Was Nero the antichrist ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by Mayflower
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by Mayflower
Iam wondering, that those who hold to the believe that the Pope is the antichrist, why they don't think that Nero can't be the antichrist ?

The short answer is that the antichrist is clearly someone who sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2.4) and therein exalts himself against God, meaning he opposes Christ from within the Church. Nero never professed to be a Christian. Antichrist speaks of apostasy: an unbeliever is not an apostate.

I agree with John Calvin on 2 Thess. 2.3:

It was no better than an old wife's fable that was contrived respecting Nero, that he was carried up from the world, destined to return again to harass the Church 5 by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. 6 Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God's temple--which we see accomplished in Popery.

I ask Kenneth L. Gentry this question, and he responded :

My short response to this is:

(1) The Pope doesn't sit in a temple. The church as the temple is the people, not a building, not a temple.

(2) 2 Thess 2 makes several statements that absolutely forbid the Pope being the "man of sin," two of which are: (a) He does not present himself as God (2:4b). (b) The Pope was not "restrained" in the year AD 52 (the date of the writing of 2 Thess.) The papacy arose much later in church history. (I would recommend purchasing my book Perilous Times. One whole chapter is given over to explaining 2 Thess 2.

(3) The "Antichrist" is not mentioned in 2 Thess 2. In fact, it is ONLY mentioned in 1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3 and 2 Jn 7. The whole idea of the Antichrist as held by so many Christians is directly contradictory to the only statements about the Antichrist in the Bible. Interestingly, many Christians believe the book of Revelation tells us a lot about Antichrist, despite the fact the word "Antichrist" does not occur even one time in Revelation -- even though John is the only person in the Bible to use the term Antichrist (1 Jn; 2 Jn).

(4) In the only places in the Bible where Antichrist is mentioned (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3 and 2 Jn 7) we learn that: (a) John tells us there were "many antichrists" in his day (in the first century); the papacy did not exist then. (b) John tells us the Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. Read these verses and see if you can develop a picture of: (a) Antichrist being one man. (b) Antichrist not existing already in the first century. (c) Antichrist being an apostate Christian.

(5) Given all of these elements I don't know why anyone would think Antichrist is a "professed Christian."

(6) The apostasy spoken of in 2 Thess 2 is not committed by the "man of sin." Whatever the apostasy is, it occurs in the man of sin's context but not by the man of sin himself.

I agree with Calvin that the idea of Nero redivivus (that Nero himself was to return in the first century after he had died) is a myth. Calvin is one of my favorite theologians, but I believe overall he is mistaken here. We need to understand Calvin and the Reformers in their context: They were fighting a life and death battle against Romanism. This, I believe, colored their reading of Scripture in certain places.

I can comment briefly where Gentry's criticism is weakest

1. Gentry says, "The church as the temple is the people, not a building, not a temple. " he is exactly right. No Historicist, to my knowledge, has ever claimed any pope put his physical image in the literal physical temple. The temple in 2 Th 2 is a symbol of the church, of which the people of God are the living stones. This is precisely the genius of Satans masterwork the Papacy. It is within the church and it is a brilliant counterfeit of Christianity.

2. The Pope does present himself as God. I think this sort of ignorance in our clergy about the popish church is at root of the Presbyterian apostasies to the Romish harlot. I have the following sources from Wylie's book: in canon law (Decretum Gregorii XIII. Destinc 96, Can 7.) and he is called "Lord and God" (Decretales Gregorii IX., Tit. 7.); Pope Innocent in the Decretals says of the Pope, he is "God because he is God's vicar"; Sacrum cere Moniale, "The Apostolic Chair is the seat of God", Decretum of Gregory, "The Roman Pontiff, not as man but as true God, reigns upon Earth" (Daubu 3 581). And better, trying to verify these sources, I discovered this website (scroll down to the 3rd post and you will find more blasphemous claims the pope makes to deity). Further, the Pope claims to be God in his actions, such as accepting worship, inventing sins and claiming power to remit them.

B. Historicists are well aware there was no Pope in the 1st century. The man of sin and the antichristian system is described as the 'mystery of iniquity', this is in direct parrallel and contrast with the mystery of godliness. God manifest in flesh is the mystery of godliness and this mystery gradually unfolded in the history of Redemption. The mystery of iniquity also is a spiritual kingdom, it is the device of satan for deceiving the nations. It was in its infancy in the 1st century in the Gnostics, the litte antichrists, and beginning to work to overturn the power of the presbyter and exalt a single bishop. The Roman Empire was the restrainer preventing the complete ascension of the Papacy b/c of the place of power it occupied and in the heathenish persecutions.

