I have included an article from Litch in Appendix C detailing his interpretation.
SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Sir Robert Anderson, perhaps one of the leading scholars of prophecy who unlocked the seventy weeks of Daniel stated: “Verse 7 indicates that the rise of all these kingdoms was future.” He continues: “In the history of Babylonia there is nothing to correspond with the predicted course of the first Beast, for it is scarcely legitimate to suppose that the vision was a prophecy of the career of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither is there in the history of Persia anything answering to the bear-like beast with that precision and fullness which prophecy demands. The language of the English version suggests a reference to Persia and Media but the true rendering appears to be; ‘It made for itself one dominion,’ instead ‘it raised up itself on one side.’”18
Anderson gets it. Even today this “bear” is rising in a lop-sided fashion. We have Iran (Persia) rising without Media (Kurdistan).
Anderson continues, “While the symbolism of the sixth verse seems at first sight to point to the Grecian Empire, it will appear upon a closer examination that at its advent the leopard had four wings and four heads. This was its primary and normal condition, and it was in this condition that dominion was given to it. This surely is very different from what Daniel 8:8 describes is the history of Alexander’s Empire realized, viz., the rise of a single power, which in its decadence continued to exist in a divided state.”
He then comes to the following conclusion: “Each of the three first empires of the second chapter (Babylon, Persia, and Greece) was in turn destroyed by its successor; but the kingdoms of the seventh chapter all continued together upon the scene, though the dominion, was with the fourth (Daniel 7:12). The verse seems to imply that the four beasts came up together, and at all events there is nothing to suggest a series of empires, each destroying its predecessor, though the symbolism of the vision was (in contrast with that of ch.2) admirably adapted to represent this.”19
Anderson is correct. Today, we see these three kingdoms rising to power—Iraq (Babylon), Iran (Persia without Media), and Turkey (Ionia, Greece). They are all rising together, and all are symbolically and historically connected to the empires that Daniel predicted. Expect the bear (Iran) to consume three ribs, which may be the splintering of Iraq into three sectors.
Concerning the Roman Empire, Anderson writes: “it must be owned that there was nothing in the history of ancient Rome to correspond with the main characteristic of (the fourth) beast unless the symbolism used is to be very loosely interpreted. To ‘devour the earth,’ ‘tread it down and break it in pieces,’ is fairly descriptive of other empires, but Ancient Rome was precisely the one power that added government to conquest, and instead of treading down and breaking in pieces the nations it subdued, sought rather to mould them to its own civilization and polity. All this – and more might be added – suggests that the entire vision of the seventh chapter may have a future reference.”20
Anderson believes that Daniel 7 is speaking only of the End-Times empires that exist simultaneously. Amazingly, he stated that the Middle East would be the primary area of conflict.
Anderson continues: “Now, Daniel 2 expressly names the Mediterranean (“the Great Sea”) as the scene of the conflict between the four beasts. But there is no doubt that Egypt, Turkey, and Greece will be numbered among the ten kingdoms”21
In Daniel 11:40, Egypt (King of the South) and Turkey (King of the North) are expressly mentioned by their prophetic titles as separate kingdoms.
LEVANT—NOT ADRIATIC (GRECIAN-ISLAMIC, NOT EUROPEAN)
Perhaps the best case for a Seleucid-Grecian and not a European Empire comes from Scripture. Anderson agrees: “To the scheme here indicated the objection may naturally be raised: Is it possible that the most powerful nations of the world, England, Germany, and Russia, are to have no part in the great drama of the Last-Days? But it must be remembered, first, that the relative importance of the great Powers may be different at the time when these events shall be fulfilled, and secondly, that difficulties of this kind may depend entirely on the silence of Scripture, or, in other words, on our own ignorance. I feel bound to notice, however, that doubts which have been raised in my mind regarding the soundness of the received interpretation of the seventh chapter of Daniel point to a more satisfactory answer to the difficulties in question. It has been confidently urged by some that as the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s image symbolized the ten kingdoms - five on either foot – five of these kingdoms must be developed in the East, and five in the West. The argument is plausible, and possibly just; but its chief force depends upon forgetting that in the prophet’s view the Levant and not the Adriatic, Jerusalem and not Rome, is the center of the world.”21
Anderson finds problems with the revived “European” empire theory. He seems to advocate for a focus on the Levant (Eastern) rather than the Western Roman Empire.
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, (315-386)
Amazingly, even before the advent of Islam, there were those who looked toward the Middle East for the fulfillment of the Antichrist prophecies. Cyril was a distinguished theologian and Father of the early Church. In his Divine Institutes, Cyril discusses the fact that the Antichrist will proceed forth from the region of ancient Syria, which extended from modern day Syria well into portions of Asia Minor (Turkey): “A king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the over thrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself… But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him… Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people.”22
The idea that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East is certainly not new.
