Can the Final Antichrist be Islamic?

Some wonder if the rise of Islamic terrorism is a sign that the final Antichrist might be Islamic.

Joel Richardson and "The Islamic Antichrist"

Years ago, someone forwarded me a couple of articles related to author Joel Richardson who believes that Europe will not rise up and become the Beast power that the Bible warns about. Here is the beginning of one of them:

There are many problems with the above. But the one to mention here is that the Bible does not say that the Beast power will only have ten nations. Notice what the Bible actually states:

The above prophecy is clear that the Beast power will be composed of ten kings who did not previously have a specific kingdom. Or in words, the prophecy in Revelation 17:12-13 is most certainly not teaching that the Beast power will be composed of ten nations in the form that they existed prior to some type of structural reorganization. (We have an extensive article on this point titled Must the Ten Kings of Revelation 17:12 Rule over Ten Currently Existing Nations?). The fact that some prophecy “experts” may have indicated otherwise does not in fact change the actual prophecy from the Bible.

The term translated in English from the Greek in Revelation 17:12, basileís (Greek characters βασιλεïς), as “kings,” essentially means "possessor of the highest office of a political realm" (Bauer’s A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Church Literature, 3rd edition. FW Danker editor. 2000, University of Chicago Press, pp. 169-170).

Also the biblical fact that these ‘kings’ had no kingdom prior to becoming kings also helps prove that this is not a reference to ten currently existing nations. Furthermore, the term translated in English as "kingdoms" from the Greek in Revelation 17:12, basileín (Greek characters βασιλεíαν), means "royal administrations" (Ibid, pp. 168-169) is not specifically referring to existing nations.

It also should be noted that the Greek terms normally translated as “nation” or “nations” (Strong’s word 1484) is not used in Revelation 17:12. Although the term for nations is in that chapter (verse 15), it is not part of what is happening in Revelation 17:12 or 17:13. If God wanted to specify ten existing nations, He could have inspired Revelation 17:12 to be worded differently.

Yet, some have oddly concluded that Revelation 17:12 specifies that ten currently existing nations, and only ten currently existing nations, will turn their power over to ten new leaders (who will then give it to the final Beast). But that limitations on ten existing nations is not consistent with what the Greek states. And while one does not need to be an expert in Greek to understand the Bible, one should not insist that the Greek states something it does not if one truly wants to understand the Bible.

However, it is precisely because there will be problems in Europe that it will need a powerful leader to rise up and lead it. The Bible is clear that the union in the Beast’s territories will be “fragile”:

Perhaps it should also be mentioned that while there are problems in Europe, Pope Francis says despite Europe's problems, he dreams of his church turning Europe into a utopia:

And a church being involved with the final Babylonian European power is prophesied in the Bible:

Now, there certainly is a church in a city of seven hills that has ruled over many waters. It ruled over kings and governors in both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres of the world.

Some Protestants have said that the Church of Rome is ruled out because Vatican City is not within the seven hills of ancient Rome.

Yet, St. John’s Lateran church, which is its premier cathedral (as it supposedly holds the 'cathedra' of the Church of Rome) and which my wife and I have visited, has the following outside of it in many places:

The inscription from Latin above translated into English means, “Sacred Lateran Church Mother and Head of All Churches of the City and the World.” It is within the seven hills of ancient Rome and is closest to Caelian Hill (Cælius, Celio).

The Beast who works with the Antichrist is NOT Islam. Europe is north of Jerusalem and the one that will become the King of the North (Daniel 11:40) will lead an empire that had roots in the old empire of Rome (Daniel 9:26-27).

The “Great Sea” that bordered the ancient lands of Israel (Numbers 34:6-7; Joshua 1:4; 9:1; 23:4; Ezekiel 47:13-16) is the Mediterranean Sea--and that is the sea that Daniel was referring to. Despite some false claims by some, the Beast power is not a nation like Russia, which does not border the Mediterranean Sea, but Europe which does (Russia, however, will be a factor in eliminating the European beast power, see also The Eurasian Union, the Kings of the East, and Bible Prophecy). A comparison of the beasts in Revelation 13 and Daniel 7 shows that they share many of the same characteristics (for some details, you may wish to watch the YouTube video Can You Prove that the Beast to Come is European?).

Europe is the power that will control the "Great Sea." And while the southern border of the Mediterranean Sea is currently under Arab control, the Bible shows that the King of the North will take over the confederated power of nations in Africa and the Middle East that are primarily Islamic (Daniel 11:40-43; Ezekiel 30:1-9).

According to the Bible, it will be a European power that will rise up (Daniel 9:26-27). Notice what the book 2012 and the Rise of the Secret Sect teaches:

Early writers basically all felt that the 666 was stamped on the Roman Empire. Nero was probably the first person that some in the Christian era suspected. To suggest that the early Christians did not consider that the European Roman Empire was to be the final Beast power is inaccurate. The Roman Empire, though having territories in the Middle East, was based in Europe.

Furthermore, both Protestant and Catholic commentators (Daniel 7:7-8. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press) and The Prophecies of Daniel. The Original And True Douay Old Testament Of Anno Domini 1610, Volume 2. Prepared and Edited by Dr. William von Peters, Ph.D. Copyright © 2005, Dr. William G. von Peters. Ph.D. 2005 copyright assigned to VSC Corp., p. 732) agree that the last of the four kingdoms in Daniel 7:7–8 is the Roman Empire.

