“An Islamic Antichrist? Joel Richardson Predicts A Muslim Satanic Figure”

“An Islamic Antichrist? Joel Richardson Predicts A Muslim Satanic Figure”

Islamic AC

An article written by Religion News Service reporter Daniel Burke was featured this last week in multiple online news outlets. You can read the full article, at the Huffington Post. I do want to commend the reporter for writing what I felt was a very fair article.

The summary of the article is that the Islamic Antichrist theory, of which I am cast as the primary representative of, is merely the result of the underlying anxieties of Christian fundamentalists. That some would eventually cast Islam as the system of the Antichrist was altogether predictable, as Christians at large have a long history of painting their political or theological enemies as the Antichrist.

Ironically, this particular analysis is equally as tired as is the long line of apocalyptically minded Christians who have who manipulated the Scriptural data (and most often extra-biblical sources) to paint their political or theological boogeyman du jour as the Antichrist. If it is easy, as the article states, for apocalyptically minded Christians to twist the idea of Antichrist into the image of whoever they may wish to demonize, then it is arguably even easier to stereotype apocalyptically minded Christians into the mold of overly anxiety-driven, theologically shallow and unself-aware Antichrist-pointers. But as easy as it might be, the purpose of this post is not to turn the socio-psychological analysis back onto the analyzers. For even if stereotyping apocalyptic Christians is somewhat of a lazy position to take, I do sympathize with and understand this perspective — as it is certainly not without basis. In fact, this view is one that I have spent a substantial amount of time considering.

Before I ever considered the Islamic Antichrist theory, I’d already read all of the books. There was Paul Boyer’s “When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture”, which catalogues a long line of premillennialists down through Church history who have wrongly pointed to their own political or theological enemies as the Antichrist. There is also Bernard McGinn’s “Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil”, which is more or less another historical survey of various opinions regarding the Antichrist that have prevailed throughout history. And then there was my personal favorite in the genre, Gershom Gorenberg’s “The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount” which looks at fundamentalists from all three Abrahamic faiths as they relate primarily to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. So I am fully aware of the proclivity of some Christians to see in various enemies of their day, the Antichrist. Premillennialists of various stripes have been consistently committing this error almost from century one.

How then, does a student of the Scriptures approach and seek to understand the many biblical passages that give us numerous details regarding the coming Antichrist without falling into the pitfalls of so many that have come before? In surveying the long list of failed antichrist-pointers, I’ve identified two universal common denominators. Others could be highlighted as well. But the first and primary error to avoid, is reliance on extra-biblical material, with the Bible playing only a minor supporting role. We’ve seen prime examples of this most recently with the Mayan Calendar craze. There, the Mayan calendar was the primary source of fear, and then the Bible was used, or barely used, to somehow prop up a pagan and unreliable source. Another recent example is the book Petrus Romanus, the subtitle of which makes the bold claim, “The Final Pope is Here”. Petrus Romanus looks, not primarily to the Scriptures to make its case, but rather to “the prophecy of St. Malachy” as well as every imaginable conspiracy theory and anti-Catholic polemic that exists. In 2009, the author of Petrus Romanus, Tom Horn argued in “Apollyon Rising 2012″ that the Antichrist would make himself known by 2012. In Petrus Romanus, the argument is presented that the False Prophet would come into power by the end of 2012. By looking to numerous private revelations and pagan prophecies, Horn argued that the Great Tribulation would start near the end of 2012. Needless to say, its safe to say that this claim has now been shown to be false. We are in 2013 and the great tribulation hasn’t begun. The point here is not to attack anyone, so much as to show that when the Scriptures are not the primary basis for a particular eschatological view, then you can quite well guarantee that it will result in a false claim.

