KSR, or “Nero Kaisar.” It is quite as probable that no individual is designated, but that the figures are symbolic. The number six is one short of seven, which denotes perfection; six is therefore the symbol of imperfection and of sin. If we triple the figure six, or to the number six add six, multiplied by ten and by one hundred, there may be a “number” which represents the greatest conceivable embodiment of depravity and evil.

1936 AD — Charles R. Erdman, The Revelation of John, 106-107.

[W]e have next to discover the form of cryptogram used by the writer, and here I will quote my friend Professor J. A. Smith of Magdalen College, who, having had much experience in solving cryptograms, has sent me the following letter (Dec. 1910): “The solution of a cryptogram with no further clue than that the numerical values of the letters composing the answer should add up to 666 was almost indeterminate. I therefore suspected a restricting addition. Assuming that the digits, decades and hundreds must add up separately, I found the possible solution much narrowed. A very obvious one presented itself in

I.

τ [tau] = 300 | ν [nu] = 50 | ε [epsilon] = 5

τ [tau] = 300 | ι [iota] = 10 | α [alpha] = 1 = τειταν

The clue that the answer must be “the name of a man” suggested the end -οσ and -ασ.

II.

τ [tau] = 300 | ν [nu] = 50 | ε [epsilon] = 5

σ [sigma] = 200 | ι [iota] = 10 |α [alpha] = 1

λ [lambda = 30] + ο [omnicron = 70] = 100 = λατεινοσ

III.

σ [sigma] = 200 | ν [nu] = 50 | ε [epsilon] = 5 = ευανθασ

υ [upsilon] = 400| θ [theta =9] + α [alpha = 1] = 10 | α [alpha] = 1

“I thus seemed to have hit upon the method employed by Irenaeus or his authority. I next applied this to the number 888 in the Sibyl. Oracles, i. 328 (apud Swete, p. 176), and find it gives at once

σ [sigma] = 200 | ο [omnicron = 70 | η [eta] = 8

σ [sigma] = 200 | ι [iota] = 10

υ [upsilon] = 400 = Ἰησοῦς

“It then occurred to me to see if anything in the Apocalypse suggested this restriction, and I thought it might be contained in ψηφισατω — literally to calculate with numbers. It was, I believe, common to use an abacus in a way which practically amounted to using a decimal system. You will see that if no column can contain more respectively than 6, 60 and 600 the number of possible solutions is greatly restricted. τειταν and Ἰησοῦς are rigorous solutions: each of the others requires the license of once having a compound.

“As regards the Apocalypse itself, all this does not advance matters much. All, I think, I have shown is how Irenaeus got his solutions, and why he preferred τειταν, and that the method is found at least once elsewhere.”

We are now in a position to deal with the problem before us. The Beast and the man are identical. In other words, the Beast is for the time incarnated in a man. There is no isopsephism [adding up number values of letters in a word to form a single number] here, and all solutions which propose the name of a country or nation are thereby excluded. Next, if Professor Smith’s method is here valid, the name of teh man must be such that in three columns of hundreds, tens and units, the total must in each case be six. The solution favored by Irenaeus, i.e., τειταν, complies rigorously with the numerical postulates, and has recently been supported by Abbott (Notes on N.T. Criticism, 80 sq.). But τειταν is not a man’s name, though it is construed as referring to Titus or to the Flavian dynasty, or to the third Titus, i.e., Domitian. . . .

But this solution will not do. The references to “the man” in xiii. 3, 12, 14 could not be explained of Titus or Domitian. We are, therefore, thrown back on Nero redivivus — the independent proposal of four scholars, Holtzmann, Benary, Hitzig and Reuss. The solution is to be sought not in Greek but in Hebrew. Nero Caesar = [Neron Kaisar = Nrwn Q(K)sr in Hebrew] = 666. . . . This solution appears to satisfy every requirement.

1920 AD — R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, 365-367.

In. v. 17, John indicates that the charagma (“mark”) is the name of the beast or the number of his name. He now reveals the number of the beast: “His number is 666.” The list of conjectures concerning the meaning of the number . . . is almost as long as the list of commentators on the book. . . . it is not difficult to understand why most commentators have understood John’s words “Let him calculate the number. . . . His number is 666” to be an invitation to the reader to play gematria and discover the identity of the beast. The interpretation is not new. Irenaeus (second century) mentions that many names of contemporary persons and entities were being offered in his day as solutions to this number mystery. Yet he cautioned against the practice and believed that the name of the Antichrist was deliberately concealed because he did not exist in John’s day. The name would be secret till the time of his future appearance in the world. Irenaeus expressly refutes the attempt of many to identify the name with any of the Roman emperors. He feels, however, that the gematria approach is John’s intended meaning but warns the church against endless speculations (Contra Haereses 29.30).

Irenaeus’s fear was not misplaced. Endless speculation is just what has happened in the history of the interpretation of v. 18, as Barclay has well documented it (“Great Themes,” pp. 295-296). . . .

Finally, how are we to understand 666? The best way is to follow Minear (I Saw a New Earth, ch. 5) and Newman (“Domitian Hypothesis,” pp. 133ff.) and return to one of the most ancient interpretations, that of Irenaeus. Irenaeus proposed (while still holding to a personal Antichrist) that the number indicates that the beast is the sum of “all apostate power,” a concentrate of six thousand years of unrighteousness, wickedness, deception, and false prophecy. . . .

