Fascinating. I knew that some believe the Antichrist is to come out of Islam, I knew that Islam occupies the eastern half of the original Roman Empire and is thought to be represented by one of the two legs of the statue in Daniel 2, but what I didn't know is that there are some very specific reasons to identify the Antichrist as coming out of Islam, reasons that are found in their own writings. John MacArthur lays out these sources in one of his teachings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMy_cRtSrcA
The first seven minutes give background on the Islamic understanding of Jesus Christ as a mere human prophet. Starting at about 7 on the counter MacArthur describes the Twelfth Imam or the Imam Mahdi who is the great savior awaited by Muslims who is prophesied to establish the worldwide Caliphate by killing all those who reject Allah.
The fascinating thing is that in their own writings they identify the Mahdi with the first horseman of the Apocalypse in the Bible's Revelation 6, the rider on the white horse who goes out to conquer, whom we understand to be the figure of the Antichirst. Unlike this figure, however, who carries a bow but no arrows, he bears a sword. The second horse, the red horse that signifies war, is also identified with him.
So their savior is our Anitchrist. But even more amazing, this Mahdi will make a covenant with Israel for seven years, just as we understand from the Book of Daniel the Antichrist will do. Interesting that a peace deal considered to be historic was recently signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Not the Mahdi of course and there doesn't seem to be a time limit on it, but wouldn't this one have to be broken for the Mahdi to establish a seven-year agreement? Not that there would be anything surprising about such an agreement being broken.
MacArthur continues with a description of the figure Islam regards as Jesus Christ, who is prophesied in their writings to return to earth in order to teach Christians how wrong we've all been about him. He's considered to be a servant of the Mahdi, inferior of course, a mere man who will eventually marry and have children and then die. He seems to fill the role we identify with the False Prophet of Revelation, the one who points to the Antichrist. Then there is a third figure who is to come according to Islamic doctrine, their version of the Antichrist who is rather like the true Jesus Christ. Imagine that.
This scenario certainly hangs together rather well overall. Islam occupies about 60% of what was the original Roman Empire, according to MacArthur, and their own writings describe very closely what we expect to come based on the Book of Revelation.
What happens then to my own favorite scenario that has the Pope in the role of the final Antichrist? That too has some pretty solid support. The Protestant Reformers identified the papacy as the Antichrist, and many down the centuries testified to that identification, a few of whom I list here:
https://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-antichrist-of-tribulation-day-of.html
The papacy more or less ruled the "Holy Roman Empire" throughout the Middle Ages, and the Roman Church itself had taken on the trappings of the pagan religions of the Roman Empire. Some have considered it in itself to be the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Vatican is both the seat of the Roman Church and a sovereign state. The Harlot Church of Revelation is clearly identified as sitting on seven hilils which can only describe Rome. The 666 of Revelation only too nicely fits a Latin title of the Pope, but that title itself, Vicar of Christ, is practically a definition of Antichrist on its own anyway. I'd say the papal credentials for final Antichrist are better than pretty good.
Nevertheless the Mahdi has a credible claim. So how is this to be resolved? At the moment it's just a question. I don't have an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment