Was Nero the Antichrist?

The rise of a personal Antichrist in the last dark days of Gentile and Jewish apostasy was an undoubted article of belief in apostolic and succeeding Christian times. There have been many Antichrists and antichristian systems of deadly error, but there is yet a blacker outlook. The Antichrist to come, an apostate of Jewish extraction, will be the incarnation of satanic wickedness and the greatest soul-destroyer who has ever trod the earth; moreover, he will sum up in himself every form and phase of sin, and head the most awful system of corrupt and damnable evil ever known — a combination of Jewish and Christian profession, and “natural religion” too — in open daring rebellion against God. He assumes Christ’s place, titles, and functions on earth. He works miracles. Supernatural signs accredit his mission, and by these he deceives guilty Christendom, and thus lures it on to hopeless destruction.

It is during the last phase of the revived power of Rome when distributed into ten kingdoms that the personal Antichrist arises. This final character of Rome was therefore dreaded by the early Christians. In their minds the future revival of the civil power of Rome and the presence of the Antichrist were coeval and connected events. They were wont to pray for the continuance of the empire in its imperial form, and even for the rule of the cruellest of the Caesars, as the last bulwark against the coming sway of the Antichrist. The subject of the Antichrist was a common one to the fathers of the Church. Some held that he was the devil incarnate; others spoke of him as “the devil’s son.” The relation of Satan and the Antichrist in the traditional lore of the first four Christian centuries may be resolved into two distinct thoughts: first, that the coming Antichrist (as delineated by John), or the man of sin (as described by Paul), is a real man of earthly Jewish parentage, controlled directly by Satan; second, that he is Satan incarnate, and thus in his conception simulating the miraculous birth of our blessed Lord. The former notion is undoubtedly the scriptural one, and it is an interesting fact that Jerome in the west, and Chrysostom in the east, distinctly taught that the Antichrist is a man energised by Satan, in direct opposition to those who maintained that he was the devil in human form. “Henceforth the assumption that the Antichrist is the devil himself practically dies out of ecclesiastical tradition.” The early Christians regarded Nero and Claudius, especially the former, as precursors of the Antichrist. The almost superhuman wickedness of Nero marks him out in the page of history as the most apt and fitting historical type of the coming man of sin and blood.

Let us look first a little more closely at the schools that have been enumerated. Each has its strong points, which we must recognize. Preterism has these as the others have, worse than unsatisfying as it is, as a whole. Thus, if we look at what may seem a crucial point, it is able to resolve the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18) in a way which, if it stood alone, could not but be apparently most convincing. Thus, Farrar, who stands most boldly for this view throughout, can appeal to the singular fact that he can not only explain by it the name itself, but even the number, which in some copies replaces the common 666 — 616. The number of the name is, as every one is supposed to know, simply the number of the letters which compose it; letters standing for numbers both in the Greek and Hebrew alphabets. The beast is allowed on all hands to be the Roman empire, as identified with one of the seven heads which it carries in Revelation. "Beyond all shadow of doubt or uncertainty," says Farrar, "the wild beast from the sea is meant as a symbol of the emperor Nero. Here, at any rate, St. John has neglected no single means by which he could make his meaning clear without deadly peril to himself and the Christian Church."

The seventeenth mark is the number of the name. In the language of the New Testament, however, Neron Kaisar could not possibly make this number but "the apostle was writing as a Hebrew, was evidently thinking as a Hebrew." To give it in Hebrew "would render the cryptograph additionally secure against the prying inquisition of treacherous pagan informers. It would have been to the last degree perilous to make the secret too clear. Accordingly, the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name, that is, in Hebrew letters, and the moment that he did this the secret is revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as Neron Kesar, and this gives at once 666." "If any confirmation could possibly be wanting to this conclusion, we find it in the curious fact recorded by Irenaeus that in some copies he found the reading 616. Now this change can hardly have been due to carelessness. … But if the above solution be correct, this simple variation is at once explained and accounted for. A Jewish Christian trying his Hebrew solution, which would, as he knew, defend the interpretation from dangerous Gentiles, may have been puzzled by the n in Neron Kesar. Although the name was written in Hebrew, he knew that to Roman Gentiles generally the name was always Nero Caesar, not Neron but Nero Kesar in Hebrew, omitting the final n, gave 616, not 666 and he may have altered the reading because he imagined that in an unimportant particular it made the solution more suitable and easy."