The significance of the name of the beast is abundantly clear in Revelation (12:3; 13-6; 14:11; 17:3ff.). Wherever there is blasphemy, there the beast’s name is found. The number 666 is the heaping up of tehe number 6. Minear adds, “Because of its contrast with 7 we may be content with an interpretation which sees in 666 an allusion to incompleteness, to the demonic parody in the perfection of 7, to the deceptiveness of the almost-perfect, to the idolatrous blasphemy exemplified by false worshipers, or to the dramatic moment between the sixth and seventh items in a vision cycle (cf. seals, trumpets, bowls, and kings 17:10)” (I Saw a New Earth, p. 258). This interpretation of 666 as a symbolic number referring to the unholy trinity of evil or to the human imperfect imitation of God rather than a cipher of a name is not restricted to Minear. It has been held by a long line of conservative commentators [A.C. Gaebelein, J.A. Seiss, J.F. Walvoord, T.F. Torrance, L. Morris, J. Ellul, and others].

1981 AD — Alan F. Johnson, Revelation (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12), 533-535.

It is a hard thing to find out this mark or name.

[John writes] It is not only known to me by revelation, but also may be found out by human wisdom, Let wise men therefore seek to find it out.

It is to be found in the numbers of the Greek letters of his general name: for men’s names in Greek contained numbers in the letters. They had not other figures, as we have, but counted by letters.

Saint John would not plainly set down the name, lest he should make the Roman emperors offended with the Christians; as Saint Paul doth not name him that letteth [“only he who now letteth will let”], 2 Thess. 2:6-7, yet such plain tokens are set down by both, that he, and antichrist his upholder, might be known when he cometh. The truth is, this is the name of the beast, not of the antichrist; and so a national name, describing the state where antichrist should rise and reign: and therefore though it is like to be comprehended in Greek letters, in which language John wrote; yet it is not likely to be a Greek word originally. Irenaeus and the ancients, take it for the word Lateinos, which, in Greek letters, maketh six hundred sixty and six: showing, that antichrist should be a Roman, or one of the Latin Church. Others suppose his power should begin in the year of Christ six hundred sixty and six. Others, that it should last so many years in teh height of it.

1645 AD — English Annotations.

Gallagher, Edmon L. and John D. Meade, eds. 2017. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction (bold added)

“To contribute to [the study over details and contents of the Christian biblical canon], this book aims to present the evidence of the early Christian canon lists in an accessible form for the benefit of students and scholars” (xii).

Importance of Canon Lists

“More than most other types of data, the lists directly inform us the books considered canonical in early Christianity” (xiv).

“. . . this book is not a full canon history but a tool for such research” (xv).

“Citations prove to be a problematic criterion for determining which books someone would list as constituting the canon” (xvi).

“Like citations, manuscripts provide important data concerning the scriptural practices of early Christianity, but their contents are not equivalent to a canon list” (xvii).

“A chief importance of the canon lists resides, then, in their providing explicit statements on the canon” (xvii).

“The canon lists do not answer all our questions about which religious books early Christians considered important and worthy of reading, or how and why the biblical canon developed the way it did. But the lists are the best sources for telling us specifically which books early Christians considered canonical” (xviii).

Aim of this Book

“We have tried to include every Christian canon list from the fist four centuries, a terminus that corresponds generally to the period at which most scholars would say that the biblical canon had achieved a stable shape (or as close to it as it would achieve until the sixteenth century) . . . In departure from our general principle of including early Christian lists, we have chosen to incorporate two Jewish lists, those of Josephus (which is technically not even a list) and the Babylonian Talmud. Those familiar with discussion on the formation of the Old Testament will immediately realize that these two lists—the only Jewish lists before the turn of the second millennium CE – often prove crucial in scholarly treatments of the Jewish or Christian canons, so that this book would seem incomplete without them” (xix-xx).

Practical Benefits

See chart on xx-xxii. Easily compare Jewish / Protestant / Roman Catholic / Greek Orthodox biblical canons, also “attempts to present the biblical canons of these traditions in reliance on a significant Bible or canon list” (xx), e.g., for RC Council of Trent, 1546.

See “The Development of the Christian Biblical Canon” (1-56): “First, given the lack of institutional control over this matter, we might be surprised by the basic unity of the two dozen early canon lists collected in this volume.” And, “The lack of early official pronouncements on the canon means that the evidence for the development of the canon must be sought in disparate and contested locations, particularly the remains of manuscripts and scatter statements from various writers” (2).

See Appendix – “Antilegomena [meaning: writings with disputed reception] and the More Prominent Apocrypha” (261-284): “This appendix contains basic information regarding certain disputed writings, whether writings that eventually did become canonical (e.g., Ecclesiastes, Esther, Hebrews) or writings that did not (e.g., Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter), or writings that became canonical for only some Christian traditions (e.g., Tobit, Jubilees)” (261)

Constantine was a heathen who was educated in the Christian religion. He accepted the Christian religion and professed it. He overthrew the heathen empire and exterminated all idolatrous religions. He implemented Christian governments all over, gave the order to build many temples, and did everything that a caretaker of the church would do. There are many stories about his virtues, and many of his excellent words and statements have been related. We use them to contradict those previously mentioned stories. It is enough for us that he was a son of the church and professed Christ. He also did much for the Name of Christ.

à Brakel, Wilhelmus. Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation, Loc. 3581.