Beyond that the King of the North is based NORTH of Jerusalem, and while that is possible for an Islamic leader, consider that there is a King of the South that the Bible mentions, with many of the territories south of Jerusalam and all of them dominated by Islam.

Further getting back to his interpretation of the Bible, Joel Richardson also wrote:

But Joel Richardson has failed to notice several items related to the context of the location. Notice some of what the book 2012 and the Rise of the Secret Sect teaches:

The Bible is clear that there will be both a King of the North AND a King of the South (Daniel 11:27-45). Only Europe meets all the biblical criteria for the final King of the North–and the one commonly called Antichrist (although there are many antichrists) is aligned with the King of the North.

Consider that Islam is in north Africa and the Middle East, and for it to go south and east, it only would cover Africa and possibly other regions only in the Southern Hemisphere. Islam cannot be the final Antichrist.

City of Seven Hills

He then tries to explain why he does not feel that the final empire can be Roman. But there are several points that he did not seem to address well in that book. He seems to confuse the empires in Daniel with those in Revelation (which is apparently how he came up with his list), plus he adds two (Egyptian and Assyrian, which were pre-Daniel) in order to get to his list.

His book seems to forget about the “Holy Roman Empire” and its many revivals (his book does not use the term "Holy Roman Empire")--they fit into the so-called “glaring hole” (for specific details on the how the Holy Roman Empire fits the related prophecies in Revelation, check out the article Europa, the Beast, and the Book of Revelation).

Joel Richardson teaches that essentially each of the empires had a different religion. This is really not consistent with what the Book of Revelation teaches.

It is the same woman "drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." There were no martyrs specifically of Jesus” until after He came. Yet, in Joel Richardson’s list, five of his empires were gone prior to the birth of Christ. This is part of his own "gaping hole."

The first is to remember that the Bible clearly shows that the “woman” is based in a city:

Several of the six empires that Joel Richardson listed did not have anything to do with a specific "great city."

The second is that there is one very famous city that is located on seven hills/mountains. It is known as "the city of seven hills." It is universally recognized that Rome is the city of seven mountains. This fact is also noted by various Protestant and even Catholic theologians. One such Catholic writer would be Yves Dupont who wrote in his book Catholic Prophecies,

Other than Ammon Jordan, Rome is apparently one of few great cities in the world to have precisely seven hills/mountains--though there may be some less important cities with seven mountains, and there are also seven near Constantinople/Istanbul. Notice the following:

While Rome itself was the ruling city of the Western world for several centuries, the Roman Catholic Church, whose headquarters cathedra is completely within the boundaries of Rome, has maintained tremendous influence over kings and governments of the earth for even more centuries (and in the end, an Antipope is expected to rise up according to various prophecies).

Mecca is Not Mystery Babylon

Joel Richardson has various comments about the USA, Mecca, and ‘Mystery Babylon’:

First, let me state that I agree that there is much evil in the USA (see, for example, Is the USA now an Evil Empire?). Secondly, I agree with Joel Richardson that the USA is not the final end time Mystery Babylon the Great of Revelation 17 and 18.

But, Joel Richardson and others who believe that it is Mecca are totally wrong for many reasons.

Well, this is basically an erroneous interpretation of scriptures. The most commonly misinterpreted one for this is in Isaiah 21:

What the misinterpreters tend to do here is to try to try this in with passages that follow, which are warnings to other locations.

If you actually look at Isaiah 21, you will notice that it is a prophesy to the Wilderness of the Sea.

The “Great Sea” that bordered the ancient lands of Israel (Numbers 34:6-7; Joshua 1:4; 9:1; 23:4; Ezekiel 47:13-16) is the Mediterranean Sea–and that is the sea that Daniel was referring to. Despite some false claims by some, the Beast power is not a nation like Russia, which does not border the Mediterranean Sea, but Europe which does (Russia, however, will be a factor in eliminating the European beast power, see also The Eurasian Union, the Kings of the East, and Bible Prophecy). A comparison of the beasts in Revelation 13 and Daniel 7 shows that they share many of the same characteristics (for some details, you may wish to watch the YouTube video Can You Prove that the Beast to Come is European?).

Europe is the power that will control the “Great Sea.” And while the southern border of the Mediterranean Sea is currently under Arab control, the Bible shows that the King of the North will take over the Arab powers (Daniel 11:40-43; Ezekiel 30:1-9). The Bible shows that the Kings of the Medes (essentially associated with certain nations once part of the old Soviet Union) will destroy end time Babylon (Jeremiah 51:11).

Joel Richardson has apparently overlooked the idea of the city of Mystery Babylon being on seven hills/mountains as he has falsely claimed that the seven mountains are only symbolic.

Jack Smith and Laurie Cardoza-Moore Also Makes Claims

Jack Smith wrote a book titled Islam - the Cloak of Antichrist in Bible Prophecy. Here is what he says about it:

Let me also add here that Ezekiel 38 and 39 do not happen until well after Jesus returns. For more detials on that point, check out Ezekiel 38: For Russia & Iran in Our Day?

Israel advocate Laurie Cardoza-Moore, after showing some similarities between biblical understandings of the Antichrist and Islamic prophecies of the Imam Mahdi, boldly stated:

But even the similarities she showed, such as the stating Antichrist going from Europe to Jerusalem and that the Mahdi moves from Medina to Mecca, are more like differences. She had no proof for her bold conclusion.

