Number of the Beast in the Book of Revelation

Below is the 24th of multiple excerpts of commentary on the Book of Revelation from The Parousia, the late 19th-century masterpiece on the Second Coming by James Stuart Russell:

"The Number of the Beast. [Revelation 13:18 -- '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' [Greek: hexakosioi (six hundred) hexekonta (sixty) hex (six)].] "We now come to the question which has exercised the ingenuity of critics and commentators almost since the day it was first propounded, and which even yet can hardly be said to be solved, viz. [that is] the name or number of the beast. Without wasting time on the various answers that have been given, it may suffice to make one or two preliminary remarks on the conditions of the problem. "1. It is evident that the writer considered that he was giving sufficient data for the identification of the person intended. It is also presumable that he meant not to puzzle, but to enlighten, his readers. "2. It is equally evident that the explanation does not lie on the surface. It requires wisdom to understand his words: it is only the man ‘who hath understanding’ that is competent to solve the problem. "3. It is plain that what he intends to convey to his readers is the name of the person symbolised by the beast. His name expresses a certain number; or, the letters which form his name, when added together, amount to a certain numerical value. "4. The name or number is that of a man,---i.e. it is not a beast, nor an evil spirit, nor an abstraction, but a person, a living man. "5. The number which expresses the name is, in Greek characters, χξς [chi, xi, sigma] , or in numerical value six hundred threescore and six. "We have already, on entirely independent grounds, arrived at the conclusion that by the apocalyptic beast is intended the reigning emperor, Nero. It is his name, therefore, that ought to fulfill, not indeed obviously, nor without some research, yet satisfactorily and conclusively, all the conditions of the problem. That emperor’s name would be written in three ways, according as it was expressed in one or other of the three languages, the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew: in Latin, Nero Caesar; in Greek, Neron Kaisar; in Hebrew, Nrwn Qsr. "St. John was not writing to Romans, nor in the Latin tongue, so that the first form may be at once set aside. He was writing, however, in Greek, and to readers well acquainted with Greek, though most of them probably of Jewish blood. It is probable that most of them would at once, and instinctively, pronounce the dreaded name. If so they would feel at a loss, for the Greek letters Neron Kaisar would not make up the numbers required [six hundred and sixty-six]. "But if this had been all that was necessary, the name would have lain upon the surface, patent and palpable to the dullest apprehension. It would have required neither wisdom nor understanding to read the riddle. The reader must try another method. St. John was a Hebrew, and though he wrote in Greek characters, his thoughts were Hebrew, and the Hebrew form of the Imperial name and title was familiar to him and to his Hebrew-Christian friends both in Asia Minor and Judea. It might not unnaturally occur to the reflecting reader to calculate the value of the letters which expressed the emperor’s name in Hebrew. And the secret [in Hebrew numerical value] would stand disclosed:--- "N=50 "R=200 "W=6 "N=50 [Nrwn=] 306 "Q=100 "S=60 "R=200 [Qsr=] 360 306+360=666 "Here, then, is a number which expresses a name; the name of a man, of the man who, of all then living, best deserved to be called a wild beast: the head of the Empire, the master of the world; claiming to be a god, receiving divine honours, persecuting the saints of the Most High; in short, answering in every particular to the description in the apocalyptic vision. If it should be asked, Why should the prophet [John] wrap up his meaning in enigmas? Why should he not expressly name the individual he means? First, the Apocalypse [Book of Revelation] is a book of symbols: everything in it is expressed in imagery, which requires translation into ordinary language. But, secondly, it would not have been safe to speak more plainly. To have openly stated the name of the tyrant, after describing and designating him in the manner employed in the Apocalypse, would have been rash and imprudent in the extreme. Like St. Paul when describing ‘the man of sin,’ [2 Thess. 2:3] St. John veils his meaning under a disguise, which the heathen Greek or Roman would probably fail to penetrate, but which the instructed Christian of Judea or Asia Minor would readily see through. "It is a strong confirmation of the accuracy of this interpretation that we have another enigmatical description of the very same personage from the hand of St. Paul. We have already seen the proof that ‘the man of sin’ delineated in [2] Thess. ii. [2 Thess. 2:3] is no other than Nero, and the comparison of the two portraitures shows how striking is their resemblance to one another and to the original. This correspondence cannot be a curious coincidence merely; it can only be accounted for by the supposition that both apostles had the same in view."