Responding to "Myths of Muslim Antichrist" (Update)

Not long ago, I had posted about Jerry Stevens' article, "Myths of a Muslim Antichrist." I didn't have time to respond to his points then, but want to do so now:

1.  Mr. Stevens first argues that the "Assyrian" references in Micah do not necessarily refer to the Antichrist.  The relevant portion of Micah reads:

5 And this man [speaking of the Messiah] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

7 And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.

8 ¶And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

9 Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.

Maybe there is something in the Hebrew that might make this clear, but the KJV uses the singular pronoun "he" when referencing back to the Assyrian, indicating that it is a title or name of an individual, rather than Assyrians generally. However, even if Assyria stands in for any potential enemy of Israel, that doesn't disprove a Muslim Antichrist because the nations surrounding Israel certainly are enemies.

2.  Mr. Stevens next argues that  Assyrians are predominantly Christian anyway. If we are talking about the modern Assyrians, that may be correct, but then it ceases to have meaning because after the Assyrian genocide, the Assyrian Christians fled to many countries all around the world. However, if it is a geographical reference, then it would include eastern Turkey, Syria, and northern Iraq--areas with large Kurdish populations.

3.  Mr. Stevens' third argument is that Daniel predicts a Roman antichrist, referring to Daniel 9:26, which states:

And after threescore and two weeks shall  be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

It is generally accepted that "the prince that shall come" refers to the Antichrist, while the "the people [who] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The Roman army was led by Titus, who was born in Rome. However, that is not necessarily true of the legions that he led. There were three legions raised involved in the siege: the Fifth, Tenth, and Fifteenth. The Fifth and Tenth were raised by Titus' father, Vespasian, while Titus raised the Fifteenth. It has been noted that by the 1st Century, the legions were neither Roman nor, even, Italian. The specific legions involved were apparently composed of Syrian, Arabian, Egyptian, and from Asia Minor (see here, for more discussion of information from Josephus on the makeup of the armies; see also, here). Thus, these verses do not specifically indicate that the Anti-Christ will be from Rome. I would also note that "Roman" does not equal "European"--Rome was not a European empire, but a Mediterranean empire, encompassing many areas that are now Muslim nations.

4. His fourth argument is  the fourth empire of Daniel's (actually, Nebuchadnezzar's) dream is Roman/Western, not Islamic/Middle-Eastern (speaking of Daniel Chapter 2). His theory is that all of the Empires immediately succeeded one another without gap (although even he has to admit that the last--representing the feet--necessarily has a gap between it and the Roman empire).

While his general interpretation of the four empires is correct, his geographical focus is not. These are not simply Empires that succeeded one another, but Empires that succeeded one another in their control over Judea.

Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Trajan.

However, there is no reason to interpret Daniel as speaking of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't fall with the West, and is known as the Byzantine Empire. That is, the Byzantine Empire was not a successor to the Roman Empire--it was the continuation of the Roman Empire.

Byzantine Empire at its greatest extent under Justinian

What succeeded the Byzantine Empire? The Arab Caliphate.

Byzantine Empire in 650 A.D.

Other than a brief period during the Crusades, Jerusalem remained under Islamic control (primarily the Ottoman Empire) until liberated by the British in WWI. Thus, even using Mr. Stevens' own logic, the feet of the statute in Daniel 2, which he contends the empire of the Antichrist, would be Muslim.

5. The fifth argument is basically that lots of people enjoy beheadings, so the reference to the Antichrist beheading the tribulation saints is not evidence of a Muslim Antichrist. However, it is also not evidence against a Muslim Antichrist, and certainly Muslim nations are unique in being the only current governments that use beheading as a form of execution.

6. Mr. Stevens' sixth and final argument is that an Muslim Antichrist would not be able to blaspheme Allah by claiming divinity. This issue is addressed to a certain extent by Joel Richardson in his book, Antichrist. However, as I've suggested in other posts, I think something will happen to Islam that will make it more conducive to a mystical ruler proclaiming to be God. This is the purpose of the False Prophet: to make the Antichrist acceptable as an object of worship.

Update: An article at Joel's Trumpet discussing Daniel 2 and 7.