One of the most significant ideas that has guided the prophetic imagination of the Christian community, particularly for the past century, is the notion that the Antichrist, his empire and his religion would come forth out of Europe. I call this the Euro- or Roman-centric perspective on biblical prophecy.
But how supportable is the Euro-centric perspective of biblical prophecy? From what biblical texts does the Euro-centric perspective find its support? Many will be surprised to find that despite all of the emphasis this position has been afforded, it is actually built on a very flimsy foundation. Between two passages in the book of the prophet Daniel, perhaps the most significant supporting pillar of the European Antichrist theory is a one-line prophecy found in chapter 9, which states simply:
The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
– Daniel 9:26
While varying interpretations have been offered as to the exact meaning of this passage, the majority position is that the specific people or peoples who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70 are the ancestors of the peoples who in the last days would be the primary followers or “peoples” of the Antichrist who is “the prince” or “ruler” who is to come.
The destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” many believe is being referred to here is the destruction that occurred in A.D. 70 when the Roman legions under Gen. Titus destroyed both the Jewish capital city of Jerusalem and its Temple. As such, a large majority of prophecy teachers and students have concluded the Roman peoples of A.D. 70 are the ancestors of the coming followers/peoples of the Antichrist. Because the soldiers were Roman citizens, many have concluded that the primary followers of the Antichrist in the future will be Europeans in general or Italians specifically.
Understand the significance of the Muslim’s Mahdi ‘messiah’ in Joel Richardson’s new book, “The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth about the Real Nature of the Beast.” Note: The book is also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.
But here’s the problem: In the early days of the Roman Republic, as it was evolving into the Roman Empire, the majority of the soldiers (legionnaires) recruited to serve in the Roman armies (legions) were Italians from Rome and the nearby regions. However, as the empire expanded quite dramatically, it became next to impossible to man the frontiers of the empire with soldiers only from Italy or even Europe.
Thus in the early part of the first century, Emperor Augustus made a series of sweeping reforms that led to dramatic changes in the ethnic make-up of the Roman armies. After this time, the army was increasingly composed of anything but Italian soldiers. Instead, they were composed of what were known as “provincials,” or citizens who lived in the provinces – the outer fringes of the Empire. The “provincialization” of the army was true for all of the Roman legions of this time period, but it was most clearly and markedly the case with regard to the Eastern legions that were used to attack Jerusalem. Both ancient historical records as well as modern scholarship clearly confirm this. Let’s examine the evidence.
Speaking of the Roman attack of Jerusalem, Publius Cornelius Tacitus a senator and an important historian of this period, details the specific legions and the peoples that primarily composed the attacking army:
Titus Caesar … found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th. … To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied … by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbors. …
There are several important bits of information that we can gain from this reference. First, we learn the Roman legions that were used to attack Jerusalem had been stationed in Judea, Syria and Egypt. Secondly, we learn that beyond the Roman legions, there was also “a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews” and accompanied the soldiers. Little seems to have changed since the first century regarding the general Arab hatred of the Jewish people.
Next there is the testimony of Titus Flavius Josephus, another irreplaceable historian from this period who also confirms the report of Tacitus:
So Vespasian sent his son Titus [who], came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood.
Once again, Josephus reveals the Roman legions used to attack Jerusalem were stationed in Syria. He also details that “a considerable number” of auxiliaries, or volunteers, from Syria and its proximate “neighborhood” were also gathered for the attack. Later, Josephus also tells us that there were over 6,000 Arabs who volunteered to join the attack. While the numbers of men that composed a legion fluctuated, during this time period, a legion contained approximately 5,000 men. So there were enough Arab volunteer soldiers to compose more than a full legion.
Now, lets look at some modern scholarship. According to Lawrence J.F. Keppie, scholar of Roman history and author of “Legions And Veterans: Roman Army Papers 1971-2000,” after A.D. 68, “the legions … consist[ed] almost exclusively of provincials.” No longer were the soldiers Italians. Across the board, scholars of Roman history thoroughly validate this fact. Antonio Santosuosso in “Storming the Heavens: Soldiers, Emperors, and Civilians in the Roman Empire” states that:
During the first half of the first century, approximately 49 percent of the soldiers were Italians, but by A.D. 70 that number had fallen to only 22 percent. By the end of the first century, only 1 percent of the soldiers were Italians.
In his book “Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria,” Nigel Pollard, Ph.D., professor of Roman history at Oxford University, states that, “Legions based in Cappadocia, Syria and Egypt were made up from of recruits from Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt.” Sara Elise Phang, Ph.D., author of “Roman Military Service: Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate,” also reveals that Roman scholars are now in universal agreement that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers that attacked Jerusalem were Eastern provincial recruits:
That Italians were increasingly replaced in the legions during this period by provincials is in itself no longer a novelty among scholars. … In the East, that is Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, it seems clear that local recruitment was well under way under Augustus [d. A.D. 14], so that by his death only a very small number of legionaries derived from Italy or indeed any of the western provinces. … Under Nero [d. A.D. 68], when the eastern legions required supplementation … it was to Cappadocia and Galatia that [Rome] looked for recruits. This was doubtless standard procedure. [The] legions of the East consisted largely of “orientals” (Middle Easterners).
In the end, after considering both ancient witness as well as modern scholarship, we are left with no doubt as to the fact that the overriding majority of the soldiers that attacked Jerusalem under Titus were Middle Eastern peoples and not Europeans.
But let’s actually calculate what all of this information means with regard to the ethnic composition of the “Roman” armies that attacked Jerusalem. Josephus tells us that, “the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen and footmen, when all were united together, amounted to 60,000.” Remember that a legion contained roughly 5,000 soldiers. There were four full legions and two partial legions involved in the attack. This would mean that there were approximately 25,000 men who were full-time legionaries with the remaining 35,000 men who were either volunteers or auxiliaries. The auxiliaries were non-Roman people raised up from the provincial peoples. Josephus confirms this when he says that the auxiliaries were “sent by the kings” from “the neighborhood” of Syria, Asia Minor and Arabia. If Pollard’s estimations are correct as to the five-to-one margin of Eastern versus Western legionaries, then this would mean that there were could have been no more than 5,000 Western soldiers in the whole of the invading army. The remaining 55,000-56,000 were all Eastern peoples. And this is allowing for the maximum potential Western soldiers as estimated by Pollard. That would mean that at the very most, there was one Western European soldier to every 11 Middle Eastern soldiers. Eleven to one!
All said, the historical evidence is overwhelming. After examining a sampling of evidence from both ancient historians as well as the most cutting-edge modern scholarship to date, we may very confidently conclude that the “Roman” soldiers in the Eastern provinces that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were in fact Eastern peoples – the inhabitants of Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia and Egypt. Again, they were the ancestors of the modern-day inhabitants of the Middle East.
When we look to the prophecy of Daniel 9:26, we can certainly understand how a hasty or perfunctory reading of this prophecy would lead one to conclude that the “peoples” were ethnic Italians. But having now done proper due diligence, completed our homework and examined all of the evidence, it is clear that the reality is quite different from what has been commonly and popularly understood. The overwhelming evidence, from ancient historians as well as the best modern-day scholarship, points us to Middle Eastern ethnic identity of the “Roman” peoples that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. They were the ancestors of the peoples that dominate the entire region today. For this reason and many others, many students and teachers of the Bible are increasingly rejecting the Euro-centric end time perspective and are looking instead to the Middle East as the epicenter of all Bible prophecy.
Joel Richardson is the author of the latest WND Books offering, “The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth about the Real Nature of the Beast.” Note: The book is also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.
