Categories: Apologetics & Theology

Is the Islamic Mahdi the End-Time Antichrist?

Gary DeMar | February 10, 2016

(AmericanVision) – As anyone who is familiar with Bible prophecy knows, Russia was the designated end-time bad guy throughout the last century. With the fall of the former Soviet Union, prophetic speculators have regrouped to paint a new end-time picture based on current headlines. The takeover of the American Embassy by a group of Islamic extremists during the Carter administration fueled speculation that Islam was an emerging prophetic movement. Some went so far as to maintain that the Islamic nations would align themselves with Russia in an assault on Israel. This scenario allowed them to keep the Russia factor alive without too much revision. With the assault on America on September 11, 2001, Islam once again took prophetic center stage.

A number of new prophecy books have adopted the premise that an Islamic leader is the predicted antichrist:

“In ‘The Islamic Antichrist,’ Joel Richardson breaks new ground with this devastating account of the possible connection between the Biblical Antichrist and the Islamic Mahdi. The Bible predicts that in the last days a charismatic leader will establish a global following in the name of peace. The Quran also predicts that a man will rise up to lead the nations, pledging to usher in an era of peace. The man in the Quran is called the Mahdi, or Islam’s savior. However, the man in the Bible is the Antichrist. Could it be possible that they are one and the same person?”

Michael Youssef, founding pastor of The Church of the Apostles in Atlanta, Georgia and president of Leading the Way with Dr. Michael Youssef, has written End Times and the Secret of the Mahdi. It’s a popular commentary on the book of Revelation that claims to present “striking parallels between the Antichrist of Revelation with the Mahdi of Islam.”

The thing of it is, in 1988 Dr. Youssef published Earth King (republished in 1992 as Man of Peace: A Novel of the Anti-Christ) in which the antichrist is “born to a Russian-Jewish family.”1 In 1988 the antichrist was a Russian Jew, but in 2016 he’s a Muslim. How is that possible?

The problem with the Islamic Mahdi interpretation of Richardson, Youssef, and others is that there were many antichrists when the New Testament was written and they served as a sign that the end of the Old Covenant was near for that first-century generation: “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).

Rarely do these prophecy books begin with a biblical definition of antichrist. Dr. Youssef’s End Times and the Secret of the Mahdi begins with the book of Daniel (11:36; 12:1). He then moves to Revelation 13:5, 7 and follows with 2 Thessalonians 2 (see my book Last Days Madness for a commentary on 2 Thess. 2) and later back to Daniel (9:27). It’s not until page 105 that he cites a passage where the word “antichrist” is found.

Youssef cites 1 John 2:18: “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.” He then offers this interpretation:

“The Antichrist with a capital A is yet to be revealed, but antichrists with a small a are all around us, spreading false teaching in our culture and in the church.”

There is no such distinction between a capital A antichrist and small a antichrists. There were only antichrists, that is, those who did “not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).

First, John is not describing different types of antichrists. The people had “heard antichrist is coming.” John corrects them. There’s more than one antichrist, and they’re all defined in the same way.

Second, John is not describing a distant future antichrist. It was “the last hour” for the people of John’s day and the existence of antichrists were evidence of that truth. That’s why Peter could declare that “the end of all things is near” (1 Peter 4:7) and those who dismissed this truth were described as “mockers” (2 Peter 3:3-4). These passages refer to the prediction Jesus gave on the Mount of Olives that resulted in His judgment coming on Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:1-2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; 21:6) before that generation passed away (Matt. 24:34).

Third, “even now many antichrists have appeared.” Notice the word “now.” In 1 John 4:3 John confirms the “now” of his day by declaring “you have heard that it” – the spirit of antichrist – “is coming and it is already in the world” (1 John 4:2-3).

According to the Bible, an antichrist was someone who did not “acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2 John 7). John was describing the unbelieving Jews of his day. Only they fit the time and context. John describes them as “those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Jesus was handed over to the Romans because He claimed to be God incarnate: “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18; also 8:58-59; 10:33; 17:5; 19:7). Of course, the Romans didn’t care about Jewish religious squabbles. That’s why Israel’s religious leaders brought political charges against Jesus to Pontius Pilate (Luke 23;2). But all along it was Jesus’ religious claims that turned the Jewish religious leaders against Him.

I don’t want to be too hard on Joel Richardson and Michael Youssef since for centuries theologians have put forth many different antichrist candidates too numerous to list here, and Islam has played a prominent role in prophetic speculation. A check of Bible commentators over the centuries will show a similar preoccupation with “newspaper exegesis,” interpreting the Bible through the lens of current events. For centuries, both the Roman Catholic Church (“the Papacy”) and Islam (“the Turk”) played major prophetic roles in the way Bible expositors interpreted prophetic texts because they were prominent religious and political movements of the time.