SOPHRONIUS, PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM (560-638)
Sophronius was an Arab Christian who became the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634 and remained so until his death four years later. It was during these years that the Muslim armies under Caliph Umar invaded and conquered Jerusalem. Several historical references attest to the fact that Sophronius identified the Muslim occupation of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as the fulfillment of the “abomination that causes desolation” that is always associated with the coming of the Antichrist. Sophronius laments the circumstances under which the Church in Jerusalem found itself and refers to the Muslim occupiers as being followers of Satan: “Why are the troops of the Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies? Why have churches been pulled down? Why is the cross mocked? Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths… the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries… Moreover, they are raised up more and more against us and increase their blasphemy of Christ and the Church, and utter wicked blasphemies against God. Those God-fighters boast of prevailing over all, assiduously and unrestrainedly imitating their leader, who is the devil, and emulating his vanity because of which he has been expelled from heaven and been assigned to the gloomy shades.”23
MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR (580-662)
Maximus was an important theologian and scholar of the early Church who helped defeat the Monothelite heresy, which claimed that Christ only possessed a divine and not a human will. Maximus witnessed the rise and spread of the Islamic Empire in his day. He described the invading Muslims as “a people who… delight in human blood… whom God hates, though they think they are worshipping God.” He also referred to the Mu
slim invasions as “announcing the advent of the Antichrist.” And so we see that even at such an early period of Islam’s growth, a clear association of Islam with the Antichrist prophecies was being articulated.24
JOHN OF DAMASCUS (676-749)
John of Damascus is another very important figure in the early Church. He was born into a privileged Christian family in Syria, but later become a presbyter and monk. His grandfather had been the administrator of Damascus at the time the Muslims took it, and he actually grew up and served in the court of the Caliph. He was thoroughly familiar with Islam and thus, in his famous book, Against Heresies, he devotes a whole chapter to the discussion of Islam. “And there is also up until now a strong and people-deceiving superstition among Ishmaelites, that is the forerunner of Antichrist. And this [superstition - Islam] is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: ‘Sarah has sent me away empty.’ So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Akbar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mohammed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy.”25
Even as early as 50 years after Islam was birthed, learned Christian leaders who were familiar with Islam were referring to it as a forerunner of the Antichrist. The Muslim invasions heralded “the advent of the Antichrist.” Interestingly we see John of Damascus pointing to Islam as a Christian heresy connected to an Arian monk, and his connection to Aphrodite, the moon-goddess. This is proven archeologically by early Islamic coins.
EULOGIUS, PAUL ALVARUS, AND THE MARTYRS OF CORDOVA (9TH CENTURY)
Many Christians from Cordova, Spain were martyred during what is ironically often taught to be a period of exemplary peaceful co-existence between Christians and Muslims under Islamic rule. In the 850’s in Andalusian Spain, most Christians seemed to have assumed a position of quiet submission to Muslim rule, turning their heads to the daily inequalities suffered by Christians at the hands of their Muslim overlords. Yet there remained a remnant of faithful Christians who refused to submit to the status quo of silence. During this time, well over 50 Christians were put to death for publicly confessing that they believed Mohammed to be a false prophet and the precursor to the Antichrist. Six Christians were called before authorities and asked to recant their denial of Mohammed as a true prophet. The six replied: “We abide by the same confession, O judge that our most holy brothers Isaac and Sanctius professed. Now hand down the sentence, multiply your cruelty, be kindled with complete fury in vengeance for your prophet. We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of antichrist and an author of profane doctrine.” 26 Amazing, would one find such faith and bravery among today’s Christians? Indeed, false Christians existed even in these times. A controversy erupted where many who claimed to be Christians accused these martyrs of deserving their deaths for provoking the anger of Muslim authorities. Only two people defended the martyrs—monks named Eulogius and Paul Alvarus. Eulogius, later martyred, as well, praised the Christians who he said, “marched out against the angel of Satan and the forerunner of Antichrist,” that is “Mohammed, the heresiarch.”27
Paul Alvarus went even further, writing a whole book entitled Indiculus Luminosus (The Illuminated Instructions), in which he argued that Mohammed was the forerunner to the Antichrist and the eleventh horn of Daniel.