Seven. "One of the heads is wounded to death, but the deadly wound is healed. If there could be any doubt that this indicates the violent end and universally expected return of Nero, or, (which is the same thing for prophetic purposes,) of one like him, that doubt seems to be removed by the parallel description of the seventeenth chapter, where we are told that of the seven kings of the mystic Babylon —"

Eighth. "The five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come, and the beast that thou sawest was and is not, and is about to come out of the abyss. 'The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven.' Can language be more apparently perplexing? Yet its solution is obvious. No explanation worthy the name has ever been offered of this enigma except that which makes it turn on the widespread expectation that Nero was either not dead, or that, even if dead, he would in some strange way return. Only two or three of the slaves and people of humble rank had seen his corpse. All of these, except one or two soldiers and the single freedman of Galba, had been his humble adherents. It seemed inconceivable that after a hundred years of imperialism the last of the divine race of Caesars should thus disappear like the foam upon the water. The five kings are Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), Claudius, and Nero. Since the seer is writing in the reign of Galba, the fifth king, Nero, was and is not. Otho, the seventh king, was not yet come. When he came, which could not be long delayed, for Galba was an old man, he was to reign for a short time, and then was to come the eighth, which it was expected would be Nero again, one of the previous seven, and so both the fifth and the eighth."

Farrar shows us afterwards how Domitian would serve the purpose of this revived head — "the bald Nero," as men called him.

He then gives his view of Revelation 17 in a passage which is just an example of the excessively careless and superficial manner in which he treats every subject. "Chapter 17," he says, "appears to be a political speculation, suggested by the civil war of Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian, and erroneously opines that the eighth emperor of Rome is to be the last, and is to be one of the preceding emperors restored — probably Nero, who was believed to have escaped to the kings of the east." (Phases, p. 140.) Now I would only beg my reader, learned or unlearned, to read the chapter (it is always the truest way of judging of scripture), and say if he can find the slightest ground whatever for this interpretation, or for one of the thoughts contained in it, save that Rome, and its empire, was in question, and that an eighth head was a restored one, and even then with symbols that shewed that it was shadowed out in ages long beyond John's time — correctly or not I do not now say. Where is there a word of civil wars, or three heads at once? And, further, Mr. N. certainly ought to have more classical lore a great deal than I have: still I do not understand how he can reconcile his statement with universally known history.

Now, according to the system adopted in Mr. N.'s book, John wrote in the reign of Galba, for, he says, five are fallen, one is, and Galba is the sixth, Otho the seventh, Vitellius the eighth, and Vespasian the ninth — a very curious reason for judging that the eighth emperor was to be the last. If the civil war between Otho and Vitellius is said to be a reason for considering these two as one, then it must be from historically knowing that the two emperors were, or had been, on the scene — a strange reason for saying that the sixth, Galba, who in that case had already disappeared, was then, and the seventh not yet come. In a word, the pretence that this prophecy is taken from subsisting events, is, I must be forgiven for saying, mere nonsense. And here I beg the reader to remark, that all relation to the ten horns is unnoticed by Mr. N., yet these were kings which had received no kingdom as yet. Let any one notice, not only the majesty of the statements, but the connection of the beast spoken of with the whole of the latter part of the prophecy, and judge whether the civil wars from Galba to Vespasian in any way meet the announcements of the prophecy. If the prophecy were not even an inspired book referring to future events, nothing which had then happened can be received as giving rise to its statements. A year's fighting between these three chiefs, and the subsequent accession of Vespasian, do not correspond in any way to what the author professes to unfold in his book.