“For centuries the papacy was the unanimous antichrist candidate.2 The papal system was identified as both the ‘man of sin’ and the Babylonian whore of which Scripture speaks (2 Thess. 2; Rev. 19). In the conviction of the sixteenth-century Protestants, Rome was the great anti-Christ, and so firmly did this belief become established that it was not until the nineteenth century that it was seriously questioned by evangelicals.”3

Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, Melanchton, Knox, Zwingli, Tyndale, Bradford, Hooper, Latimer, Cranmer, Wesley, Bengel, and nearly all Protestant denominations tagged the papacy as the antichrist, the Man of Sin, and the Beast of Revelation 13. Chapter 25, section 6, of the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith concluded in its original formulation that “There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that antichrist, the man of sin, and Son of Perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.” Similar wording can be found in The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Church, the Baptist Confession of 1689, and in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

Peter Toon offers a helpful historical summary of the topic as it relates to Islam:

“References to the Turkish Empire appear in virtually every Commentary on the Apocalypse of John which was produced by English Puritans, Independents, Presbyterians and Baptists. Gog and Magog were identified with the armies of Turkey and the Muslim world, descriptions of Turkish military power were seen in the contents of the trumpet (Rev. 9:13–21), and the year 1300 was believed to have great significance for it was at that time that the Turk became a threat to European civilization.

* * * * *

“For the English Puritans, as for many of their fellow Protestants on the Continent of Europe, the fact that the Ottoman Empire had for its religion Islam, the teaching of Mohammed, the ‘false’ prophet of God, was sufficient to label it as an envoy or agent of Satan, seeking to destroy the true Church of Christ. In view of this we cannot be surprised to learn that they believed God had given to John on Patmos a vision of this great enemy of the elect of God, who would one day be destroyed by the power of Christ.”4

It should not surprise us, therefore, that when Christians wrote on the subject of Bible prophecy centuries ago, they would take current events into account. For the historicist interpreter, the Islamic advances could not be ignored. “[D]uring the oppressive conquests of the Saracens5 the prophecies concerning Antichrist were searched anew by the monks and priests — in the hope they would yield perhaps an indication that Mohammed or his fierce followers could be meant by the passages referring to Antichrist.”6

Like today, many of the Reformers saw prophecy being fulfilled in their day in terms of the dominant religious and political movements:

“The search for the plain obvious meaning of Scripture when allied with the conviction that God must have spoken in Scripture of the times during which the Reformers lived, which were ‘the last times’, led to a view of Daniel and Revelation as being charters or maps of Church history from the Epiphany [the first coming of Christ] to the Last Judgment. The millennium of Revelation 20 was therefore equated with a thousand years of church history. Yet it was the contents of chapters 13 to 19 of the Apocalypse of John which seemed most to impress the followers of Calvin and Luther. Here they found a clear promise that all the enemies of Jesus Christ would be crushed before the Last Day. The Turks, the papacy and all their supporters would be defeated.”7

Protestant Reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546) believed “the papacy was the antichrist alluded to in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, and the Turk was the small horn that replaced three horns of the beast in the seventh chapter.”8 He also identified the Turk as Gog and the papacy as Magog. Luther had a great deal to say about the Turks in history and prophecy. He wrote On War Against the Turks in 1528. His second treatise, Army Sermon Against the Turks, was written at the time of the unsuccessful siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1529. Luther wrote the following in 1532:

“I am entirely of the opinion that the papacy is the Antichrist. But if anyone wants to add the turk, then the pope is the spirit of the Antichrist, and the turk is the flesh of Antichrist. They help each other in their murderous work. The latter slaughters bodily and by the sword, the former spiritually and by doctrine.”9

Like today’s prophetic speculators, Luther believed that the end was near, and the presence of the papacy and the Turks was positive proof. “At no other time in his life was he so certain of the imminence of the end, and in the months from late 1529 to the early part of 1530 he worked feverishly to understand and incorporate the event of the Turk into the total scheme of history.”10 In a letter to a friend written shortly before his death, Luther wrote, “I believe that we are the last trumpet which prepares for and precedes the advent of Christ.”11 Luther was not alone in this conviction.12 While the end did not come before 1600 like Luther and others thought, Islam still played a major role in prophetic speculation.

