A Muslim Antichrist? — What Holly Thinks

The idea that the Antichrist will come from a Muslim nation — and not from Europe — has become popular since 9/11. But it doesn’t square with Scripture. Let me explain.

Chuck Missler, one of the proponents of the Muslim Antichrist theory, said that prophecy buffs have been “nearsighted.” Since the Bible teaches that the Antichrist will come from the region of the Roman Empire, they’ve mistakenly assumed that he will come from Western Europe and have forgotten the fact that the Roman Empire also had an eastern division, which continued long after the western division. It’s this eastern leg of the Roman Empire that the Antichrist will come from, according to Missler. Read about it here.

But is it true that prophecy buffs have been nearsighted, or do they have good reasons to believe that the Antichrist will emerge from Europe? I believe it’s the second answer.

The eastern leg of the Roman Empire (called the Byzantine Empire) did not come into existence for a few centuries after the time of Christ. Yet Daniel 9:26 — the verse that teaches that the Antichrist will emerge from the Roman Empire — says he will come from the same people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. This destruction occurred in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.

Since the eastern leg didn’t exist in 70 A.D., then the Romans who destroyed the city and sanctuary couldn’t have referred to the people from the much later, eastern leg. This is why prophecy scholars have historically believed that the Antichrist will come from the people of the old Roman Empire (represented today in Western Europe).

Yet to salvage their theory, some proponents of the Muslim Antichrist theory say that the Roman army included conscripted soldiers from Syria, so the Antichrist will be of Syrian origin. But this is nonsense to claim that, somehow, conscripted soldiers who are merely following orders represent the Roman Empire. Philosophers have a Latin phrase for this type of last-ditch argument — i.e., a weak argument that’s only purpose is to save someone’s favored viewpoint. It’s called an ad hoc argument.

The fact that the eastern leg of the Roman Empire didn’t exist in 70 A.D. seems, to me, to be a fatal flaw in the Muslim Antichrist theory.

— Holly Pivec
01/17/10