The second common error among Antichrist-pointers is to adopt a view which is self-centered in its worldview, failing to take into consideration the actual worldview and context of the Bible. And thus various European protestants over the past 500 years have cast their various theological and political enemies of the day as the Antichrist. Americans in more recent times pointed to Russia. And of course another popular claim among conservative Americans these days is to point to President Barak Obama as the Antichrist. Now, to be clear, I am far from a fan of the President, but I personally think such claims are downright silly. Each time I hear any serious claims that Obama might be the Antichrist, I am reminded of the classic bit from the Monty Python film, “The Life of Brian” where the young Brian is mistakenly thought to be the Messiah by crowds of adoring seekers. At one point in the movie, as a crowd is gathered outside of Brian’s house, his mother opens a window and shouts out, “He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy”. Similarly, I often feel like declaring of President Obama, “He’s not the Antichrist, he’s just a very naughty boy”. But some will not be persuaded until he is long out of office. Regardless, my point is that pointing to Barack as the Antichrist ignores not only the Middle Eastern emphasis of so many of the primary antichristic prophetic passages (cf., Dan. 2, 7, 9:26, 11, Ez. 38,39), but it also betrays a very American-centric worldview and represents, in my opinion, a clear imposition of this America-centric worldview into the pages of Scripture.

So, while it would be tempting to summarize the broad Scriptural basis and many very reasonable arguments that stand in support of Islam as the prophesied beast system, instead I will simply say that the Islamic Antichrist theory is really little more than a thoroughly contextualized eschatology, fully supported by every significant and relevant biblical passage. In other words, rather than being a view which simply casts the greatest present enemy of the United States as the Antichrist system, instead the Islamic Antichrist theory (alternately, the Middle Eastern Antichrist theory) looks to the greatest enemy of Israel and acknowledges the overwhelming Islamic character of the entire region surrounding Jerusalem. As I have emphasized so many times, once one recognizes the thoroughly Jerusalem, Israel and Middle Eastern / North African context of the entire Bible, then the Islamic Antichrist theory is almost impossible to deny.

47 Responses to “An Islamic Antichrist? Joel Richardson Predicts A Muslim Satanic Figure”

  1. Pulp Ark says:

    Please also consider this book Islam in the End of Times.

  2. good4u says:

    I haven’t read the full article yet but the summary you presented here Joel, was extremely interesting and balanced without overt bias either for or against. By the way, I LOVE Monty Python films! (:

  3. Keep on saying what needs to be said, Joel.

    As an aside, I finished watching the DVD set that came with “The Mid East Beast”. Seeing it was made in April, 2011, are there plans for an update?

    Blessings.

  4. giles says:

    Quick question…what do you make of the “rumours from the north and the east”(Daniel) that trouble the AC, or the “kings of the East” in Revelation, the army of 200m?
    The Chinese? Russians? India?

  5. Joel says:

    Giles,

    It could be anything near or far. As near as Persia and as far as China. Though it would seem as though the North would have to be Russia.

  6. Joel says:

    David,

    No plans for an update of that DVD. For what it was worth, I’m not fond of that DVD as I recorded it while in a somewhat exhausted state. Someday I will redo all of my DVDs and improve them very much. Thanks for the heads up. I wish I had more time to study and read, but at present, I am barely keeping up with the basics.

  7. Tom Norton says:

    Interesting, but not surprising.

  8. Bill Nordstrom says:

    I too will look forward to a re-do of the DVD series. The information is significantly valuable and there’s much to glean, however, I agree the material could be better articulated and the graphics and production polished. Your books are invaluable, have dramatically answered questions I’ve wrestled with for years, and have proven to be a wonderful source for our local House of Prayer.

  9. Islamic Infidel says:

    I find it interesting that you have answered these objections within the text criticized. Maybe they skimmed over those parts LOL.

  10. Bill scofield says:

    bro, very solid!

  11. Alecz says:

    Joel,
    First off I do agree with your theory of the antichrist being Islamic but the scriptures also point at him being born within the borders if the old Roman Empire and the borders of the old Greek empire. Jesus does tell ya that Satans throne however is in pergamos. The ruins of that city lay near burka, Turkey. Does the Koran not suggest that the Anti-Christ comes from Khorasan, Afghanistan? If Muslims also believe this, isn’t that reliable enough to suggest that he’s the one they’d follow? Could this same warrior not also fight for Syrians liberation, thus fulfilling the prophecy ” he will be known as the Assyrian”.