Like Martin Luther, John Calvin (1509–1564) did not write a commentary on the book of Revelation. Even so, he did make a number of important contributions to the topic of eschatology. Although Calvin commented on the rise of Islam, he did not predict that the end was near. Calvin believed that Islam was one of “two horns of antichrist,” with the pope being the other.13 “Calvin and the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible further identified this >adversary=, >the mystery of iniquity=, with the Papacy.”14 The demise of antichrist is, in Calvin’s view, no singular apocalyptic act:

“[Paul] had foretold the destruction of Antichrist’s reign; he now points out the manner of his destruction — that he will be reduced to nothing by the word of the Lord. It is uncertain, however, whether he speaks of the last appearance of Christ, when he will be manifested from heaven as the Judge. The words, indeed, seem to have this meaning, but Paul does not mean that Christ would accomplish this in one moment. Hence we must understand it in this sense—that Antichrist would be wholly and in every respect destroyed, when the final day of the restoration of all things shall arrive.”15

It was Calvin’s position that all the nations would one day embrace the gospel. This belief included Roman Catholic and Islamic nations. A full reading of “Calvin’s commentaries give some scholars cause for concluding that he anticipated the spread of the gospel and true religion to the ends of the earth.”16

“When our Lord Jesus appeared,” Calvin declared, “he acquired possession of the whole world; and his kingdom was extended from one end of it to the other, especially with the proclamation of the Gospel. . . . God has consecrated the entire earth through the precious blood of his Son to the end that we may inhabit it and live under his reign.” This meant that religious reform pointed also to the reform of the secular realm. “We must not only grieve for the offenses committed by unbelievers,” Calvin warned, Abut also recognize that we remain unworthy to look upon heaven until there is harmony and unanimity in religion, till God is purely worshipped by all, and all the world is reformed.” Believers “truly worship God by the righteousness they maintain within their society.”17

A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments, edited by Symon Patrick, was a very popular commentary series published in the early eighteenth century, with a corrected edition appearing in 1822. William Lowth’s comments on Ezekiel 38:15 are representative of the time:

“Thou and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, &c.] The character here given of this people, may properly be applied to the Turks, the chief strength of whose armies consist of cavalry, and the great numbers of them which they bring into the field, as the writers of the Turkish history observe: compare Rev. ix. 16. which place several interpreters expound of the Turks.”18

John Gill (1697–1771) and Thomas Scott (1747–1821) followed a similar interpretive methodology. Gill mentions the Islamic Turks several times in his commentary on Ezekiel 38 by identifying them with “Gog.”19 Scott finds “that the Turks, Tartars, or Scythians, from the northern parts pf Asia, perhaps uniting with the inhabitants of some more southern regions, will make war upon the Jews, and be cut off in the manner here predicted.” Scott does not offer a timetable for when this might be accomplished.20

Thomas Newton’s Dissertations on The Prophecies, first published in 1755, identifies the fallen star of Revelation 9:1 with Mohammed and the locusts with Arabians:

“At the sounding of the fifth trumpet, (ver. 1–3, [of Rev. 9]) a star fallen from heaven, meaning the wicked imposter of Mohammed, ‘opened the bottomless pit, and there arose a smoke out of the pit, and the sun and the air were darkened’ by it; that is, false religion was set up, which filled the world with darkness and error; and swarms of Saracen or Arabian locusts overspread the earth. A false prophet is very fitly typified by a blazing star or meteor.—The Arabians likewise are properly compared to locusts, not only because numerous armies frequently are so, but also because swarms of locusts often arise from Arabia: and also because in the plagues of Egypt, to which constant allusion is made in these trumpets, ‘the locusts (Exod. x. 13) are brought by an eastwind,’ that is from Arabia, which lay eastward of Egypt; and also because in the book of Judges, (vii. 12,) the people of Arabia are compared ‘to locusts or grasshoppers for multitude,’ for in the original the word for both is the same.”21

Newton sees much of Islamic history predicted in the ninth chapter of Revelation. He states that “the last of their conquests were Candia or the ancient Crete in 1669, and Cameniec in 1672.”22 Of course, he’s interpreting the Bible after the fact. Did people reading Revelation 9 in the first few centuries after it was written see the rise of Islam? Did they see anything like what the futurists claim is about to happen?

The preterist interpretation of prophecy is based on the time texts of Revelation 1:1, 1:3, and 22:10 where we are told the events were “near” for those who first picked up Revelation to read. All other interpretive systems are guesswork in need of constant revision as current events change.

