Islam Cannot be the Antichrist

This End Times Deception Bible Study will reveal why Islam CANNOT be the Antichrist.

There are two main popular teachings today about who the antichrist is. One is that Islam is the antichrist. And the other mainstream teaching is that the antichrist will be a future political leader, who will appear (as some believe) AFTER the church has been “raptured” to heaven. So on this page, we will prove from the Bible why these two mainstream teachings are false.

Please note that both these teachings go against what the great Protestant reformers taught.

So why can’t Islam and the idea of a future antichrist be true? Let’s take a look at what Paul said about the “man of sin”.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 …’Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.’

First, let’s take a look at the name “son of perdition” which Paul calls the antichrist. There is only one other place in the Bible where this name “son of perdition” is used. And do you know who it is referring to? Let’s take a look.

John 17:12 …’While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.’

Jesus here is referring to JUDAS. And who was Judas? He was a “follower of Jesus”, until he allowed Satan to enter into his heart to deceive and betray His Lord. So Judas was a deceiver from “amongst God’s people”.

Now why did Paul reference the man of sin also as the “son of perdition”? Because he was showing us that the antichrist would be a deceiver from WITHIN THE CHURCH. The antichrist would APPEAR to be “one of us”, but in fact would be a deceiver, working for Satan.

Now do we have any other Bible verses that support this view? Yes, take a look at what John says about antichrist in the following verses:

1 John 2:18-19 …’Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.’

John is backing up the principle that Paul described, saying that antichrist would “go out from us”. In other words, the antichrist would have been ONE OF US.

The antichrist would be WITHIN THE CHURCH, but then would go out from the church and make himself manifest by his deeds.

So we have a clear teaching here that the “man of sin”, the “antichrist” would SEEM TO BE ONE OF US, but in fact would be working for Satan and be a deceiver. Now many people focus on the word “ANTI-christ” and deem it as someone who would openly oppose Christ Jesus and openly deny Christ.

But remember, the meaning of the word “anti” here can also mean “IN PLACE OF”. So antichrist can also mean “in place of Christ”.

So the true antichrist would be someone who started within the church and seems to be one of us, and would actually put himself in place of Christ and deceive from within. Now what does this mean for Islam? It means that Islam CANNOT in any way be the antichrist, because Islam have always been OUTSIDE the church, and have always been clear opposers of Christ Jesus.

And in the same way this also applies to the mainstream belief of a future political leader being antichrist. This cannot be accepted, because as we have already stated, the Bible teaches that antichrist would be one of us, not someone outside the church.

Now some people get hung up on the fact that “the man of sin” is singular, therefore the antichrist will be a single being. And they say it cannot be the pope, because there have been many popes throughout history.

Well, we can simply clear this up with another Biblical principle. Take the high priest in the Old Testament. God said that only THE high priest could enter the most holy place in the tabernacle.

So this means that only one man (Aaron) could ever enter right? No. Because there were many successors to Aaron’s position as high priest. Therefore this singular term covers the POSITION rather than the person. So WHOEVER was in the position of pope would be antichrist.

“Sitteth in the Temple of God”

Something else that Paul reveals in 2 Thessalonians 2 is that the man of sin would “sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”.  This is where the mainstream teaching of a future antichrist bases its teaching.

From this description many are waiting for a future antichrist who will sit in the rebuilt temple in Israel. Now what the majority of Christians miss regarding this is that the New Testament clearly teaches us that the “temple” has shifted from the physical to the SPIRITUAL.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 …’Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.’

1 Corinthians 6:19 …’What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’

So Paul now clearly teaches that the temple of God is US, the people of “THE CHURCH”. We, our bodies are the temple of God, and God dwells in us.

So we CANNOT now say that Paul is referring to a physical temple in 2 Thessalonians. Paul is referring to someone who sits in “the church”, and who exalts himself, proclaiming that he is “GOD ON EARTH”.

Who sits in “the church” proclaiming to be “God on Earth?” THE POPE!

Is Islam the antichrist? No, Islam CANNOT fulfill the role of the Bible antichrist. Is the antichrist a future, single, political leader? No, a future political leader CANNOT fulfill the role of the Bible antichrist.

These mainstream teachings originated from the Jesuits in order to take the focus off the Roman Catholic Church as being antichrist. And unfortunately, the majority of Christians today have fallen for these false teachings, and have forgotten the great truths that the Protestant reformers revealed to the world.