  12. giles says:

    ‘People of the prince to come’in Dan 9:26 does not necessarily mean Romans. The Roman army did sack Jerusalem (acting against their commander’s orders btw), but the ethnic make up of that army were not very Italian but mainly loacally recruited people (We did the same when we had an empire, most “British troops” in India were sepoys, most of the kings african rifles were Africans etc). thinking of the ‘people of the prince’ with this in mind flows better with the rest of what the Bible says about where the AC will come from.

  13. giles says:

    PS, i wouldnt rely on any “Quran prophecies”

  14. […] “An Islamic Antichrist? Joel Richardson Predicts A Muslim Satanic Figure” […]

  15. […] “An Islamic Antichrist? Joel Richardson Predicts A Muslim Satanic Figure” […]

  16. Mark Johnston says:

    Hi Joel
    Just a quick question. The Christian Broadcasting Network has a very interesting programme called “Stacklebeck on Terror”. He is very aware of Islamic infiltration of the west. Have you ever been on his show to explain your undestanding of
    Islam as the system of the Anti-Christ?.

  17. Josh says:

    Joel,
    Did you catch Hal Lindsey’s crack “Don’t give me that Muslim mess” on his TV program this weekend (Feb.8-10)? Lindsey has been running a two-week prophecy review series speaking at a church in Texas. Referencing the origin of the AntiChrist, Lindsey goes to one verse (Dan. 9:26)… “And the people of the prince who is to come.” Hal says these are the people of Rome.

    Lindsey’s “Muslim mess” comment comes around the 14-minute mark of the Feb.8 program.

  18. Giles, I am an Anglospherist, and frankly I see the Kings of the North and the East referring to the British Commonwealth.

    Seeing that the status quo leaves a lot to be desired, change coming with London ending its efforts to breath life into Brussels, and turning towards what was the British Empire; this bodes well.

    Even though the Bible is Jerusalem centric, as Joel has written in both of his books, the ripple effect of what happens in Israel, is felt throughout the globe.

  19. giles says:

    No offence David, i do find the Anglo-antichrist theory funny…..Americans just dont understand whats happening to the British military. Our army is the smallest its been for about 300 years (technically its a militia, cos its below 100,000, due to reduce to 86,000 by 2020) . We sort of share an aircraft carrier with France (i think they’ve borrowed it for Mali)…as for our submarine…not even the government knows where it is. The defence budegt is sto strapped for cash that – this is one’s not a joke – that when they send you on tour and give you your brigade badges to sew on to your kit, there werent enough to go around (each man got two, to sew on to velcro, and had velcro patches sewn onto every shirt sleeve, so that when you wash the shirt, you rip off the velcro badge and put it onto a new shirt)

    Behold, the new rulers of the world :-)

  20. Ian Willis says:

    I just want to say i got yor signed book, went over every word, and i agreee 100% and like Noah warning of the flood some people will just not listen, or step out of their culture to see the true big picture. Thanks for shareing your heart and God bless your family!

  21. Perry Brown says:

    Pope Benedict XVI just resigned. Another blow on Thomas Horn’s theory.

  22. Giles, when one looks at the combined militaries of the Commonwealth, poverty is not the best descriptor of the accumulation.

    As for the Antichrist coming from Europe, I have more confidence in the Shepherds and Commanders in Micah 5, coming from the Anglosphere.

    Anyway, I have a different message, that ties in. Given http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/11/brian-c-stiller-egypts-christian-winter/ whom is best situated, other than Israel, in taking on the inhumanity dished out by those who conclude they are doing the will of Allah?

  23. Joel says:

    Perry,

    Wow.

    Of course, if Evasio Bertone Peitro becomes the Pope, which is certainly possible, then the supporters of this view will feel quite vindicated. The problem of course is that the Prophecy of St. Malachy casts “Petrus Romanus” as a great Pope who faithfully shepherds the Church through great tribulation, not a False Prophet. How one can treat the very same prophecy as both inspired and entirely wrong at the same time makes absolutely no sense. On one hand, the book casts the Roman Catholic Church as the epitome of evil and demonic, and on the other hand bases its entire theory on a Roman Catholic prophecy. Beyond this, they treat the whole of the prophecy as accurate, and even inspired, but as they reach the very end, then they twist it to say the exact opposite of what the prophecy actually says. The logic of the whole argument is truly bizarre.