For another example, James Glasgow, who served as the Irish General Assembly’s Professor of Oriental Languages, writes in his 1872 commentary on Revelation, “I accord with such interpreters as have identified this meteor [in Revelation 9:1] with Mohammed, and the system called by him and his followers Islam.”23 Glasgow follows the historicist interpretive approach to Revelation similar to that of Luther. The two beast-like powers in Revelation are said to be the Roman Catholic Church and Mohammedanism. Glasgow places the fulfillment of the prophecy in Revelation 9:19 “when the Ottomans in A.D. 1453 took Constantinople, and established in Europe that dominion which ever since has been called Turkey in Europe. . . .”24 Glasgow’s understanding of Islam is similar to what we are reading today:

“Now the history of the rise and progress of Mohammedanism is a history of the rise and progress of a religious system, and a vast political power inseparably united, — of a religion propagated by the sword, mustering armies compared to swarms of locusts [Rev. 9:3], and making their devastating, plundering, and subjugating assaults on ‘the land,’ — the nominally Christian by now corrupted region of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc. . . . The secret of their bravery lies in Mohammed’s teaching, and can be found in the Qur’an. He had taught them, that if they fell in Battle against kafirs, or infidels, they would be shaheds, or martyrs, and sure of Paradise (Behisht), with its sensual attractions; and that those who would slay infidels were to be called ghazi or heroes, and to enjoy the special favor of God. The natural result was an ardour that carried them over the battle-field, wishing to be slain and to enjoy the dazzling prospects of Paradise.25

Adam Clarke follows a similar method of interpretation in his exposition of Revelation 9. The description of the “locusts” of verse 7 “appears to be taken from Joel ii.4. The whole of this symbolical description of an overwhelming military force agrees very well with the troops of Mohammed. The Arabs are the most expert horsemen in the world: they live so much on horseback that the horse and his rider seem to make but one animal.”26 Keep in mind that with the historicist interpretation, this section of Revelation was considered fulfilled prophecy in 1810 when Clarke published his commentary.

If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that trying to predict the end is an inexact science when the historical context of a given prophecy is ignored. With all the supposed good intentions to bring people closer to the reality of God’s Word, prophetic speculation seems to have the opposite effect. Skeptics often ask, If the Bible is clear on this topic (and it is if interpreters stick to the text), then why have so many interpreters been so wrong for so long? It’s a legitimate question that needs to be answered by today’s prophetic prognosticators.

There is no doubt that Islam is a destructive ideology. It was destructive in the 7th century, and it was destructive in the 16th century. It was beaten back with the gospel. Instead of making more fateful predictions, we should get to work with a gospel of hope and victory, not one of eschatological defeat that can only be remedied by a “rapture” of the church.

Endnotes:

  1. Man of Peace (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), ix.
  2. Samuel J. Cassels, Christ and Antichrist or Jesus of Nazareth Proved to be the Messiah and the Papacy Proved to be the Antichrist (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1846) and Christopher Hill, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 1-40.
  3. Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971), 41.
  4. Peter Toon, “Introduction,” Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology 1600 to 1660 (London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1970), 19–20.
  5. Saracens was the name Christians had given to Moslems during the time of the Crusades. Moslems who had invaded Spain from Morocco were called Moors. Saracen might be based on a word meaning “easterners.”
  6. LeRoy Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1950), 1:530.
  7. Toon, “The Latter-Day Glory,” Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel, 25.
  8. Mark U. Edwards, Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531–46 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), 97. “For Martin Luther, the Catholic Church was nothing more or less than Babylon — ‘it would be no wonder,’ he wrote in 1520, ‘if God would rain fire and brimstone from heaven and sink Rome into the abyss, as He did Sodom and Gomorrah of old’ — and the pope the Antichrist. ‘If he is not,’ Luther exclaimed, ‘then somebody tell me who is!’” Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History (New York: The Free Press, 1997), 19.
  9. Quoted in Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 1959), 33.
  10. John H. Headley, Luther’s View of Church History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963), 245.
  11. Quoted in Headley, Luther’s View of Church History, 265.
  12. Katharine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain: 1530–1645 (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1979), 17–19.
  13. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, [1555] 1987), 666.
  14. Hill, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England, 4.
  15. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, rep. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 335.
  16. J. A. DeJong, As the Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial Expectations in the Rise of Anglo-American Missions—1640–1810 (Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, 1970), 8.
  17. William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 192.
  18. William Lowth, “A Commentary Upon the Prophet Ezekiel,” A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, ed. Symon Patrick, 6 vols. rev. ed. (London: J. F. Dove, 1822), 4:67.
  19. John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, 9 vols. rep. ed. (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., [1810] 1989), 6:197-200.
  20. Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, 3 vols. (New York: Collins and Hannay, 1832), 2:773.
  21. Thomas Newton, Dissertations on The Prophecies, Which Have Remarkably Been fulfilled, and at This Time are Fulfilling in the World (London: J. F. Dove, 1755), 481–482.
  22. Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, 490.
  23. James Glasgow, The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872), 251.
  24. Glasgow, The Apocalypse, 270.
  25. Glasgow, The Apocalypse, 254, 257.
  26. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 3 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, [1810] n.d.), 3:1002.