The number of the beast is 666, but what is the number of Jesus?
We’ve all heard that, in the book of Revelation, the number of the Beast is 666.
Whatever does this mean?
And if the Beast has a number, do others?
Does the name of Jesus have a number?
Does the name of God have a number?
Here’s the story. . . .
Modern Numbers
Today we are used to having a different set of characters to represent letters and numbers.
Our alphabet of letters runs from A to Z, and our system of numbers–or basic numbers–runs from 0 to 9.
But in the ancient world they didn’t have two sets of characters for these. Instead, the letters of their alphabets doubled as characters representing numbers.
Latin Numbers
That’s why, for example, Roman numerals are composed of letters.
In Latin, some of the letters did double duty as numbers, so I meant 1, V meant 5, X meant 10, L meant 50, C meant 100, D meant 500, and M meant 1,000.
To get other numbers you had to combine these in various ways, like using II for 2, III for 3, and IV for 4.
What about the number of the Beast and the number of Jesus?
Was it St. Peter the greatest of Jesus’ original Twelve disciples?
St. Peter is certainly the most commonly mentioned of the original Twelve. He always stands at the head of the list whenever the names of the Twelve apostles are listed in the Bible. And he was clearly part of Jesus’ inner circle, even within the Twelve. He is, unquestionably, the most prominent of the Twelve.
But did Jesus give him a special role among the Twelve, a special position, or was he just more active than the others?
Jesus gives us an answer to this question, and in an unexpected place . . .
Who Is the Greatest? Round 1
Jesus took three disciples with him to the Transfiguration: Peter, James, and John. These three were uniquely privileged to witness the Transfiguration, and they–together with Peter’s brother Andrew–formed Jesus’ inner circle within the Twelve.
After these three received the special privilege of seeing their Master’s glory, it’s not surprising that a dispute broke out among the Twelve concerning their relevant ranks. This provided Jesus with an occasion to give them both a lesson in humility and a lesson in true leadership. In Luke 9, we read . . .
Luke 9
[46] And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest.
[47] But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side,
[48] and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”
Lessons Learned
It’s possible for us to learn several lessons from Jesus’ response to the disciples’ quarrel.
One is that it was foolish–although still very human–for the disciples to be concerned with rank in this way.
A second is that, as so often is the case, the nature of Christian truth is paradoxical. The one who is great in God’s eyes is not automatically the one who is great in man’s eyes. It can even be the one who is least in the eyes of man, like a little child.
That is why it is important to receive even the least of God’s people with Christian love, for to do so is to receive Christ and to receive his Father.
Another Lesson?
But there is another lesson that some may be tempted to draw out of this passage, which is that the apostles weren’t just foolish to question who was the greatest among them because it revealed a preoccupation with pride and position rather than service to others.
Instead, this view would hold, it was foolish for them to ask the question because there simply was no greatest among them, that they were all equals, with none having any special position.
That would be a little hard to square with the fact that Jesus had just taken three, who we know from other passages were members of his inner circle, to witness the Transfiguration.
Indeed, Jesus himself indicates that some are greater than others in God’s eyes, and who they are have to do with who serve others.
But we don’t have to leave the matter there, surprisingly, it comes up again in Luke’s Gospel, and the second time, Jesus gives a specific answer to the question.
You sometimes encounter the charge that the Catholic Church wrongly “changed the sabbath” from Saturday to Sunday. This claim is often made by Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. But even if one isn’t accusing the Church of wrongdoing, the question can still arise: Why do Catholics worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? Here’s the story . . .
What Day the Sabbath Is
First, let’s clear away a potential source of confusion. While it’s true that people sometimes speak of Sunday as “the Christian sabbath,” this is a loose way of speaking. Strictly speaking, the sabbath is the day it always was–Saturday–though it should be noted that traditionally Jewish people have celebrated the sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Sunday is a distinct day, which follows the sabbath. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.
Why We Celebrate Sunday
That same paragraph explains why we celebrate on Sunday. For Christians the ceremonial observance of Sunday replaces that of the sabbath. Properly speaking, we’re not celebrating the sabbath on Sunday. We’re celebrating something else, but it’s something that the sabbath points toward. As the Catechism says, the Jewish sabbath announces man’s eternal rest in God and prefigures some aspects of Christ. Sunday thus fulfills what the sabbath pointed toward.
In many parishes it has been common for the cantor or choir to extend the Lamb of God by adding additional statements, known as tropes, to it.
The Holy See has been taking an increasingly firm line against this, and now they’ve issued a clear mandate that it stop.
Here’s the story . . .
What’s Supposed to Happen
According to the Order of Mass, after the sign of peace,
129. Then [the priest] takes the host, breaks it over the paten, and places a small piece in the chalice, saying quietly:
May this mingling of the Body and Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ
bring eternal life to us who receive it.