    It appears as though the next book is predicting that the Catholic Church is about to usher in an alien Antichrist. And many prophecy teachers are actually supporting this view. Lord have mercy.

  24. Joel says:

    David,

    On a positive note, recent discussions I’ve had with some leaders within the Egyptian Church also indicate that more Egyptian Muslims are coming to faith now than ever before. The Lord hovers above the chaos.

    Blessings

  25. giles says:

    David,
    You’re confusing the Commonwealth of the second world war era and the commonwealth now. We have preferred trading partners, and their citizens can join the British army, but thats about as far as it goes. They’re all independant nations. They never came to our help in the Falklands or Northern Ireland, and I highly doubt they’d come rallying to our banner should we decide we want to rule the world (again :-))

  26. Jeanne says:

    “The point here is…..that when the Scriptures are not the primary basis for a particular eschatological view, then you can quite well guarantee that it will result in a false claim………rather than being a view which simply casts the greatest present enemy of the United States as the Antichrist system, instead the Islamic Antichrist theory (alternately, the Middle Eastern Antichrist theory) looks to the greatest enemy of Israel and acknowledges the overwhelming Islamic character of the entire region surrounding Jerusalem……once one recognizes the thoroughly Jerusalem, Israel and Middle Eastern / North African context of the entire Bible, then the Islamic Antichrist theory is almost impossible to deny.”

    Excellent article, which can be distilled and summarized in the above sentences.

  27. charles says:

    St Malachy, if right, has the last Pope being a protector during the tribulation. And the city of seven hills (and I agree with Walid Shoebat), is Saudi Arabia’s Mecca. It is destroyed while “Peter The Roman” is a shepherd. Fits well with the Islamic Antichrist paradigm. I was wrong, Tom Horn is wrong, and Hal Lindsey et al are wrong. Wake up Pastors. I got a Pastor to get Joel and Walid’s books, and he taught on it and now Joel’s books are in the book store. Wake up church and pastors. Even though the denominations have differences/serious differences, we are all in this together ,and will be in the tribulation together until The Lord Jesus Christ Comes again and the most terrible day , the most awesome day will be- THE DAY OF THE LORD!

  28. Dan says:

    Joel – I found this video and article on World Net Daily really interesting. It may be something you have been saying for awhile, but I have never heard of it before. – http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/is-allah-the-antichrist/

  29. Joel says:

    I disagree with the idea that Arabic writing is found in the Book of Revelation. This theory doesn’t work. The original Greek script of Revelation was different than the cursive Greek which resembles Arabic. And this wasn’t used in any manuscripts for at least four hundred years after Revelation was written. Nevertheless, I do agree that the shahada or creed of Islam is entirely antichristic. Perhaps the greatest antichristic creed ever known (1 John 2:22).

    Blessings

  30. Joel says:

    Josh,

    I did just check out Lindsey’s comments. “Don’t give me that whole Muslim mess”. Pride truly is blindness. And it is so easy for others to see, but equally as easy for us to miss it, when it is us who are proud. Lord have mercy on me. In Lindsey’s defense, I understand what it is like to be so busy that I do not have time to truly sit down and read every idea sent by e-mail. I often wish that I could just get an audience with some of these brothers for a few minutes, where they would actually listen. The whole “it was the Romans” thing is so exceedingly simple to dismantle.

  31. William Struse says:

    Dear Joel,
    I’ve enjoyed reading your blog over the past few months. You might be interested in a little personal anecdote regarding your book. I am a plumber by trade and a couple of years ago I got called out to repair a water heater. Turns out the customer was my violin teacher from 20+ years ago. As I was waiting for the water heater to drain our conversation turned to the subject of Bible prophecy. Mr. Marlow started praising a book which he said proved the antichrist was a Muslim. I’ve had a sincere interest in Bible prophecy for over 20 years and this was the first I had heard of it. I’m not proud to say I dismissed his “ravings” without much further thought. To make a long story short he was talking about your book. Last week I finally purchased your book Mideast Beast. Frankly I was surprised to find your argument cohesive and reasonable. I am going to have to search the Scriptures with your arguments in mind and see where it leads.