Click here to see how the Roman Catholic Church fulfills the prophecies in Daniel,
2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation


10 thoughts on “Islam Cannot be the Antichrist”

  1. ….continue
    So, let’s reinterpret your teaching that “anti” can also mean “in place of” Like the Strong’s Concordance.
    If that is true, then everybody that denies that the Father and the Son (remember 2John2:22), put’s themselves “in place of” Messiah. Oh, but that would mean that all Muslims regards themselves as the Messiah “in place of”. That is quite not accurate.
    If the antichrist then is some-one that places himself “in place of” Messiah, we have to look at who does that? Well, there is currently a dozen or so people walking the earth claiming to be the Messiah.
    Those claiming to be Messiah do not claim to be God.
    the Scripture says that the son of perdition would sit in the holy place and claim to be God himself. That we have not seen except for the Papacy that claims to be the representatives of God on earth, ie Messiah? Thus the papacy cannot be antichrist as they do not deny the Father and the Son.
    It becomes very complicated when yo try to interpret on your own.
    Let the antichrist be antichrist and the son of perdition, the lawless one, be the lawless one which do fit the Papacy.
    Let’s then agree that anti has 2 meaning and those two meanings, against and in place of are used in two different settings with different connotations to express different ideas.
    anti = against = all those that denies the Father and the Son which could be anybody from Islam to atheists etc.
    anti = in stead of = those that claim to be the Messiah
    It does say anti-christ, not anti-YHVH or anti-god to denote against God or in place of God.
    Thus you cannot substitute antichrist for son of perdition or vis-a-vis as the Son of perdition will claim to be God (in stead of God)

    • You’re making false associations. Everyone does not proclaim to be the ‘vicar of christ.’ Everyone does not proclaim to be Jesus Christ in the flesh. Everyone does not proclaim to be the leader of Messiah’s one true church. Only the Pope of Rome does that!

      And what the Popes teach; that salvation is through the sacraments, that Mary is the co-redeemer and intercessor to the Father, that the Popes can forgive sin, that the Popes provide salvation; is anti-christ.

      The Popes have caused Catholics to kill over 50 million saints.
      The Popes have changed the times and the laws, changing the calendar and changing the ten commandments.
      The Popes have blasphemed against God.
      The Popes reigned in power for 1,260 years, from 538-1798.

      You’ve proven nothing, except for your ignorance!

      Shame on you! Study and show yourself approved!

  2. David
    You are a false teacher!!! You bash Micheal about Revelation and Daniel but you are deceived yourself.
    Where did Paul say that the man of sin is the antichrist? It is wholly made up by you.
    You say above “First, let’s take a look at the name “son of perdition” which Paul calls the antichrist.”
    This is false, this is psycological manipulation, this is confirmation bias, Paul never calls the son of perdition the antichrist. You are the one “interpreting”! No prophesy is of private INTERPRETATION. Your private interpretation is WRONG.

    You mention “man of sin” and antichrist continually in one sentence as to force the idea that the man of sin is “the antichrist”. The Word never puts those two in the same sentence (Not that the antichrist would not be a man of sin though) but you started off on the wrong premise and therefore your foundation is wrong and your entire teaching lacks credibility.
    Antichrist can also mean “against christ”? What baloney! Where did you get that? Extra biblical sources?
    Let every man be a liar and God be true.
    1 John 2:22
    “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.”
    There is your Biblical witness and you cannot change it or be in danger of becoming a heretic.
    Thus, who denies that Yeshua is the Messiah? All religions except Christianity. That makes all relgions liars. First part of 1 John 2:22.
    Then, who denies that God the father has a Son? Islam denies that God can have a son. That makes Islam antichrist, second part of 1 John 2:22.
    Therefore, Islam might just be the antichrist. Time will tell and we can only wait and see.

    Your teaching is false and that makes you the same as Micheal Rood.
    Take down you scathing accusations against Micheal and you both teach whatever you think God is revealing to you and we will discern according to what the spirit tells us.
    Both of you have wonderful teachings but you both might have some things wrong. That is understandable. So get off of your high horse and repent.

  3. Hi, David can you please explain Revelation 11 to me? On the two witnesses,if they are not men how can fire come out of their mouth?And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.So they were killed and after three days their bodies. were raise to heaven.

  4. The antichrist is SATAN! And he will come FIRST to deceive those who believe in the rapture theory. Jesus will come after, at the seventh trumpet.


Leave a Reply