Was Nero the Beast of Revelation?

[steve]

Scripture shows the Antichrist attacking and capturing Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26; 11:36-12:13; Matt. 24:1-2, 15-21; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 17-18). This was accomplished by Titus not Nero."

I have no objection to Titus being identified with the Beast, but I have not seen how the number 666 is to be "calculated" to indicate him.

What I find perplexing is how any of the above scripture references could be said to identify the antichrist as the one who destroyed the temple [Titus].

In Daniel 9:26, those who destroy the temple are "the people" of the coming prince (my guess is that the "prince to come" in that passages is the "Prince of Rome"—just as the next chapter speaks of the Prince of Persia and the Prince of Grecia. These are apparently not human beings, but demonic entities associated with the rise and fall of successive empires). In any case, Daniel 9 says nothing of an antichrist, nor of any particular person (but rather "people") destroying the temple.

I agree that Daniel 11:36ff is probably about the Romans, and that the destruction of the temple is in view. However, I don't see any particular ruler, in this passage, being credited with that demolition, nor being identified as the Beast of Revelation.

Matthew 24 does not mention the antichrist, nor the Beast, at all, and does not attribute the predicted fall of the temple to the doing of any particular man.

2 Thessalonians 2 does not mention the destruction of the temple. The man of lawlessness (who may or may not be identified with Revelation's "Beast") sits in "the temple of God" (a term Paul uses, elsewhere, exclusively for the church), but its destruction is not predicted in the passage, and therefore is not attributed to the antichrist.

Revelation 17 does describe the destruction of the harlot Babylon (whom I identify as, probably, Jerusalem), but this destruction is not attributed to the Beast, nor to any man. The woman is apparently destroyed by the hostility of ten kings, who have previously been allied with the Beast (17:16). Nothing specifically would encourage the identification of Titus with the Beast here.

Again, I find this series of references perplexing, given the point they are alleged to prove. None of these passages (and no others that I know of) tell us about the Beast being the one who destroyed Jerusalem. Therefore, if this point is the whole case for making Titus out to be John's "Beast," it would seem to be a non-point. I would still be open to hearing the argument making the number 666 apply to Titus, however.

[Paidion]

If Revelation 17:10 is telling us that the contemporary Beast, in John's day, was the sixth Roman emperor (as many scholars have believed), then this would also suggest Nero.

I've checked out the Roman Emperors and apparently there were exactly seven kings in the Roman Republic.

However, it seems that Julius Caesar overtook the Republic and established the Roman Empire in 60 B.C., and so I suppose the "seven kings" of Rev 17:10 could be understood to be the Emperors beginning with Julius. The first emperors then would seem to be:

1. Julius 60 B.C. to 44 B.C.
2. Augustus 27 B.C. to 14 A.D.
3. Caligula 37-41
4. Claudia 41-54
5. Nero 54-68
6. Vespasian 69-79
7. Titus 79-81
8. Domitian 81-96

So Nero seems to have been #5, and thus to have been among the "five who had fallen". In that case, "the one who is" would be Vespasian.
John the Revelator also says that the one to come is to remain only a little while. But Vespasian ruled for 10 years. If "the one who is" were Vespasian, then the one to come would be Titus, who reigned only two years. John also declared that the beast that was and is not, is an 8th [king]. Would that be Domitian?

Then John wrote:
And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and hand over their power and authority to the beast. (vs 12,13)

How do Preterists explain these 10 kings who rule with the beast?

[Paidion]

I think most of the New Testament, and quite possibly Revelation, might have originally been written in Aramaic (which would bring us back to the Hebrew numbering system).

Do you have any evidence for your thought? All the experts which I have read on the subject affirm that only Matthew was written in Aramaic—all the rest in Greek.

The implications of "666" has almost nothing to do with the bigger issues involved in preterism.

Possibly so. But doesn't this statement require a bit of explanation?

The fact that you think it's some sort of gotcha argument tells me that you don't know much about the topic as a whole.

How is it a FACT that I "think it's some sort of gotcha argument"? Doesn't your claim that this is a fact require a bit of evidence beyond an idea that just happened to pop into your head? Only I know the facts concerning what I think or have thought. And the fact is that I didn't think that thought.

[Douglas]

Probably been elucidated before, but kind of fun.

Caesar God = καίσαρ θεός = 616

- Douglas

[steve7150]

Hi steve7150,

What??? Who said anything about Jerusalem? Of course is was addressed to The Churches in Asia. That's the "THEM" I'm referring to. There is nothing valid concerning Paidion's point! What are you talking about? Yeshua gave His revelation to John, to give to The Seven Churches in Asia. The Father knows, now He told The Son, therefore, He now knows, and He gave it to His bondservant(s)! What are you talking about????

The message was given to the intended audience, and the events, ALL OF THEM, were to take place soon, quickly, etc...






Robby,
I was saying that the Jerusalem church would be the relevant audience since Jerusalem was going to be detroyed soon. If Revelation were to be a warning about the destruction of Jerusalem why send it to churches in Asia?
Also Paidion's point was that Jesus already knew Jerusalem was to be destroyed since he warned about it in the gospels and told his followers exactly when to flee. How could this info be a revelation to him since he knew about this decades earlier and he knew it would happen "in this generation."

