It has been a while since I have done a review on a book here, but I was sort of invited by the author to do so and I am mentioned in the acknowledgements of this book. The book is entitled Antichrist and Apocalypse: The 21 Prophecies of Revelation Unveiled and Described (Colleyville, TX: St. John Press, 2022). It is a well-written book overall, and I am honored to be one of the people Dr. Marshall chose to review it. There are a couple of things to discuss about it, and I will get to those momentarily, but first let me introduce Dr. Taylor Marshall to you.
Dr. Marshall, a native of Texas, is a former Anglican priest who, in the early 2000s I believe, converted to the Catholic Church and has since become a very influential voice for the more traditional type of Catholicism - he is pro-Traditional Latin Mass, he is very conservative, and to be honest I hold many of the same convictions he does on so many things. He has written several other books, most notably Infiltration, which is an update in many aspects of Michael Rose's 2002 book Goodbye Good Men. He also has a podcast on YouTube and some other platforms, and much of what he says is actually quite informative but also somewhat concerning as he exposes a lot of weird stuff going on in the Catholic hierarchy. As a traditional Catholic writer, Dr. Marshall is actually very sound, is faithful to the historic Magisterium, and he also does not pull punches when tackling serious issues of concern to the Catholic faithful. This latest book is essentially a study on the book of Revelation in Scripture, and it is sort of rare to see this type of book among traditional Catholics. There have been other great studies of both Revelation and eschatology from sound Catholic writers (two of the best, in my estimation, are Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper and Desmond Birch's Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph), but this particular volume may strike a chord with potential converts from Pentecostal or Fundamentalist backgrounds, as it deals with issues they are more familiar with. That being said, I want to talk at length about two areas in the book that caught my attention.
The first has to do with Dr. Marshall's identification of antichrist prototypes he notes in Scripture. This one was actually quite puzzling to me, in that beginning on page 230, Marshall identifies King Solomon as a prototype of the Antichrist! That was a new one for me, and I would respectfully disagree for reasons I will get into momentarily. First though, what reasoning does Dr. Marshall use for this? On page 231, he notes a few things that provide substantiation in his argument about Solomon:
1. Jewish and a son of King David
2. Born of fornication (product of David's affair with Bathsheba)
3. Allowing idols and false worship
4. Building the Temple
5. Extent of kingdom
6. Some rabbinic traditions call Solomon a "magician" and "sorcerer."
7. The fact his tribute was 666 talents of gold
First, while most of these facts are true about Solomon, it in no way infers he was a typology of the Antichrist. Scripture is filled with examples of otherwise holy men falling into temptation and sin - it is called human nature. The sin is not to be the focus of these examples, but rather God's plan and redemptive grace. Another point that Dr. Marshall might consider is this - Solomon is credited with writing at least three books of Scripture (Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes). Now, common sense will dictate that God is not going to use an antichrist to write his inspired Scripture! That would be counterproductive honestly in God's sovereign plan. Now, had Dr. Marshall said something like the Antichrist would imitate Solomon in some areas, that would have been different. Satan is said in Scripture to appear as an "angel of light," and he does corrupt certain things to deceive people, so I am not opposed to the idea that the Antichrist may mirror some of Solomon's actions, but it is very risky to call a traditional author of books of Scripture an "antichrist." Now, was Solomon perfect? Not at all - neither was King David, but God himself called David "a man after his own heart." Neither was Moses - a simple act of disobedience kept Moses from entering the Promised Land. And neither were the Apostles even - the disagreements between Saints Peter and Paul are well documented in Scripture, and they are there for people to read in plain language. Were King David, Moses, and Saints Peter and Paul prototypes of Antichrist? Not at all, and neither was Solomon. Therefore, I would part company with Dr. Marshall on that one. But, there is one prototype of the Antichrist in Scripture, and I noted that Dr. Marshall didn't even examine this, but I will briefly here.