    The real reason for this post was not to tell you I bought your book or personal anecdotes. I am writing an article about the influence Daniel 9 has had on Jewish and Christian chronology. As part of the article I will be presenting various points of view from different Biblical scholars and teachers, both past and present. I would like to give an accurate representation of your position on the subject but I am not exactly sure where you stand. I know you are busy so if you could point me to a blog post or one of your books that would be great. Specifically, I am looking for a contextual basis for your understanding of the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah.

    Warm Regards,
    William Struse

  32. giles says:

    Joel,

    Curious about your opinion about the 666 not being Arabic (I thought Shoebat had cracked it)…if its not In the name of Allah, then what is the 666 all about?

  33. Joel says:

    William,

    From one tradesman to another, I do not have any detailed chronology for Ezra and Nehemiah per se. I wish I could be of more help. I’m glad Mideast Beast was helpful. Thanks for the story.

    Blessings!

  34. Joel says:

    Giles,

    As for the actual number 666, I think it is yet to be seen. That said, the number, the name, the mark and the image are all interrelated. I am confident that it will have something to do with a denial of the father and the son, (1John 2:22) and again, to me, nothing does this as effectively as the shahada. But again, as for the 666, it is yet to be seen.

  35. Giles, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the UK can work together more than what is currently the case.

    I encourage you to go through http://www.commonwealthtradeinfo.com to see a better path to the future than the status quo.

    We won’t be ruling the world, but we can be a more powerful influence than what is currently the case.

  36. http://www.commonwealthtrade.info/ is the website, instead of what I posted earlier.

  37. William Struse says:

    Good afternoon Joel,
    Nice to know you’re a fellow tradesman. Thank you for your upfront reply.

    It seems the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah is one of the best kept secrets of Biblical history. I must admit I find it surprising considering it’s importance to the prophecy of Daniel 9. A huge portion of our understanding of eschatology today is built upon a foundation laid in the 2nd temple era yet it is rarely mentioned. The 7 year tribulation, the “covenant”, the antichrist and much of the order of Revelation is premised in some part upon our understanding of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 in turn is built entirely upon the foundation of OT chronology concerning Ezra and Nehemiah. That is quite a weighty load to be carried by subject which is little understood and even less discussed.

    Warm Regards,
    William Struse

  38. Joel says:

    William,

    I find that understanding how the various Biblical writers were aware of, related to, and interpreted one another is essential. My understanding of Daniel 9 is that he was essentially interpreting Jeremiah’s words. Is this essentially what you are referring to? I’d like to hear more.

    Blessings

  39. William Struse says:

    Good evening Joel,

    We are both in agreement – understanding the context in terms of its time and people is absolutely essential.

    Regarding the intent of my post, I’m not referring to Daniel’s understanding of Jeremiah and the seventy years desolation of Jerusalem. Verse 2 says Daniel already understood the number of years regarding the desolations of Jerusalem. In the context of Daniel’s time the 1st year of Darius (son of Ahasuerus) would have been close to the end of the seventy years. Daniel didn’t pray for understanding for the 70 years but prayed for intersection concerning the sin of his people. My understanding of the text is that he knew they would be returning to build Jerusalem and the Temple in the very near future and he was making intersession, kind of like asking for a blessing for the endeavor so they get started on the right foot.

    Context here is really important. Daniel’s captivity (Dan. 1) began the captivity of Judah and started the 70 years of Jeremiah.

    Jeremiah 25:11-12 11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith YHWH, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.

    If Daniel understood the words of Jeremiah then he knew exactly when the captivity was going to be over. It was as simple as calculating his birthday or the anniversary of his captivity.

    I’ve gotten a little of track but I wanted to explain why I don’t think Daniel 9 is an interpretation of Jeremiah. Daniel already figured out Jeremiah. The prophecy of Daniel 9:23-27 was a separate vision concerning the coming of the Messiah.