MARTIN LUTHER
Martin Luther (1483-1546) was, of course, a German monk who became the father of the Protestant reformation. While many are aware of the fact that Luther came to view the Roman Catholic Papacy as the seat of the Antichrist, few are aware that he also thought the Muslim people (which he referred to as “the Turks”) comprised the eastern segment of the Antichrist Kingdom: “The Pope is the spirit of antichrist, and the Turk (Muslim) is the flesh of antichrist. They help each other in their murderous work. The latter slaughters bodily by the sword; and the former spiritually by doctrine”28
JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564)
John Calvin also determined the Antichrist Kingdom would consist of both the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Ottoman (Muslim) Empire. To Calvin, both the Catholic Church and Islam were equally deserving of the title of Antichrist: “As Mohammed says that his Qur’an is the sovereign wisdom, so says the Pope of his own decrees. For they be the two horns of Antichrist.”29 Elaborating on the prophecy of Daniel 7, Calvin commented that, “It does seem that the fourth iron kingdom was in fact both the pre-Papal and the pre-Islamic undivided Pagan Roman Empire, as well as the later Western-Roman Papal and the contemporaneous Eastern-Roman Islamic Empire into which it then subdivided… Thus they correspond to the two legs of the later Roman Empire - Islam and the Papacy.”30
Referring to the great Antichrist apostasy, Calvin again pointed his finger at both the religion of Islam and the Catholic Church: “The defection (apostasy) has indeed spread more widely! For, since Mohammed was an apostate, he turned his followers, the Turks, from Christ…The sect of Mohammed was like a raging overflow, which in its violence tore away about half of the Church. It remained for the Papal Antichrist to infect with his poison the part which was left.”31
And speaking of the Antichrist, Calvin made this connection to Mohammed: “In Daniel 11:37, that Prophet predicted the coming of a terrible tyrant. This is how he described that tyrant: ‘Neither shall he pay regard to the God of his fathers, nor to the desire of women.’ Applied to the Unitarian Muslims, this might well mean that they would ignore the Trinitarian God of their forefathers—and with their licentiousness and polygamy also disregard the desire of women to conclude monogamous unions. Some refer this prophecy to the Pope and to Mahomet—and the phrase ‘the love of women’ seems to give probability to this view. For Mahomet allowed to men the brutal liberty of chastising their wives, and thus he corrupted that conjugal love and fidelity which binds the husband to the wife… Mahomet allowed full scope to various lusts—by permitting a man to have a number of wives. This seems like an explanation—of his being inattentive to the love of women.”32
So while many Protestant prophecy teachers today still hold to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the Antichrist, nearly all are unaware that Islam held an equally prominent position in the eschatology of many of the great reformers.
JONATHAN EDWARDS (1703-1758)
Jonathan Edwards was a great American congregational preacher and revivalist. He was also president of Princeton University. Edwards, like Luther and Calvin, saw Islam as one of the premiere—though not exclusive—elements of the Antichrist Kingdom. Referring to the three unclean spirits that proceed forth from the mouth of the dragon in Revelation 16:14, Edwards commented that, “there shall be the spirit of popery, the spirit of Mahometanism (Islam), and the spirit of heathenism all united.” Referring to the False Prophet of Revelation 13, Edwards says that, “here an eye seems to be had to Mahomet (Mohammed), whom his followers call the prophet of God.”33
Like most of the reformed theologians that came before him, Edwards held to a his-toricist interpretation of the Book of Revelation. That is to say, he considered Revelation a treatise about the whole period from the birth of Christ to the conclusion of this age. In looking at the demonic locusts and horsemen in Revelation 9, Edwards saw a clear allusion to the Muslim armies: “Satan’s Mahometan (Muslim) Kingdom shall be utterly overthrown. The locusts and the horsemen in the 9th chapter of Revelation have their appointed time set there, and the false prophet shall be taken and destroyed. And then—though Mahometanism has been so vastly propagated in the world, and is upheld by such a great empire—this smoke, which has ascended out of the bottomless pit, shall be utterly scattered before the light of that glorious day, and the Mahometan E
mpire shall fall at the sound of the great trumpet which shall then be blown.”34
Edwards’s comments about the Locusts are rooted in the fact that in ancient history, Arabs were associated with locusts. Even the Hebrew words for “locust” and “Arab” are almost identical. In many verses in the Bible, locusts (Arabs) come against Israel for battle. The Arab word for locust is Gindib. The Monolith of Shalmeneser III from Kurkuk, the oldest account from Babylon and the oldest document mentioning Arabs, lists Gi-in-di-bu’ Ar-ba-a-a regarding Arabs and their territory called “Gindibu.”35
While the position that Islam is the Antichrist may not be the premiere position held by today’s prophecy scholars, let it not be said that what is presented in this book is a new or novel theory. Ultimately, you must decide which theory you believe is more grounded in Scripture, the European position held by many of today’s prophecy teachers, or the Middle Eastern/Islamic position that has been held by many other great leaders throughout Church history.
71
God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible Page 41