Could Turkey's President Erdoğan Be the Final Antichrist?

Not content to be wrong in general, Joel Richardson made a specific identification of an individual he claims could be the final Antichrist.

World News Daily is reporting that Joel Richardson believes that Turkey’s President Erdoğan is either the final Antichrist or essentially his close predecessor:

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is not the final Antichrist (see Some Doctrines of Antichrist). Nor is the final Antichrist apt to come out of Turkey.

While Turkey is mentioned in biblical prophecies (watch What Should You Know About Turkey in Prophecy), Joel Richardson completely misunderstands both about Turkey as well as the possible identity of the final Antichrist.

As far as the final Antichrist goes, he will be primarily a religious, not political leader. All the verses in the Bible that mention the term ‘antichrist’ or antichrists’ are referring to someone in a religious context (see 2 John 7, 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, and 1 John 4:3). Furthermore, the final Antichrist will claim to be some type of Christian (in my view, he will claim to accept some changed version of Roman Catholicism).

While I believe that Bible prophecy shows that Turkey will turn against the USA (cf. Psalm 83:3-8), that does not mean that the final Antichrist has to be Turkish (that seems quite unlikely as nearly all Turks are Muslim).

The Final Antichrist is Not Islamic

Here are a couple of other statements from Joel Richardson's book The Islamic Antichrist:

After claiming that, Joel Richardson then explains that if present trends continue that Islam will be the predominant religion of the world in a relatively few years. Now, he is correct that Islam is growing, but what he does not realize is that this growth is fostering enough resentment in Europe, that this will lead a larger backlash against Islam. With the concern about immigrants, the banning of burqas and other rules, Europeans are starting to stand against Islam. And as Islam tries to intrude more into Europe, the re-emergence of a religious Europe to counter Islam is what will come to pass.

Like some who even claim COG affiliation, this Joel Richardson gives his reasons, but they are in error.

The Islamic Mahdi better meets the geographic region for the final King of the South, not the King of the North. Most of the Arab nations are south of Jerusalem, while nearly all the European nations are basically north of it. Even Iran, a country that is working towards the emergence of the Mahdi, does not meet the geographic criteria for either King (though it may support the coming King of the South). Since the final Beast power is also the one known as the King of the North, Joel Richardson’s views of an Islamic Antichrist do not fit his own criteria about location. Antichrist, in the normally-used sense, will be involved with a European power (and he will be primarily a religious leader–the final Antichrist is the False Prophet of Revelation, as opposed to being the final Beast).

The reality is that while an Islamic leader will rise up, he will be the final King of the South, not the final King of the North. It is the Beast power of the King of the North that the final Antichrist will be aligned with.

Thus, Joel Richardson’s interpretations are in error from a biblical perspective.

Only Four Verses in the Bible Mention Antichrist

The terms 'antichrist' and 'antichrists' are only used in the Bible five times (four and one respectively) and are found in four verses of the Bible, all written by the Apostle John. Those verses are 2 John 7, 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, and 1 John 4:3. And since all of them discuss some aspect of theology, it is clear that the final Antichrist is mainly a religious figure.

This scripture says that antichrist is a deceiver who does 'not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.' This existed prior to Islam which did not come on the scene until the early 7th century. Notice also that false prophets are called antichrists. And as it turns out, the one in the Bible who meets the criteria to be the final Antichrist is identified as the "false prophet" in the Book of Revelation.

So, we see that there are MANY antichrists. And there is also indicated that there is a particular, final Antichrist. John is also warning that the Antichrist will be one who claims to have been part of the true Christian church. That is not how Islam sees itself. (More on Antichrist can be found in the article Some Doctrines of Antichrist.)

While it can be safely assumed that the Islamic leader will be anti-Christ, the prophesied Antichrist that many expect is NOT Islamic, but will have European ties and claim (for a time) some version of modified 'Christianity.'

However, because of radical Islam and the affects of Islamic migrants around the world, many SEE Islam as the threat. But as Christians:

Joel Richardson's Documentary

Islam has many points wrong about Jesus. Jesus was NOT a Muslim nor will He attempt to convert the world to Islam nor will He use demonic spirits called the djinn to attempt to do so. Jesus is the Son of God, He was crucified, and He was resurrected from the dead. He did not inspire the Qur’an. Though the Mahdi is a type of antichrist, he is not THE Antichrist.

The Islamic year 1437 AH runs from approximately 14 October 2015 to 2 October 2016.

Islamic has the right time frame for its claimed Mahdi, but he still will not be THE Antichrist.

Notice also the following:

January 17, 2016

The Bible also speaks of an Antichrist who will rise up in the last days. Richardson said he believes the Antichrist will be a Muslim. In fact, the biblical description of the Antichrist closely resembles the Islamic Mahdi, who Muslims believe will come to rule the world before the Day of Judgment.

“When you look at the Islamic traditions concerning the Mahdi, he has many striking similarities to the biblical Antichrist,” Richardson said. “They actually teach that he will rule the world specifically from the Temple Mount, exactly as the Bible says the Antichrist will set up his seat, in the seat of God on the Temple Mount, proclaiming himself as God.” ...

“And so in many ways, the Jesus of Islamic eschatology has many similarities to the biblical false prophet that’s referenced in Revelation 13,” Richardson said.

Richardson said Muslims take their prophecies very seriously.

