observes, "As the Saviour had Solomon and other saints a.s types of his comin<>, so we may rightly believe that Antichrist bad, a.s a. type of himself, that most wick~d king AntiochUB, who persecuted the saints and profaned the temple" (on Dan. xi. 35). There was e. diversity of opinion among them regarding the meaning of the temple of God, in which the Man of Sin was to seat himself. Some of the ~'atl,ers (Uhry- sostom, Theu,loret, Augustine, Jerome) interpreted the expression figuratively as de- noting the Christie.a Church; whibt others (lrenreus, Cyril) t"ok it literally, and referred it to the temple of Jerusalem, aupposing that the Man of Sin woulJ rebuild the temple, It was e.n opinion in the early Church, continuing even to the date of the fourth century, that Nero was Antichrist. Of course, such an opinion cannot refer to the Ma•i of Sin, e.s this would involve an anachronism; but can only be applied to Antichrist I\B described in the Apocalypse. Too much has been made of this Nero myth, as it is seldom alluded to by the early Fathers until the close of the third century. Nero was the first emperor who persecuted the Christians, and was there[ore peculiarly obnoxious to them. After his death, there was a general impression throughout the l{ornan world that he was not really dead, but was living in concealment in Parthia, and would return to regain his empire, "About this time," observes Tacitus," a report that Nero was still alive, and on his way to the East, excited a false alarm thron~hout Achaia and Asia"(' Hist.,' ii. 8). And Suetonius mentions that it was thought that Nero was still alive, and would shortly return to Rome, and take vengeance on all his enemies(' Nero,' 57), Mention is made in history of three impostors who personated Nero: one in Achaia and Proconsular Asia, in the reign of Otho; a second, also in Proconsular Asia, in the reign of Titus; and a third, protected by the Parthians, in the reign of Domitian. From this notion appears to have arisen the Christian idea that Nero "·ould be again raised up as Antichrist.1 The earliest notice of this opinion appears in the fourth or the Sybilline books (A,D. 80), which, however, is considered by critics to be not of Christian, but of Jewish origin. In the fifth Sybilline book, supposed to be of the time of Hadrian (A.D. 130), according to some by a Jewish Christi,,n, and according to others by an Egyptian Jew, the Antichrist Beliar is identified with Nero.• Not until the close of the thin! century (A,D. 290) does Victorious, Bishop of Pettau, in his exposition of the Apocalypse, identify the beast rising out of the sea with Nero: "Now that one of the heads we.a, as it were, slain to death, in this he speaks of Nero ; " and Chrysostom regarded Nero as the type of Autichrist.3 The great rea.son, however, on which certain writers ground their opinion that the author of the Apocalypse considered Nero to be Antichrist, was the declaration contained in Rev. xvii. 10, 11, "And there are seven kings : five are fa.lien, and one is, and the other is no~ yet come ; and when be cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast which was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition "-a passage re[erred to by Victorious.• By the five kings they understand the five emperors who had already reigned-Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero; by the sixth, Chiba (or, accord- ing to others, Vespasian: Galb ,, Otho, and Vitelli us being omitted, a.s their rei~ns were short); by the seventh, Otho (or, according to others, Titus); and by the eighth, who we.a also one of the se'l"en, Antichrist or Nero restored to life. This passage is still appealed to by recent writers who adopt the Nero hypothesis. 6 Lactantius (A,D. 30ti),
1 See Meriv,\le's 'History of the Romaus under the Empire,' cabinet edit., Yol Yii.
pp. 50, eto., S-18, etc. • See, on the Sybilline orncles and their probable nge, Drummond's' Jewish Messiah,' pp. 10-16. Accor.ling to Friedlieb, both the fourth and the fifth books are of Jewish origin. 1 LnrJner's Wurks, vol. ii. p. 9¼. • • Vict.orinus supposes the fivu kings who had fallen to be Galbo, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, o.nd Titus; the sixth, Domitio.n; the seventh, Nu·w; and the eight II, Antichrist or Nero. • As Liloke,Ewe.ld, Bleek, De Wette, Renan, Immer, Diisterdieck, and Archdeacon Farrar. Dllsterdieck and Archdeo.t•on Farrar (who, however, nppe~ undecided) suppose thnt the eighth king iM Uomitio.n, who co.me ns Nero in spi~it, and who was nlso called N~ro. Most of these writers suppose that Augustus was the first emperor, though no suflic1eut renson can l,t, 11ssigned for the exclusion of Julius Cwsnr. Reno.u commences with Julius Cwse.r, and, aooording t.o him, Nero waa the sixth emperor, whom the author of the Apoca.!ypie 5t THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALON1AN8. [oa, 11, l-17,