If one turns to Genesis 10:8-12, there is a description of an individual who almost looks superhuman, and Tradition holds there is a reason for that - he was probably a Nephilim. He is described in the above passage as "the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord." The person we are talking about here is called Nimrod in Scripture, and all traditional accounts of this individual suggest that he was the first leader of a vast empire. The attributes given to this individual almost match those of the Antichrist in Revelation, more so than Solomon does. I dealt with this more in detail in my Genesis study I have on this site from a couple of years ago, but it bears mentioning here. I personally believe the Antichrist will be some form of the same spirit that embodied Nimrod. While he may emulate some of Solomon's achievements, he will be no Solomon. I think for those who read this section of Dr. Marshall's book, this should be kept in mind.
Another area of interest here regards how Dr. Marshall interprets Gog and Magog, which are the subject of Ezekiel 38. On page 103 of Dr. Marshall's book, he makes Gog and Magog the same as the Antichrist and his armies, based on the "red horse" passage in Revelation 6:3-4. This whole Gog and Magog discussion has been one discussed in regard to eschatology for decades honestly, and most people get it very wrong. For years, as an example, many Fundamentalist and Pentecostal dispensationalists said that this was a reference to Russia, largely due to the Soviets during the Cold War, so it was politically motivated. Some still carry on that mythos, now saying Putin is the identification of Gog and Magog. I dealt with this issue several years back in an article I wrote in a magazine I briefly published, and there are a few clarifications to make. First, "Gog" is a person, while "Magog" is a place. Second, "Gog" is not a proper name, but rather a title that corresponds to the concept of chief or king. Third, the location just does not correspond with Russia at all - as a matter of fact, it seems as if the location is east of Russia. Fourth, many scholars and commentators of all Christian traditions have traditionally understood the Gog/Magog phenomenon is distinct from the Antichrist, and even preceding Antichrist. With all that established, let me now give you my idea of what this possibly could be.
I have researched this myself for many years honestly, both as a Protestant and after my own conversion to Catholicism in 2000. I have read widely on this subject from a variety of sources, the most relevant to me being the late Greek Orthodox theologian Apostolos Makrakis, as well as medieval Armenian visionaries. In reading these, there is one thing that sticks out prominently - people started writing about this topic between the years 1200 and 1500, and that corresponds with several things - the Mongol invasions, as well as the rise of the Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks. There are countless references from these early writers that equate the "land of Magog" with the ancestral homeland of the Turks in central Asia. In all honesty, that actually makes much more sense than both the Evangelical dispensationalist fixation with Russia or even Dr. Marshall's equating Gog/Magog with the Antichrist. And, given the recent souring of relations between the current Turkish dictator Erdogan and the nation of Israel, I am starting to think I may be proven correct as that is exactly what Ezekiel 38 talks about. I am also honest enough to admit I could be wrong, and perhaps with further research I may discover something else, but in all honesty I have believed this for close to 25 years now, and no evidence has come forth to change my mind on it yet. Therefore, while I appreciate what Dr. Marshall is proposing, at the same time the facts just do not add up on that.
In all honesty, those were really the only two areas of disagreement I would have with Dr. Marshall's thesis, as for the most part I have been reading everything else he's written and it more or less does mirror my own conclusions on the issues. Also, these two areas are not really something that are cardinal mistakes - Dr. Marshall just has a different conclusion, and although I do not agree with it I respect it because it shows he is studying what he says, and there is no fault in that at all. I would strongly recommend Dr. Marshall's book, and it is definitely an important work for us as Catholics to examine at this juncture. For too many years, the market was dominated with Fundamentalist and Pentecostal Protestant volumes on this topic, and to be honest, a lot of those were proven wrong - Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth, for instance, is now sadly outdated. Even my distant cousin Perry Stone, who wrote that the Antichrist would be an Islamic Mahdi, was writing more about the political climate of the times (this was right after 9/11) than substantial Scriptural research over the centuries. This is why in many aspects, even if one disagrees with the conclusions, Dr. Marshall's book is actually refreshing. However, if you are going to embark on a study of Revelation, it would be prudent to utilize his book alongside others such as Desmond Birch's or Scott Hahn's, keeping in mind the traditional four-fold hermeneutic - read for the Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical senses of Scripture, and understand that all four of these can be true at once. Thank you, and may you be blessed as you go about your daily business.