130. Meanwhile the following is sung or said:
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Or: The invocation may even be repeated several times if the fraction is prolonged. Only the final time, however, is grant us peace said.
Got that?
If they need to extend the Lamb of God, they’re supposed to keep repeating “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” until they’re ready to finish it with a “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.”
And extended versions of the Lamb of God have been more common because in many parishes Communion is being distributed to a large number of the faithful under both kinds, and it takes longer to divide it up for the different people who will be distributing it.
But they haven’t been extending the prayer in the way that’s indicated in the text.
What’s Been Happening Instead
In many parishes they’ve been using musical settings by Catholic publishers that have a bunch of different tropes beyond “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world.”
For example:
Jesus, Bread of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Prince of Peace, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Son of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Word of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Tree of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Fire of Love, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Bread of Peace, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Hope of All, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
An unborn child at 16 weeks. Is it just a "religious matter" whether you can kill this little guy?
Abortion is a controversial issue, and at the center of the controversy is the question of whether the unborn are human beings. If they are, then abortion kills a human being.
Many people think that this is somehow a religious issue and involves religious questions like when the soul arrives.
Some people deliberately try to frame the issue this way in order to shut down rational discussion of the subject.
So let’s set the question of religious aside entirely.
Instead, let’s look at something we should all be able to agree upon: science.
What does science say about whether the unborn are human beings?
Incidentally, if you’re interested in this type of information, I would invite you to check out my Secret Information Club.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Is St. Peter the Rock on which Jesus built his Church?One of the most controversial passages in the Bible is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus tells Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
Catholics see this passage as evidence that Jesus made Peter the first pope.
Many Evangelicals look at it as just the opposite.
Who is right?
It’s an interesting question, and I’ve been on both sides of the question. In fact, this passage played a pivotal role in my conversion to the Catholic Church.
You may think you’ve heard all the arguments about whether Peter is the rock, but I’m going to show you the one that convinced me, and you probably haven’t heard it anywhere else . . .
The Basic Argument
A common claim in Protestant apologetics is that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is actually contrasting St. Peter with the rock on which he will build his Church.
The argument is based on the fact that in Greek the word for Peter is petros, while the word used for “rock” here is petra.
It is often claimed that these words meant two different things–that petros meant a small stone or a pebble, while petra meant a large rock.
The idea is that Jesus is contrasting Peter–a tiny, insignificant stone–with the great rock on which he will build his Church, which is often said not to be Peter but Peter’s faith.
How well does this argument work?
By the Way . . .
Incidentally, if you’re interested in this type of information, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
There are many gems in the writings of the Church Fathers. Some are valuable because of their insight into faith, others are valuable because they fill in things not mentioned in the Bible, and some are valuable because of their spiritual beauty.
Here is one about the Apostle John, who is sometimes called the Apostle of Love. This story alone would earn him that nickname.
It records an incident late in his life, and it is found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who wrote only a hundred years afterward and who obtained it from earlier sources.
It may well be true, but whatever degree of historical reliability it has, it touches on powerful human emotions, and it is undeniably beautiful.
The Revelation of John contains many mysteries, like: Who were the Nicolaitans?
The book of Revelation contains a lot of things that are mysterious. Some are mysterious because of the symbolism John uses, but others are mysterious because what he is referring to is simply unfamiliar to us.
For example, he refers to a mysterious group of heretics known as the “Nicolaitans.”
Who were they?
Fortunately, this is a mystery it’s possible to shed some light on . . .
What Revelation Says
The book of Revelation first refers to the Nicolaitans in the message to the church of Ephesus, where we read:
Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate [2:6].
That doesn’t give us a lot to work with. There is apparently a group of people known as the Nicolaitans who do things (works) that are rightly hated by the Ephesians.
Revelation’s second reference to them is more informative, however. In the message to the church of Pergamum we read:
But I have a few things against you: You have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans [2:14-15].
Here the teachings of the Nicolaitans are linked to the teaching of Balaam. (The word here translated “so” is houtos, which carries the idea of explanation: “thus.”)
There may even be a play on words here: As we will see, the Fathers link the Nicholaitans to a man named Nicholaus, which can be understood in Greek to mean “conqueror of the people,” and “Balaam” can be understood in Hebrew as meaning “he conquers/destroys the people” (though it can be understood other ways also).
The Teaching of Balaam
We meet the figure of Balaam in Numbers 22-24, where we learn that he is a seer who was hired by the king Balak to put a curse on the people of Israel as they were threatening to move into the Holy Land.
Balaam, however, was unable to do so. (God wouldn’t let him!)
If you read only Numbers 22-24, Balaam can come off as a good guy. It seems, though, that he went bad.
Later in Numbers, Moses is criticizing the actions of the Israeliets with regard to the women of Midian, and he says:
Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe’or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD [Num. 31:16].
What precisely the Midianite women did that caused the sons of Israel to betray the Lord is not spelled out here.
It is, however, discussed in some extra-biblical writings.