In your response you didn't address these points.

[steve]

However, it seems that Julius Caesar overtook the Republic and established the Roman Empire in 60 B.C., and so I suppose the "seven kings" of Rev 17:10 could be understood to be the Emperors beginning with Julius. The first emperors then would seem to be:

1. Julius 60 B.C. to 44 B.C.
2. Augustus 27 B.C. to 14 A.D.
3. Caligula 37-41
4. Claudia 41-54
5. Nero 54-68
6. Vespasian 69-79
7. Titus 79-81
8. Domitian 81-96

One conspicuous omission in this list of emperors is the one who should be #3. Notice that you have Augustus reigning until 14 AD and the next emperor, Caligula, beginning his reign in 37 AD. During the years 14 to 37 AD, the emperor was Tiberius. He was the third, which bumps all the others after him in your list, making Nero the sixth.

Some authorities prefer not to include Julius as an emperor, and claim Augustus as the first. This would then make Nero the fifth, and point to Vespasian as the sixth (skipping over Galba, Otho and Vitellus, the legitimacy of whose reigns might reasonably be challenged). I actually like this suggestion because of its ability to say who the seventh and eighth kings are, in Revelation 17:10f—i.e., Titus (whose rule was short) and Domitian (who, as one popularly dubbed a "Second Nero" or a "Bald Nero," could be said to have been "of the seven").

However, I believe it is customary to regard Julius as the first emperor—making Nero the sixth. I have never heard of any proposed schemes for making Vespasian's name calculate out to 666.

John clearly says that the sixth "king" was ruling contemporarily with the writing of the book. If "kings" means "emperors," then this would almost certainly have to refer to Nero.

However, if "kings" were taken to mean "kingdoms" or "empires," then the sixth might simply be the Roman Empire, which nobody disputes to have been contemporary with John. The "kings" (empires) would then be:

1. Egyptian
2. Assyrian
3. Babylonian
4. Media-Persian
5. Greecian
6. Roman

The one problem I can see with this identification would be knowing which empire, coming after the Roman and continuing a short time, was the seventh and which is the eighth, which "is of the seven."

[Paidion]

Thanks, Steve, for pointing out the omission of Tiberius in my list. My sources omitted him, but I should have been aware anyway since he is mentioned in Luke 3:1.

[robbyyoung]

Robby,
I was saying that the Jerusalem church would be the relevant audience since Jerusalem was going to be detroyed soon. If Revelation were to be a warning about the destruction of Jerusalem why send it to churches in Asia?
Also Paidion's point was that Jesus already knew Jerusalem was to be destroyed since he warned about it in the gospels and told his followers exactly when to flee. How could this info be a revelation to him since he knew about this decades earlier and he knew it would happen "in this generation."

In your response you didn't address these points.

Hi Steve,

I was saying that the Jerusalem church would be the relevant audience since Jerusalem was going to be detroyed soon. If Revelation were to be a warning about the destruction of Jerusalem why send it to churches in Asia?

YAHWEH had "A" message for His servants, (Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly;... YLT), specifically, servants comprised of seven assemblies in Asia (Rev 1:11 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, 'What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.).

Therefore, John denotes an ongoing "Tribulation" in the inhabited world that both he and his audience is experiencing (Rev 1:9). YAHWEH's message would of course GO OUT to believers to STAY FAR AWAY from where this destruction is going to take place. Believers were always told to flee the area when "The Sign" appeared. YAHWEH wanted to reach out to these brethren in order for them NOT to lose THEIR blessing. Why or Why Not YAHWEH does something is ultimately His business. Nonetheless, I see no relevance in your "????" regarding it's warning outside Jerusalem. If anything, that's where we should see all The Believers as The Day approaches.

Also Paidion's point was that Jesus already knew Jerusalem was to be destroyed since he warned about it in the gospels and told his followers exactly when to flee. How could this info be a revelation to him since he knew about this decades earlier and he knew it would happen "in this generation."

Steve7150, since when does "giving" something to someone equate to "not knowing it existed"? YAHWEH told Yeshua to show His Revelation to His servants! WHY? Because He was coming quickly! Everything was about to take place. What Yeshua knows, and what HE is or IS NOT able to release before the time is dictated by Our Father. He, Yeshua, released that knowledge exactly when He was supposed to, to whom He was supposed to.

God Bless!

[Paidion]

Steve7150, since when does "giving" something to someone equate to "not knowing it existed"?

Steve can answer for himself, but meanwhile I'll express my thoughts on the matter.

If that "something" is a revelation, then it was unknown to the recipient prior to it having been given.

If a revelation were given to Robby Young called "The revelation of Robby Young" then Robby wasn't aware of its contents before it was revealed to him. If Robby had been aware of its contents previously, then it was not a revelation, but perhaps a "something".

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. (Rev 1:1)

As is obvious from the above verse, it was a revelation which was given to Jesus — it wasn't merely the "giving of something".

[robbyyoung]

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. (Rev 1:1)

As is obvious from the above verse, it was a revelation which was given to Jesus — it wasn't merely the "giving of something".

Hi Paidion,

Yeshua knew Himself, and what was given to Him by The Father! Then He made it known to His servants - What is your point?

God Bless.