“If we are simply tracking what’s going on in the world, especially the Islamic world, which is supremely relevant to the nation of Israel, then we need to recognize how much the Islamic world is being guided by these prophecies and really how apocalyptic the Muslim world has become,” he said.

According to Richardson, ISIS is fighting so passionately because it believes it is fulfilling Islamic end-times prophecy.

“ISIS is a thoroughly apocalyptically driven movement, and they believe these prophecies are guiding them,” Richardson said. “They believe they’re in the last days, and that’s often why they have such a make-it-or-break-it fervor. This is the final game to them.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/warning-nations-turning-against-israel/#KrdIp05vsbIdbvxb.99

Perhaps I should mention that the idea of the Mahdi being the biblical King of the South was taught decades ago by the old Worldwide Church of God:

But who is the "king of the south"?...in verse 40 we skip to "the time of the end"...The verse undoubtedly found partial fulfillment in the offensive of 1896...But Mussolini did not finish the prophecy...Just as there is yet to be a final "king of the north"...there may very well emerge in the same manner a final "king of the south"--an overall leader of an Arab-Moslem confederation, possibly bearing the very title Mahdi...a prophetic psalm (Psalm 83) provides additional insight into the Mideast picture. Germany (Assyria in Bible prophecy) and perhaps the rest of Europe will be in league in the future with a union of Arab nations...But in the end, this European-Arab alliance will prove short-lived...And the king of the north shall come against him [the king of the south]...Daniel 11:40-41...The Arab-Moslem Confederation will, of course, be thrown into chaotic disarray in the fact of invasion. (Stump K. The Arab World in Prophecy. Plain Truth, December 1979, pp. 11-12).

And that is much more biblical than thinking that the Mahdi is the final Antichrist. Most Protestant prophecy watchers seem to misunderstand about the King of the South.

Catholic prophecy tells of the rise of an Islamic/Arabic power that that a Catholic leader will put an end to.

Pseudo-Methodius (7th century): This new Muslim invasion will be a punishment without limit and mercy…In France, people of Christians will fight and kill them…At that same time the Muslims will be killed and they will know the tribulation…The Lord will give them to the powers of the Christians whose empire will be elevated above all empires…The Roman King (Great Monarch) will show a great indignation against those who will have denied Christ in Egypt or in Arabia (Araujo, Fabio R. Selected Prophecies and Prophets. BookSurge LLC, Charlestown (SC), 2007, p. 103).

Rudolph Gekner (died 1675). "A great prince of the North with a most powerful army will traverse all Europe, uproot all republics, and exterminate all rebels. His sword moved by Divine power will most valiantly defend the Church of Jesus Christ. He will combat on behalf of the true orthodox faith, and shall subdue to his dominion the Mahometan Empire. A new pastor of the universal church will come from the shore (of Dalmatia) through a celestial prodigy, and in simplicity of heart adorned with the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Peace will come to the world." (Cited in Connor, Edward. Prophecy for Today. Imprimatur + A.J. Willinger, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno; Reprint: Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford (IL), 1984, p.36).

And while the Church of God and the Bible warn against this leader of the North (Daniel 11:36-38), Roman Catholics apparently will embrace him.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that there are many Catholic prophecies that indicate that the Turks will become Catholic and betray an Arab leader. And that although they will probably for a while support Muslim interest, notice the following one about betrayal:

Nostradamus: The Great Arab shall progress well forward, But betrayed shall be by the Byzantines. (Turks).

Comment on above from Catholic writer Yves Dupont: Here, we are told that Turkey will break its faith with the rest of the Arab world. (Dupont, Yves. Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 1973, p. 107).

The "Great Arab" is probably supposed to represent the Mahdi. This betrayal is consistent with biblical prophecy (see also The Arab and Islamic World In the Bible, History, and Prophecy; see also the video What Should You Know About Turkey in Prophecy):

25...The king of the south will march to war with a huge and powerful army but will not succeed, since he will be outwitted by trickery. 26 Those who shared his food will ruin him...(Daniel 11:25-26)

Some in Islam have taught several things about the Mahdi that suggest that he is the King of the South of the Bible. Notice the following:

Rasaullah [Muhammed] said: "There will be four peace agreements between you and the Romans [Christians]. The fourth agreement will be mediated through a person who will be the progeny of Hadrat Haroon [Honorable Aaron -- Moses' brother] and will be upheld for seven years (Richardson J. Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah. Pleasant Word, 2006, p. 48)

The above sounds similar to the seven year (one week in biblical language) agreement discussed in Daniel 9:27 that involves a "prince" who appears to be the one the Bible warns will become the King of the North and apparently the nation of Israel. It certainly would make sense that there would be Muslim representation in a peace deal.

However, the Bible shows that this deal will be broken (Daniel 9:27) and the King of the North will invade Jerusalem (Daniel 11:31) and ultimately the King of the South (Daniel 11:40-43). Notice that this too, however, seems to be consistent with some Islamic prophecy:

...a life of peace as a result of a peace agreement between you and the Banil Asfaar (Romans) which they will break and attack you (Ibn Zubair Ali, Mohammed Ali. The minor signs of Last Days from: The Signs of Qiyamah. http://www.islamawareness.net/Prophecies/minor.html viewed 06/21/09).

More on the Mahdi and Turkey can be found in the article The Arab World In the Bible, History, and Prophecy; Turkey is also the subject of the video What Should You Know About Turkey in Prophecy.