:ditto:
 
As a preterist who is very interested in this topic, let me clarify a few things.

Gentry makes an excellent case for Nero as the Beast of Revelation. I agree with this assessment. Most of the objections I've read come from an attempt to label the "Beast" as the "Antichrist". Case in point...

The short answer is that the antichrist is clearly someone who sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2.4) and therein exalts himself against God, meaning he opposes Christ from within the Church. Nero never professed to be a Christian. Antichrist speaks of apostasy: an unbeliever is not an apostate.

First, I must point out the Revelation's Beast never sit in the temple of God (and neither does John's "antichrist".) Paul's man of sin is a different person than John's Beast (and is also different from Daniel's "little horn".) The term "antichrist" is defined as anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ. In 1 John 2:22, John is probably referring to Judaism in general and the high priest in particular. He is someone who claims to have the Father while denying the Son (vs. 23). If he is the same person as Paul's "man of sin", it would support the idea of the high priest even more, especially since he sits in the temple of God and "is already at work" (2 Thess. 2:7).\

Hope this clears things up a bit.
 
As I like to say, Nero was not "the" Antichrist, he was "an" antiChrist. :cool:

I do believe that he was the referent to "666" in Revelation.
 
Gentry believes, or he did in his CD I have, that Paul's "man of sin" is Nero as well as the Beast in Revelation, and that the one who holds him back is Nero's uncle, Claudius. Once Nero killed Claudius he took the throne. Gentry argues that Claudius' name means "to restrain or hold back" which would fit nicely as long as the Thessaloniakins would have understood the incription. That said, it is nonsense to speak of the Antichrist as Nero alone, or any other person for that matter. Most people, due to the influnece of Dispensational's, place the Antichrist in Revelation. I always ask these people to show me where in the book of Revelation an Antichrist appears. The qord Antichrist is not even in the book of Revelation. They always point to the Beast as the Antichrist. This of course is wrong. Nero was certainly an antichrist, but not the only one. Nero is the Beast in Revelation 13:scholar: Anyway, this is my :2cents: that I will contribute to the discussion.
 
Why do we find names for people, heretics, etc. in the Pauline epistles but they never mentions Nero?

:candle:
 
Originally posted by JM
Why do we find names for people, heretics, etc. in the Pauline epistles but they never mentions Nero?

:candle:

It would have been high treason to mention the emperor by name. Hence John coded the name.

Besides, Rev 17:9 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10 they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.

Besides:
Julius (fallen)
Augustus (fallen)
Tiberius (fallen)
Gaius (Caligula) (fallen)
Claudius (fallen)
Nero (one is)
Galba was emperor for only 6 months (the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.
 
U.S. Highway 666 which passes through four western states Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah has been renamed steadily by all of the states because of the infamy of the road as "the Devil's Highway." Fatal car accidents have been attributed to its infamous number. Locals tell tales of a cursed highway. Thieves looking for souveniers frequently stole the 666 signs. Now, the notoriety has been dashed, and all of the segments of this eighty-year old highway have been rennumbered.
 
Kenneth Gentry's book isn't so ironclad and convincing nor is the dating of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D. Ask the church fathers like Irenaeus what they thought about the matter. Wait a minute, they're not partial-preterists of the Kenneth Gentry stripe either! Duh!

:pilgrim:

[Edited on 8-7-2006 by Puritanhead]
 
Pardon me if I've repeated myself, but I like to say, "Nero was not *the* antichrist, he was *an* antichrist."
 
The closing of the canon by 70 A.D. makes sense whether preterists of any stripe believe this or not. If I understand correctly what I've read prevously on this, a later date cannot be inferred unequivocally from Iraneus.
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Kenneth Gentry's book isn't so ironclad and convincing nor is the dating of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D. Ask the church fathers like Iraneus what they thought about the matter. Wait a minute, they're not partial-preterists of the Kenneth Gentry stripe either! Duh!

:pilgrim:

It is not clear whether Ireneus was saying that the Revelation was seen in the reighn of Domitian or if it was John who was seen in the reign of Domitian. Any other church fathers who say that John was written later are simply quote Ireneus. So Ireneus' vague citation is the only reason anyone would suggest a later date. However, as I have already pointed out the internal evidence points toward a pre-70AD writing.
 
Originally posted by BobVigneault
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Kenneth Gentry's book isn't so ironclad and convincing nor is the dating of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D. Ask the church fathers like Iraneus what they thought about the matter. Wait a minute, they're not partial-preterists of the Kenneth Gentry stripe either! Duh!