But, further, the seven heads also signify the various and successive forms of government beheld in the “eternal city.” The heads are “seven kings,” of which five are fallen. The five fallen heads have been applied to the successive kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece, and Persia; others consider the reference is to the first five emperors of Rome, as Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The first hypothesis cannot be right, for it is the Beast, i.e., the Roman empire — whose condemnation of Christ and dispersion of Judah makes her pre-eminently guilty — which is before us in the prophecy. Nor can the second theory be right, for the heads are different forms of government. There might have been some ground for terming these emperors “horns,” but “heads” they cannot be. They each and all represent one head or form of government, viz., the imperial. After the mention of the five fallen phases of civil and political government the Seer proceeds, “one is.” That is the imperial form of rule which existed in John’s day — the sixth head. But another has yet “to come” — the seventh. Its continuance is but for a brief season, as the eighth, or last, phase of the empire is the point of interest. Satan’s man and king is an eighth, having his rise out of the abyss. He is thus a distinctive object, and fully entitled to the appellation “an eighth,” yet he is “of the seven” (v. 11), as the same character of rule under the seventh head will be continued. The outward forms of government will undergo but little change under the last two phases of the empire respectively arising from the sea and from the abyss. But the sure judgment of God overtakes the guilty and apostate power. It “goes into destruction,” twice repeated (vv. 8, 11).

The chapter concludes with the number of the beast, which is six hundred and sixty-six. And "here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man." (v. 18.) Many have been the attempts to unravel this mystery; but all have been in vain. And we conclude, from the analogy of Scripture, that it will be impossible to discover the secret before the beast's appearance. When at length he shall come upon the scene, those who have the wisdom of God will be able to identify him by the number given; and they will thus be divinely forewarned. The indication here afforded is consequently for those who will be in the circumstances described.

"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] 666" (verse 18). I do not pretend to solve any such question as this. It would be easy to repeat what others have thought. Some of the early Christians, especially the pious Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, supposed that it was "the Latin man." Others have found various names, in accordance with their polemics and prejudices. Romanists discovered in it the enigma of Luther, Protestants, the name of more than one Pope. Mahomet in ancient, and Napoleon in modern times have been imagined. But are such notions better than conundrums? It is not the way of the Spirit to occupy God's people with reckoning letters or numbers after this vague fashion. May we not be satisfied that this is one of the points of detail left for "the wise" of the latter day, and that when the time comes the clue will be given, and all the light that may be required? For there is in the ways of God a sort of economy, at least when we come to matters of detail and application. Just as He does not give a saint the strength to bear him through a special trial till it is at the doors, so the Lord may only vouchsafe the needed instruction about this number when the man himself appears.

It does seem no slight hallucination of mind to divert these scriptures from Judea, and to transport Rome into them. But the cause is apparent. Men had been so occupied with the controversies between Protestantism and Popery, that they naturally looked through the scriptures to find something about the pope; and finding there was one person more wicked than any other (the antichrist), they came to the conclusion that the antichrist and the pope were the same thing. Now, it is true that they both do similar things to a certain extent; but when you look into the scriptures, antichrist finds his place in Judea, and in connection with the Jewish people, in a way the pope has never done. I do not say the pope may not do so; but it is impossible yet to apply fully and exclusively what is said about the antichrist to the pope as such. There is a future system of lawlessness, and a future person at its head, who will rise up against Christ in His Jewish rights and glory, uniting political power with religious pretension, and this in the city of the great King. There are many antichrists, it is true, and the pope may truthfully be regarded as one of them; but not as the antichrist who is to come. That is reserved for the time immediately preceding Christ's appearing from heaven. He will personally affect and oppose the Lord Jesus, and will by Him personally be put down. People ought to be prepared for this; but they, on the contrary, imagine that Popery is the last antichrist, and that it is getting so decrepit as to be well-nigh sinking into its grave. But the Bible is clear that the most hateful development of lawlessness is yet to come; and that when it arrives it will carry away, not Popish countries only, but Protestant ones, and the Jews themselves, in its fatal delusions.