A:
Bud,
The number “666” is what is called a cryptogram. Since ancient languages, like Hebrew, Greek and Latin, made the letters of their alphabet do double-duty as numerals (we are all familiar with “Roman numerals,” which are really letters), it was common for ancient people to conceal messages in numerical equivalents. John tells us that “666” is the number of the name of the beast in Revelation 13:18.

The popular “futurist” approach to Revelation anticipates the rise of a world dictator, whom they identify with this beast. Hoping that his rise may be near, many busy themselves trying to demonstrate how the names of modern political figures can be shown to fit the number “666.” Benito Mussolini, Ferdinand of Spain, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan have been among the plethora of powerful modern men who have been identified as the beast by some prophecy student or another.

Those espousing the popular view, which is looking for the antichrist yet to come, are called “premillennialists.” As you apparently know, I am not a premillennialist, but an amillennialist. There are a great number of opinions among amillennialists as to the meaning of the cryptogram “666.”

Some amillennialists (like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, etc.) took a “historicist” approach to Revelation, seeing the beast as the Roman Catholic papacy. They pointed out that the pope’s miter, once bore the Latin words for “The Vicar of Christ” (a term meaning “instead of Christ”). The Latin letters of this title, taken as numerals, added up to six-hundred, sixty-six.

Other amillennialists take the “idealist” approach to Revelation, and believe that the beast represents the world system or any political system, at any time, that is energized by Satan and persecutes the people of God. They consider the triple sixes to suggest “man” in triplicate (“6” is said to be “the number of man,” falling just short of the perfect “7”).

Many amillennialists nowadays take a “preterist” approach to Revelation. They take the beast to be either Rome, in general, or Emperor Nero in particular. Some of the church fathers believed that the numbers suggested the word “Lateinus,” meaning “Roman.” It is also pointed out by many preterists that the name Caesar Nero, translated into Hebrew as Kaiser Neron, would total six-hundred, sixty-six, taking the numeration of the Hebrew letters.

If you are unfamiliar with these different approaches to Revelation, you can get a thorough education by reading a single volume—written by Steve Gregg—called “Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary” (Thomas Nelson, 1997).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840721285/104-2030880-0209546?v=glance#product-details

My position is a combination of the idealist and the preterist. Like the idealist, I think the first beast represents satanically-inspired State power that opposes the kingdom of God, manifested in many States throughout history. Because, in John's day, that power was Rome, and (I think) Nero, I think the number 666 pointed that direction to the original readers.

All futurist align the number 666 with a future antichrist and suggest 2Thess. 2:1-12 is referring specifically to a future Man of Lawlessness. The least-problematic explanation I have heard is that which was held by all the church fathers, as well as the reformers and Protestants until the 1800's (and not a few others before the Reformation).

This view assumes the identity of Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" with Daniel's "Little Horn" in Daniel 7. This "horn" grows up out of the fourth beast (generally regarded to be the Roman Empire). The little horn appears to begin its career of blasphemy and persecution after the fall of the Roman Empire—that is, when the beast has been killed and burned (Dan.7:11, 23-25). Based upon this prophecy, the early church expected an antichrist power to arise upon the fall of the Roman Empire (though they did not live to see the fall of the empire, so they never identified any entity with the little horn).

This view informed their interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2. The Man of Sin was seen as the little horn, expected to rise upon the fall of the Empire, and the Empire itself was seen as the restraining power preventing that development. Among the church fathers expressing this view in their writings were Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Lactantius, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom. There was apparently no dissenting opinion about this in the first four centuries of the Church.

This view was regarded to be correct by the reformers (Hus, Wyclif, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin, etc., as well as the Wesley's, and all Protestants until the nineteenth century (when dispensationalism arose and became the predominant evangelical view). The Man of Sin was seen to have arisen upon the fall of the Roman Empire, as expected. The reformers identified the Man of Sin with the institution of the Papacy. This can be seen plainly to have been the view held by the KJV translators, expressed in their epistle of dedication to King James (paragraph 3). They had no difficulty pointing out how the Papacy's career of blasphemy and persecution paralleled that described of the little horn and of the Man of Sin.

As near as I can tell, no competing theory that has arisen in modern times has better arguments in its favor than does this historic viewpoint.