Daniel 9:26 is NOT Pointing to the Final Antichrist Being an Islamic Arab

Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily and often supporter of Joel Richardson, posted something trying to teach that it was Arabs, and not Europeans, that destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. Here is some of what he posted:

Temple? What Temple? The one Arabs destroyed

August 12, 2017

Who destroyed the Temple in A.D. 70?

The Temple was destroyed by the forces of Rome, but, interestingly, according to the historian Josephus, not at the command of Rome or the people of Rome.

Did you know that? You do now.

By A.D. 70 the Roman armies in the Middle East were made up largely of men who were not from Europe, not from Italy. They were comprised of provincial soldiers from Syria, Arabia – local forces. While they were under the command of Roman officers, they were not ordered to destroy the Temple. In fact, they were ordered to stop the destruction by Titus, who would later become emperor.

First let me quote from the Roman historian Tacitus who meticulously described the forces that sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.

“Early in this year Titus found in Judea three legions, the 5th, the 10th and the 15th,” he wrote. “To these he added the 12th from Syria and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria (Egypt). This force was accompanied by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the unusual passion of neighbors.”

Now, I stopped his article here to point out that the quote above has been truncated and parts left out. Here is the full quote of this section from Tacitus:

[5.1] EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian’s. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy’s territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem. (The Histories by Publius Cornelius Tacitus. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/TacitusHistory05.html accessed 08/13/17)

So, while there were Arabs, they were only part of the conquering force, and there were many brought from Italy and Rome.

As far as those Roman legions go, I looked up information on each of the above legions and they all appear to have been initially begun by Romans. Romans did include others in their military, but these tended to be peoples from Europe, not mainly Arabs. Consider also the following:

Up to about 88 BC the legions were made of citizens of Rome and surroundings and colonies. Thereafter also the allies were Roman citizens, the legions were recruited from Italian males. In the professional army created by Augustus the legions were filled with citizens, more and more recruited also in the provinces. The auxilia units were made of non-citizens from all places in and beyond the frontiers. After the proliferation of the citizenship to almost all male inhabitants of the whole empire by Aurelius Severus (Caracalla) the distinction between legions and auxilia vanished. The preferred recruitment was local. So people from all the empire served. From the late third century onwards more and more “barbarians” from outside the empire served in the army as individuals. In the later fourth and the fifth century a big part of the army was made of such foreigners, perhaps up to 30 percent … (http://historum.com/ancient-history/108044-ethnic-composition-roman-legions.html accessed 08/13/17)

During the reign of Augustus and Trajan the army became a professional one. Its core of legionaries was composed of Roman citizens who served for a minimum of twenty five years.(Ancient Roman Military. http://www.crystalinks.com/romemilitary.html accessed 08/13/17)

Presuming the above is correct, then in the first century, the vast bulk of the soldiers were Roman citizens. Most of which would have been ethnically European (Italian, Greek, etc.).

Anyway, Joseph Farah then brings in the first century Jewish historian Josephus:

Josephus reports in his own words: “The multitude of the Arabians, with the Syrians, cut up those that came out as supplicants, and searched their bellies (looking for gold they had swallowed). Nor does it seem to me that any misery befell the Jews that was more terrible than this, since in one night’s time about 2,000 of these deserters were thus dissected.”

Finally, after the Romans and these Middle Eastern provincial forces of Rome broke through the city walls and captured the Temple, it was set on fire.

Here’s Josephus’ account: “Now a certain person came running to Titus, and told him of this fire … whereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as he was, ran to the holy house, in order to have a stop put to the fire; after him followed all of his commanders, and after them followed the several legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great clamor and tumult raised, as was natural upon the disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire.”

In other words, Titus had no desire to see the Temple destroyed. Rome loved its treasures of conquest, and this Temple was one of the greatest prizes ever. The emperor’s son didn’t order the Temple destroyed. He tried desperately to stop it.

Why didn’t that work?

Josephus explains: “Titus supposing that the house itself yet be saved, he came in haste and endeavored to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire. Yet were the regards they had for Caesar, and their dread of him who forbade them, not as hard as their passion and their hatred of the Jews, and a certain vehement inclination to fight them. … And thus was the holy house burnt down, without Caesar’s approbation.” http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/temple-what-temple-the-one-arabs-destroyed/

Now, although it is true that Titus himself preferred to not destroy the Temple and the above seems to support Joseph Farah’s view of Arab destruction, this is only partially what Josephus wrote.

Notice more of what Josephus wrote:

1 … But when Titus perceived that his endeavors to spare a foreign temple turned to the damage of his soldiers, and then be killed, he gave order to set the gates on fire. (Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 4, section 1)

5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it.

6. And now a certain person came running to Titus, and told him of this fire, as he was resting himself in his tent after the last battle; whereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as he was, ran to the holy house, in order to have a stop put to the fire; after him followed all his commanders, and after them followed the several legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great clamor and tumult raised, as was natural upon the disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire. But they did not hear what he said, though he spake so loud, having their ears already dimmed by a greater noise another way; nor did they attend to the signal he made with his hand neither, as still some of them were distracted with fighting, and others with passion. But as for the legions that came running thither, neither any persuasions nor any threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one’s own passion was his commander at this time; and as they were crowding into the temple together, many of them were trampled on by one another, while a great number fell among the ruins of the cloisters, which were still hot and smoking, and were destroyed in the same miserable way with those whom they had conquered; and when they were come near the holy house, they made as if they did not so much as hear Caesar’s orders to the contrary; but they encouraged those that were before them to set it on fire. As for the seditious, they were in too great distress already to afford their assistance [towards quenching the fire]; they were every where slain, and every where beaten; and as for a great part of the people, they were weak and without arms, and had their throats cut wherever they were caught. Now round about the altar lay dead bodies heaped one upon another, as at the steps going up to it ran a great quantity of their blood, whither also the dead bodies that were slain above [on the altar] fell down.