    Back to the original intent of my earlier post: The point I am trying to make is that unless we can Scripturally define the chronology of the 2nd temple era our interpretation of Daniel 9 is built on an unstable foundation. The prophecy of 70 weeks is set in motion by “The commandment to restore and build”. Identifying and chronologically fixing this point is the foundation of the prophecy. In my opinion the rest of the prophecy is superfluous unless and until this point if fix. The Scripture gives five possible “commands” which might fit a “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem”.

    • The decree by Cyrus in 536 BC. (To rebuild the temple and Jerusalem)
    • The decree by Darius (son of Hystaspes) the “Great” in 520 BC. (To restart construction of the temple)
    • The decree by “Artaxexes” in his 7th year. (given to Ezra to return to Jerusalem)
    • The decree by “Artaxexes” in his 21st year. (granting Nehemiah permission to build the wall of Jerusalem.
    • The decree by YHWH in the 2nd year of Darius (520 BC.) (i.e. I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem Zechariah 1:16.)(This is the decree mentioned in Ezra 6:14 and witnessed by both Haggai and Zechariah)

    (As an aside I would someday like to ask a believer who has never heard of the prophecy of Daniel 9 to choose which of the above “commands” they think would to be the most reasonable choice.)

    In summary of the choices above:

    #1 above is dismissed by most scholars because it is impossible to make 70 weeks extend to the time of Christ without either shortening the Persian period or seriously adjusting the birth of Jesus. Isaac Newton made mention of this in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. It is also worth noting that it was not until the 2nd year of Darius that the 70 years of Divine anger ended, thus Cyrus’ decree was made during a period of time when YHWH was still angry. (see Zech 1:12)

    #2 above is also dismissed by most scholars because they simply cannot make it work.

    #3 and #4 above are used by most of the respected scholars today but they are dependent on determining the identity of “Artaxerxes”. Most assume “Artaxerxes” = Longimanus. What they don’t tell you is that in order to make this work the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah must be stretched beyond what context will allow. Frankly, I have come to believe that most scholars/teachers have not even looked to see if Ezra and Nehemiah are contextual contemporaries of Longimanus. It is just assumed based upon the work of Ussher and Sir Robert Anderson. A critical look at the chronology of both will find little in the way of a Scriptural explanation for their assertions. The underlying assumption is that it appears to work(Daniel 9) so it must be correct.

    #5 above is unexplainable. Not a single one of today’s respected prophecy teachers or scholars (that I am aware of) even mention it. Ironically a case can be made that every failed Messianic expectant of the 1st centuries BC/AD used the Divine “command to restore and build” as their basis for claiming the fulfillment of Daniel 9. As each Messianic leader failed to fulfilled the prophecy, the “Divine command” was then applied to the 2nd year of the next Persian “Artaxerxes”. This is how 240 years of Persian chronology was “eclipsed” in Rabbinic tradition.

    Did that help you understand my interest or did I make it more confusing? I believe in the soon and literal return of Jesus. Daniel 9 is really central to how we understand that future eschatology. The article I am writing is meant to be a survey of past and present beliefs concerning the most basic premise of Daniel 9. How do we understand the “commandment to restore and build” as it relates to 2nd temple era chronology? If we lay the foundation upon solid Scriptural grounds then we have a better footing upon which to build the rest of our understanding.

    Sorry this was so long. I tried to summarize but it’s a complex discussion.

    Warm Regards,
    William Struse

  40. Lyn Leahz says:

    Great post! Manually reblogged this on http://VineOfLife.net Hope you don’t mind! I want to share this. God bless you! ♪♫♪♫

  41. David Roberts says:

    Have you seen this?

    http://youtu.be/-B9d2mIyu1g

    Shows you just how much the Mahdi sounds like the AntiChrist.