:pilgrim:
It is not clear whether Ireneus was saying that the Revelation was seen in the reighn of Domitian or if it was John who was seen in the reign of Domitian. Any other church fathers who say that John was written later are simply quote Ireneus. So Ireneus' vague citation is the only reason anyone would suggest a later date. However, as I have already pointed out the internal evidence points toward a pre-70AD writing.
I think the burden of proof is on the partial preterists for the early date. Kim Riddlebarger wrote a nice appendice to his book substantiating a later date on Revelation, and exposing the untenable rationales for a pre-70 A.D. date, in his new book The Man of Sin, which critiques the weaknesses of the pre-70 A.D. dating. I'm not saying it was written as late as 90 A.D., but I merely question the pre-70 A.D. dating. Revelation speaks to the events of 70 A.D. either way "” whether for the historicist, idealist, and perhaps some futurists.

Frankly, I think the partial-preterist of Gentry and Sproul stripe, don't adequately address the already, not yet tension to the nature of Christ's Kingdom. They are right to speak of the imminence of the Kingdom, particularly as made manifest in the Olivet Discourse. And the Kingdom is a present reality in one sense, but it remains a future reality that awaits consummation at the Second Advent.

When the Apostle Paul says that evil will wax worse and worse towards the end (2 Tim. 2:13), I see no reason why that is not applicable to our generation. The Kingdom grows nonetheless. I found the partial-preterist / postmillennial optimism in some areas very much misplaced.
 
But Ryan, you're the board optimist.

"When the Apostle Paul says that evil will wax worse and worse towards the end (2 Tim. 2:13), I see no reason why that is not applicable to our generation. The Kingdom grows nonetheless. I found the partial-preterist / postmillennial optimism in some areas very much misplaced."

I see no reason why things won't get better as the knowledge of the Lord floods the earth like the waters of the sea.

Isa 11:6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.
9 They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples"”of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.
 
I think the burden of proof is on the partial preterists for the early date. Kim Riddlebarger wrote a nice appendice to his book substantiating a later date on Revelation, and exposing the untenable rationales for a pre-70 A.D. date, in his new book The Man of Sin, which critiques the weaknesses of the pre-70 A.D. dating. I'm not saying it was written as late as 90 A.D., but I merely question the pre-70 A.D. dating. Revelation speaks to the events of 70 A.D. either way "” whether for the historicist, idealist, and perhaps some futurists.


No. The burden of proof is on everyone. In this case, both sides have to argue there case. If it were so cut-n-dry as to the truth of the late date no one would be arguing. External evidence is on the side of the early camp, because of the intellgibility factor. I call it this because the evidence used by the early camp fits well with what the first century church would have found to be meaningful. What good is it to talk about a temple that is standing if it was already destoyed 25 years earlier? Better yet, why mention five fallen "heads" and one that now is if you dont know which one to start your count on? It only seems fair that you would start with the first and preceed foward. Anyway, we all know the partail preterist position. I will have to read Riddlebarger's book and see if he says anything different than the Dispensational's do.
 
I am inclined to think that the burden of proof rests on those who insist that the Revelation requires any historical referent for its visions. The Apocalypse should be read rhetorically in the context of the seven churches (chaps. 2 and 3). Then the visions make perfect sense. No doubt the idealised picture finds repeated expression throughout the history of the church. These expressions, however, should not be regarded as the proper "interpretation" of the symbols.

One unexplored region of interpretation is the reason why the book is presented as apocalyptic. This has a Jewish background. At the same time we are told that ones who called themselves Jews were a part of the scene in the seven churches. There are distinctively Jewish symbols used throughout the book. At many points there are corrective visions, i.e., differences between what was "heard" in Jewish terms and what was "seen" in heavenly terms, especially chap. 7.

My suggestion is that the Apocalypse is a confirmation of the Christian faith against Jewish apocalypticism, which expected the kingdom of God to be manifested in this-worldly terms. The book teaches the kingdom victory of Christ and the saints notwithstanding the opposition of worldly forces.
 
Revelation speaks to the events of 70 A.D. either way "” whether for the historicist, idealist, and perhaps some futurists.

Did you mean "all" of the book speaks to events leading up to A.D.70? If so what sense would it make to say the time is near, and what must shortly take place?It seems to me that if the book is talking about events that fing fullfillment in A.D. 70, then it follows it was written pre-A.D.70. If not John is reflecting back in time to make himself look like a prophet. Think about it.:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top