An extract from Elliott's History of apocalyptic interpretation of the first three noted.
1. As regards the Pseudo-Sibylline oracles, - poems which were written and circulated under that title, through the pious fraud of certain Christians, about the middle of the 2nd century, - my readers will already have learnt from previous citations given from them in this Book, [3] that the destruction of Rome, the Apocalyptic Babylon, [4] was one prominent subject in them; and with ideas about it evidently borrowed from the Apocalypse. In Book viii, more especially, it is the burden of the song. And this will be found to be the idea of the writer, or writers, as to events connected with it: - that the destroyer Antichrist, himself of Latin extraction, [5] would be the first author of its ruin; this Antichrist equaling himself with God, and being (as is hinted [6] ) the Emperor Nero restored to life again, and now coming back from Asia in alliance with the Jews; but that the grand and final destruction would be by direct judgment from heaven. “Descending from on high thou shalt dwell underneath the earth; with naphtha and asphalt, and sulphur and much fire, thou shalt disappear, and become as burning ashes for ever. [7] And every one who looks on thee shall hear the deep sound of thy wailing from hell, and thy gnashing of teeth.” - Then, on Rome’s end, there would follow speedily, according to our Sibyl, the world’s end: [8] and then, on the opening of the first octad, [9] another and better world.
2 In Justin Martyr the chief direct reference to the Apocalypse is on the millennium announced by it; which, as we have seen, [10] he interpreted literally: - how St. John prophesied that believers in Christ would reign 1000 years with Him in Jerusalem, Jerusalem having been restored, enlarged, and beautified, agreeably with the Old Testament prophecies of the latter day; after which would follow the general resurrection and judgment. Further, in regard to Antichrist, though referring for authority more directly to Daniel, [11] yet it is evident that he considered the Apocalyptic ten-horned Beast, or rather its ruling head, to be identical with Daniel’s little horn of the fourth wild Beast; [12] and each and either identical with St. Paul’s Man of Sin, and St. John’s Antichrist: also that he regarded this Antichrist as still future, though at the very doors; as destined to reign literally 3 1/2 years; and as to be destroyed by Christ’s glorious advent. [13]
3. In Irenæus again these are the two chief Apocalyptic subjects commented on; and with just the same opinions respecting them as Justin Martyr’s. But his comments are fuller.
With reference more especially to the great subject of the Apocalyptic Beast, Antichrist, he directed his readers, as we saw long since, [14] to look out for the division of the Roman empire into ten kingdoms, as that which was immediately to precede, and be followed by, Antichrist’s manifestation. We saw too his jealousy that the true number of Antichrist’s name, 666, as in the most genuine manuscripts, not 616, as in certain falsified copies, should be well understood: also how he thought that, as being in some way of Roman polity or connection, (even though by birth a Jew,) Antichrist’s characteristic title, in fulfillment of the Apocalyptic enigma, might very probably be Lateinos, the Latin Man, seeing that they who then held the world’s empire were Latins; a name numerally equivalent to 666. [15] - The second lamb-like Beast Irenæus calls the first Beast’s amour-bearer; and also “the False Prophet,” as in Apoc. xix. [16] Under a notion of the Antichrist being a false Christ of Jewish origin, he fancifully suggests that the omission of Dan from those tribes of Israel out of whom an election was sealed, in Apoc. vii., might be an intimation of that being Antichrist’s tribe. [17] His idea of Antichrist sitting in the rebuilt temple of Jerusalem, and there showing himself as God, “setting aside all idols,” in order to concentrate men’s worship on himself, belongs to St. Paul’s prophecy of Antichrist, not St. John’s; and his idea of Antichrist’s 31/2 years being the half of the last of Daniel’s 70 hebdomads, not to St. John, but Daniel. [18] Again that of “Antichrist’s fulfilling the part of the unjust judge in St. Luke, by avenging the Jews of their adversaries the Romans, and transferring the empire to Jerusalem,” is altogether extra-Apocalyptic; and I must add very fanciful. Yet on this he mainly grounds his as yet peculiar opinion that Antichrist would transfer the seat of empire to Jerusalem, and there sit in the temple of God as if he were the Christ and God. [19]
There is yet another direct point of Apocalyptic explanation to be noted in Irenæus. We find in his 4th Book a passing notice of the white horse and rider of the first Apocalyptic Seal; and explanation of it as signifying Christ born to victory, and going forth conquering and to conquer. [20] This is quite a detached comment; without any reference to the contrasted symbols of the Seals following. - I may add too that he makes the Apocalyptic altar to be that on which Christians’ prayers and praises are offered in heaven, not that of the earthly Jerusalem. [21] And so again of the Apocalyptic temple.