  42. len says:

    I wanted to comment on your statement that Obama is just a bad boy and not the anti-Christ. Don’t be too sure. He is Muslim and you might be counting him out when he is right in front of your face. I think he could fit very easily. He has nearly uprooted 3 kings now. Egypt, Libya and working on Syria…..yes it is all of his doing. And don’t forget how he is seen as a Savior and don’t think that the anti-Christ is going to be easy to spot, but really ask yourself, it says that if it were possible that he would deceive even the elect and don’t forget the strong delusion that is being poured out. Sometimes you could be looking so hard at the Middle East that you might not see the decendants of the Middle East are here in the United States too.

  43. Joel says:

    Len,

    For starters, Barack Obama is not Gog of Magog (Turkey). He is not the the prince, the chief of Meshech and Tubal (also Turkey). Therefore, this precludes Obama from being the Antichrist. Of course, we could write a book on the many other Scriptural reasons why he is not, but this is just one simple reason, based on the Word of God, why I personally believe he could never be the man. As always, God knows best.

    Blessings

  44. Brian Weston says:

    Can anyone give a perspective on the 7 day millennia concept. If there are cycles of 1000 years until day 6 and then judgement. Do scholars take this literally ? Should these 1000 years millennia be exact to the day just as Jesus entrance into Jerusalem was foretold using Daniel and accurate to the very day….
    Many thanks
    Brian Weston

  45. Joel says:

    Brian,

    I would recommend reading Tim Warner’s book The Time of the End on this subject. Its quite clear that this concept was widely held by Christians in the first few hundreds years of the Church, and arguably by the apostles as well.

    Blessings

  46. Craig Smith says:

    Oops, last comment got funky on me after I posted it…

    First, let me just say that I rather like Joel Richardson. He is articulate and passionate and he has been a voice for biblical truth in the public arena recently, all of which I appreciate very much. Second, to all appearances, Richardson is a faithful Christian with a heart for reaching out to the the Muslim people. Who couldn’t love that? Third, while I disagree with certain aspects of his argument, I do not necessarily disagree with his main point; that is, I am open to the possibility that the coming Antichrist will come from an Islamic nation. I think this is a valid possibility. However, having said that, I do have some concerns with his use of Daniel, particularly as it relates to the prophecies if Dan 2, 7 & 8 and would invite him to interact with the carefully considered teaching of many godly, conservative Christian scholars who would respectfully disagree with his interpretations of Daniel.

  47. Joseph says:

    I admit I just skimmed thru the posts and the active discussions, so this may seem totally out of hand but here goes.

    Joel we briefly discussed on another post that Dr. Gene Scott was the first time I came across this idea that the anti-Christ would not come out of Rome. Dr. Scott mentioned Syria or Iran (if my memory serves me), and as you have correctly stated,if we use the Scripture as our main-stay and foundation there is no way to not see this.

    The other Biblical side of the anti-Christ’s existence (prior to the man, or persona) is the “spirit” that is working against the Gospel from Christ to now, as the Apostles John and Paul taught. This cannot be overlooked. Currently in academia there is an pointed effort to rewrite the history of the Church to produce the “true” Jesus of history in contrast to Jesus the Christ ,this mythological construct of Paul after the fact, or so is charged by “scholars” of our day. A very recent evidence of this is a book by Reza Aslan entitled “The Zealot”.

    I am about 12 chapters in and Aslan’s synopsis of history is a clever rewrite and dismantling of the authority of the Apostles and their historical first hand accounts in the Gospels of the life of Christ Jesus. He yields his very impressive credentials, as well as his very acute ability to communicate in writing his version of history, with fervor and ironically with much “zeal”. Yes, many of his assertions have been tackled many times before but Aslan has successfully managed to repackage it. He is the new breed of the highly educated progressive Islamists. What stood out to me was the un-apologetic discrediting of Jesus as the Christ, which is as anti-Christ as it gets. He passionately asserts that when he looked strictly at the history he felt like he finally met the real Jesus of Nazareth of history. This is the “spirit of antichrist” that we are contending against NOW. What is interesting about Reza Aslan is that he is of Iranian descent and very literally attempts to preach his message with a “mouth of a lion”. I am not saying he is that “man of sin”, however his is the type we should be looking for when watching for the spirit of anti-Christ taking up residence in a man. That is a lot more than I intended to write… but there it is.

Leave a reply

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *