73. Antichrist NOT from Europe? From Mideast instead?

Q - Have we been wrong all along?
A - Not necessarily...

For centuries, it has been speculated by premill-oriented writers and teachers that the antichrist will rise out of the 'Revived Roman Empire', which currently occupies most of what we know as Europe. This belief was particularly prevalent when the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church was considered the most likely prospect for being the antichrist (particularly in the 1500's and 1600's), but has been in the ascendancy again since the time of Darby's volume of work in the early and mid 1800's.

Those who hold the premill/pretrib position (such as myself), can thank almost every popular prophecy writer and speaker, such as Hal Lindsay, Tim Lahaye, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost for bringing the 'Revived Roman Empire' viewpoint to the person in the church pew. Indeed, no other viewpoint has been given any credence among premill/pretribbers in the last 50 years or so.

But recently, due to to the research of Joel Richardson and others, a body of documentation is building up that aims to show that the antichrist may instead arise out of the middle east -- meaning out of such countries as Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian peninsula countries. (I would mention that all these countries are Arab countries, except for Iran, which is Persian).

Two books written by Joel Richardson particularly explain and promote the 'antichrist from middle east' view:

"AntiChrist : Islam's Awaited Messiah" from Pleasant Word, a division of Winepress Publishing, 2006, and

"The Islamic AntiChrist, The Shocking Truth about the Real Nature of the Beast" from WND Books, A WorldNetDaily company, 2009

I say "two books", but the small print on the later 2009 book, shows that it is a reworking of the earlier 2006 book, with five new chapters, more documentation, and many more recommendations listed on the opening pages (but not from Hal Lindsay or Tim Lahaye). So don't buy both, just buy the later one.

It is clear that Richardson has done his homework, and his major thesis is this: that the supposed words of Muhammad in the Koran (Qur'an) and in later compiled works such at the Hadith literature, coincide amazingly with what the Bible says about the end times; and that they may do so in order that there will be no excuse in the Islamic countries for not knowing what God has said and shown in the Bible about the last days. In other words, based on their scriptures, muslims are expecting end time events very much like what the Bible says, but they interpret the events and persons incorrectly, believing that their glorious and victorious Mahdi (their coming 'messiah', a.k.a. the 12th Imam) will bring Jesus the prophet back with him when the Mahdi comes to rule the world. It will eventually be known that their Mahdi was not 'their messiah', and that their prophet was not Jesus nor remotely like him.

I am only writing this to call to your attention that this viewpoint is arising, and you deserve to know that this theory is out there, but that it is generally not accepted by most premill/pretribbers. My guess is they are still investigating and analyzing the material. I expect that there will be some anti-Richardson books soon, written to show why they think that this new viewpoint is neither credible or plausible.

I cannot speak to the issue of credibility yet, because I am only about 1/5th through the book. I will say that it looks like there is a lot of documentation, which includes 60 pages of separate appendices and source material, besides what is in the 220 pages (and 23 chapters) of the main body of the book itself. It appears that the first part of the book presents the Islamic position, and that the last half presents how this corresponds with what is in the Bible.

That's all I have to say for now -- obviously, I'll be blogging on this issue as I study more about it.

(NOTE: Do not confuse Joel Richardson with Joel Rosenberg, the author of "Epicenter", "The Last Jihad",
and other books.)
.