7. And now, since Caesar was no way able to restrain the enthusiastic fury of the soldiers, and the fire proceeded on more and more, he went into the holy place of the temple, with his commanders, and saw it, with what was in it, which he found to be far superior to what the relations of foreigners contained, and not inferior to what we ourselves boasted of and believed about it. But as the flame had not as yet reached to its inward parts, but was still consuming the rooms that were about the holy house, and Titus supposing what the fact was, that the house itself might yet he saved, he came in haste and endeavored to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire, and gave order to Liberalius the centurion, and one of those spearmen that were about him, to beat the soldiers that were refractory with their staves, and to restrain them; yet were their passions too hard for the regards they had for Caesar, and the dread they had of him who forbade them, as was their hatred of the Jews, and a certain vehement inclination to fight them, too hard for them also. Moreover, the hope of plunder induced many to go on, as having this opinion, that all the places within were full of money, and as seeing that all round about it was made of gold. And besides, one of those that went into the place prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and threw the fire upon the hinges of the gate, in the dark; whereby the flame burst out from within the holy house itself immediately, when the commanders retired, and Caesar with them, and when nobody any longer forbade those that were without to set fire to it. And thus was the holy house burnt down, without Caesar’s approbation.

8. Now although any one would justly lament the destruction of such a work as this was, since it was the most admirable of all the works that we have seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and also for the vast wealth bestowed upon it, as well as for the glorious reputation it had for its holiness; yet might such a one comfort himself with this thought, that it was fate that decreed it so to be, which is inevitable, both as to living creatures, and as to works and places also. However, one cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were now observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house was burnt formerly by the Babylonians. Now the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by king Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian, there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days. (Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 4, sections 5-8)

So, Titus did not want to destroy the Temple, but he and his troops did so.

Josephus also wrote:

5. And now Titus, upon consideration that the alacrity of soldiers in war is chiefly excited by hopes and by good words, and that exhortations and promises do frequently make men to forget the hazards they run, nay, sometimes to despise death itself, got together the most courageous part of his army, and tried what he could do with his men by these methods. “O fellow soldiers,” said he, “to make an exhortation to men to do what hath no peril in it, is on that very account inglorious to such to whom that exhortation is made; and indeed so it is in him that makes the exhortation, an argument of his own cowardice also. I therefore think that such exhortations ought then only to be made use of when affairs are in a dangerous condition, and yet are worthy of being attempted by every one themselves; accordingly, I am fully of the same opinion with you, that it is a difficult task to go up this wall; but that it is proper for those that desire reputation for their valor to struggle with difficulties in such cases will then appear, when I have particularly shown that it is a brave thing to die with glory, and that the courage here necessary shall not go unrewarded in those that first begin the attempt. And let my first argument to move you to it be taken from what probably some would think reasonable to dissuade you, I mean the constancy and patience of these Jews, even under their ill successes; for it is unbecoming you, who are Romans and my soldiers, who have in peace been taught how to make wars, and who have also been used to conquer in those wars, to be inferior to Jews, either in action of the hand, or in courage of the soul, and this especially when you are at the conclusion of your victory, and are assisted by God himself; for as to our misfortunes, they have been owing to the madness of the Jews, while their sufferings have been owing to your valor, and to the assistance God hath afforded you; for as to the seditions they have been in, and the famine they are under, and the siege they now endure, and the fall of their walls without our engines, what can they all be but demonstrations of God’s anger against them, and of his assistance afforded us? It will not therefore be proper for you, either to show yourselves inferior to those to whom you are really superior, or to betray that Divine assistance which is afforded you. And, indeed, how can it be esteemed otherwise than a base and unworthy thing, that while the Jews, who need not be much ashamed if they be deserted, because they have long learned to be slaves to others, do yet despise death, that they may be so no longer; and do make sallies into the very midst of us frequently, no in hopes of conquering us, but merely for a demonstration of their courage; we, who have gotten possession of almost all the world that belongs to either land or sea, to whom it will be a great shame if we do not conquer them, do not once undertake any attempt against our enemies wherein there is much danger, but sit still idle, with such brave arms as we have, and only wait till the famine and fortune do our business themselves, and this when we have it in our power, with some small hazard, to gain all that we desire! For if we go up to this tower of Antonia, we gain the city; for if there should be any more occasion for fighting against those within the city, which I do not suppose there will, since we shall then be upon the top of the hill and be upon our enemies before they can have taken breath, these advantages promise us no less than a certain and sudden victory. As for myself, I shall at present wave any commendation of those who die in war, and omit to speak of the immortality of those men who are slain in the midst of their martial bravery; yet cannot I forbear to imprecate upon those who are of a contrary disposition, that they may die in time of peace, by some distemper or other, since their souls are condemned to the grave, together with their bodies. For what man of virtue is there who does not know, that those souls which are severed from their fleshly bodies in battles by the sword are received by the ether, that purest of elements, and joined to that company which are placed among the stars; that they become good demons, and propitious heroes, and show themselves as such to their posterity afterwards? while upon those souls that wear away in and with their distempered bodies comes a subterranean night to dissolve them to nothing, and a deep oblivion to take away all the remembrance of them, and this notwithstanding they be clean from all spots and defilements of this world; so that, in this ease, the soul at the same time comes to the utmost bounds of its life, and of its body, and of its memorial also. But since he hath determined that death is to come of necessity upon all men, a sword is a better instrument for that purpose than any disease whatsoever. Why is it not then a very mean thing for us not to yield up that to the public benefit which we must yield up to fate? And this discourse have I made, upon the supposition that those who at first attempt to go upon this wall must needs be killed in the attempt, though still men of true courage have a chance to escape even in the most hazardous undertakings. For, in the first place, that part of the former wall that is thrown down is easily to be ascended; and for the new-built wall, it is easily destroyed. Do you, therefore, many of you, pull up your courage, and set about this work, and do you mutually encourage and assist one another; and this your bravery will soon break the hearts of your enemies; and perhaps such a glorious undertaking as yours is may be accomplished without bloodshed. For although it be justly to be supposed that the Jews will try to hinder you at your first beginning to go up to them; yet when you have once concealed yourselves from them, and driven them away by force, they will not be able to sustain your efforts against them any longer, though but a few of you prevent them, and get over the wall. As for that person who first mounts the wall, I should blush for shame if I did not make him to be envied of others, by those rewards I would bestow upon him. If such a one escape with his life, he shall have the command of others that are now but his equals; although it be true also that the greatest rewards will accrue to such as die in the attempt.” (Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 1, section 5)

So, Titus ordered the destruction of the city and said his troops were Roman. And notice further that the Romans had been waging war against the Temple according to Josephus:

7. In the mean time, the rest of the Roman army had, in seven days’ time, overthrown [some] foundations of the tower of Antonia, and had made a ready and broad way to the temple. Then did the legions come near the first court, and began to raise their banks. The one bank was over against the north-west corner of the inner temple another was at that northern edifice which was between the two gates; and of the other two, one was at the western cloister of the outer court of the temple; the other against its northern cloister. However, these works were thus far advanced by the Romans, not without great pains and difficulty, and particularly by being obliged to bring their materials from the distance of a hundred furlongs. They had further difficulties also upon them; sometimes by their over-great security they were in that they should overcome the Jewish snares laid for them, and by that boldness of the Jews which their despair of escaping had inspired them withal; for some of their horsemen, when they went out to gather wood or hay, let their horses feed without having their bridles on during the time of foraging; upon which horses the Jews sallied out in whole bodies, and seized them. And when this was continually done, and Caesar believed what the truth was, that the horses were stolen more by the negligence of his own men than by the valor of the Jews, he determined to use greater severity to oblige the rest to take care of their horses; so he commanded that one of those soldiers who had lost their horses should be capitally punished; whereby he so terrified the rest, that they preserved their horses for the time to come; for they did not any longer let them go from them to feed by themselves, but, as if they had grown to them, they went always along with them when they wanted necessaries. Thus did the Romans still continue to make war against the temple, and to raise their banks against it. (Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 2, section 7)

9. In the mean time, the Jews were so distressed by the fights they had been in, as the war advanced higher and higher, and creeping up to the holy house itself, that they, as it were, cut off those limbs of their body which were infected, in order to prevent the distemper’s spreading further; for they set the north-west cloister, which was joined to the tower of Antonia, on fire, and after that brake off about twenty cubits of that cloister, and thereby made a beginning in burning the sanctuary; two days after which, or on the twenty-fourth day of the forenamed month, [Panemus or Tamuz,] the Romans set fire to the cloister that joined to the other, when the fire went fifteen cubits farther. The Jews, in like manner, cut off its roof; nor did they entirely leave off what they were about till the tower of Antonia was parted from the temple, even when it was in their power to have stopped the fire; nay, they lay still while the temple was first set on fire, and deemed this spreading of the fire to be for their own advantage. However, the armies were still fighting one against another about the temple, and the war was managed by continual sallies of particular parties against one another. (Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 2, section 9)

1. NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind. (Wars of the Jews, Book VII, Chapter 1, section 1)

Getting back to Joseph Farah, he also wrote:

Why is it today that so many Christians believe that the future Antichrist will be from Europe, from a revived Roman Empire?

If you think about it, and correct me if I am wrong, all of our theories about a Roman Antichrist start and pretty much end with the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, with the cornerstone being Daniel 9:26. That verse reads: “After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

“The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The prince that shall come is the Antichrist. So, naturally, many have concluded that since Rome destroyed the Temple, a Roman prince would have to be the Antichrist.

Yet, Roman authority did not seek to destroy the Temple. It sought to avert it. And the people who destroyed it were not Romans either. They were Arabs whose anti-Israel passions were inflamed. They even disobeyed direct orders from Rome to stop the destruction.

And notice how carefully Daniel’s prophecy is written: “The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/temple-what-temple-the-one-arabs-destroyed/

Now, who did Josephus claim destroyed the city?

The Romans.

Who destroyed the sanctuary?

The Romans.

It is not that Arabs had nothing to do with it, but they were not the initiators and of themselves did not destroy the city--the Romans did. The Roman army fulfilled Daniel 9:26.

Joseph Farah’s article also has the following within it:

Get Joel Richardson’s groundbreaking New York Times best-seller, “The Islamic Antichrist,” for the full, comprehensive case.

Just because a book may be a best seller, that does not mean that it is accurate (remember The Da Vinci Code?).

The use by Joseph Farah of Daniel 9:26, of necessity, ties in with Daniel 11:31 and subsequent verses (see also The 'Peace Deal' of Daniel 9:27 and Who is the King of the North?). Joel Richardson and Joseph Farah would seemingly agree with the tie of Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 11:31, etc.

But the 11th chapter of Daniel is also problematic for the view that the final Antichrist power is Islamic.

Daniel 11:39 tells of the King of the North destroying the strongest fortresses. This King is the one referred to as a prince in Daniel 9:26. In the 21st century, that would be the King of the North destroying the USA as it has the strongest military forces (for more details, see USA in Prophecy: The Strongest Fortresses).

Then the Bible shows that the King of the North will destroy the King of the South. Notice:

40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. (Daniel 11:40-43, ESV)

Notice that the King of the North is prophesied to destroy what are now predominantly Islamic regions of the Middle East and North Africa.

While the King of the South would seemingly have to be Islamic (perhaps called a Mahdi), that is not the case for the King of the North.

Let’s now also see more about those peoples allied with the King of the South in Ezekiel 30:

1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord God:

“Wail, ‘Alas for the day!’
3 For the day is near,
the day of the Lord is near;
it will be a day of clouds,
a time of doom fora the nations.
4 A sword shall come upon Egypt,
and anguish shall be in Cush,
when the slain fall in Egypt,
and her wealth is carried away,
and her foundations are torn down.

5 Cush, and Put, and Lud, and all Arabia, and Libya, and the people of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

6 “Thus says the Lord:
Those who support Egypt shall fall,
and her proud might shall come down;
from Migdol to Syene
they shall fall within her by the sword,
declares the Lord God.
7 And they shall be desolated in the midst of desolated countries,
and their cities shall be in the midst of cities that are laid waste.
8 Then they will know that I am the Lord,
when I have set fire to Egypt,
and all her helpers are broken.

9 “On that day messengers shall go out from me in ships to terrify the unsuspecting people of Cush, and anguish shall come upon them on the day of Egypt’s doom; for, behold, it comes! (Ezekiel 30:1-9, ESV)

While there was a prophesied earlier fulfillment of this by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 30:10-19), Ezekiel 30:3 has a fulfillment near “the day of the Lord”–which means it still has not been completely fulfilled. Furthermore, notice the following:

25 … Then they shall know that I am the Lord, when I put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he stretches it out against the land of Egypt. 26 And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries. Then they will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezekiel 30:25-26, ESV)

Please realize that the Egyptians did not learn that the God of the Bible was Lord back then. Ezekiel 30 is referring to a time when the end time King of Babylon, the European King of the North, will destroy Egypt and its allies.

Those allies are the predominantly Islamic peoples of North Africa and the Middle East, including the Arabs.

Thus, it is not logical to conclude that the King of the North, who Joel Richardson and Joseph Farah are identifying as the final Antichrist, is an Islamic power based in Saudi Arabia (Joel Richardson and others have claimed that Mystery Babylon is the Saudi city of Mecca; watch also the video Mystery Babylon USA, Mecca, or Rome?).

Perhaps I should add that while I do believe that the final King of the South will be anti-Jesus, biblically, there is no way that the final Antichrist will be an Arabic Islamic leader.

The King of the South will be An Antichrist

Even if some signs suggest to others that the final King of the South will be the final Antichrist (some Islamic prophecy indicates certain mystic signs associated with him), the fact is that the Bible clearly shows that the King of the South will be taken over by the King of the North:

The King of the South, who is expected to be an Islamic leader, does not survive in the end. The King of the South does not meet the criteria for the Beast power in the Book of Revelation. The countries of the Middle East are overwhelmed by the King of the North.

Notice the Bible discusses what happens to the final Antichrist, who is referred to as the false prophet below:

The Beast and False Prophet get destroyed as shown in Revelation 19. The Islamic leader is destroyed prior to that as Daniel 11:40 shows.

Summary

While many in the world see Islam as a threat to Catholicism and Protestantism, the final Antichrist will be a religious leader who, for a time, will feign Christianity. He will not say he is Jesus, but he will, for a time, indicate he is here as the 'vicar of Christ'--one representing Jesus.

It is not that in no sense would a false religious leader, like the Islamic Mahdi Imam be an Antichrist, but the King of the South is not the final Antichrist.

The final Antichrist is associated with the Beast power called the King of the North. Islamic, Catholic, and other improper prophetic views will be factors in people being deceived in the end times.

The one commonly known as the final Antichrist will be supporting a European Beast power. That King of the North will destroy America (Daniel 11:39) and ultimately control much or all of the Middle East (Daniel 11:40-43) as Bible prophecy teaches.

The final Antichrist will not be an Islamic Antichrist. But should there be an Imam Mahdi, he will an antichrist as he will be against the true Christian religion.

Thiel B. Can the Final Antichrist be Islamic? COGwriter (c) http://www.cogwriter.com/islamic-antichrist.htm 2016/2017/2018 0211

Can the Final Antichrist be Islamic?

Joel Richardson and "The Islamic Antichrist"

City of Seven Hills