Students
of Bible prophecy will recognize II Thessalonians, chapter 2, as one of the
more intriguing prophecy passages in the New Testament. In it, the apostle Paul
teaches that someone or something is acting as a restraining force
in the world, although he does not elaborate as to who that someone (or what
that something) might be. As a result, speculation has abounded.
Dispensational pretribulationists are
convinced that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, who will act to quell evil in
the world through the church until the day that the church is raptured, just
prior to the beginning of the “tribulation period,” during which Antichrist
will come to power at the head of history’s final evil empire. Other
premillennialists, such as pre-wrathers and post-tribulationists, think that
the restrainer is likely the archangel Michael, due to Daniel 12:1, which
indicates that Michael will “stand up” in the last days. This is usually
interpreted as Michael stepping aside from his typical role as defender of the
nation of Israel, allowing Antichrist to come to power.
At one time or another, I have held to
both of the above views, but have since abandoned them after fuller
consideration. As it happens, I do believe that the Bible gives us the identity
of the restrainer, but it’s not immediately apparent because (assuming that I
am correct) it’s revealed in the writings of the apostle John, rather than the
writings of Paul (although I do believe that Paul hints at it by implication).
In what follows here, I’d like to present
my case for the identity of the restrainer, first by examining the details of
the passage in question, then by appealing to various other scriptures, and
finally by addressing what I feel are some inadequacies in the Holy Spirit and
archangel Michael interpretations.
The Context
The
following is the portion of text that references the restrainer (with a little
surrounding context), as taken from the King James Version:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 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, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. – II Thessalonians 2:1-10
For
comparison, here are verses 6 and 7 from the English Standard Version:
And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
And
here they are again, courtesy of Young’s Literal Translation:
and now, what is keeping down ye have known, for his being revealed in his own time, for the secret of the lawlessness doth already work, only he who is keeping down now [will hinder] -- till he may be out of the way…
Now
that we've seen the context, what are some facts that we can we establish from
it?
- Two things will precede the coming of Christ: the “falling away” or “rebellion” (a mass apostasy from the faith – see Matthew 24:10-13), and the revelation of the Man of Sin, whom we typically refer to as “the Antichrist.”
- The appearance of the Antichrist is being restrained or hindered by something.
- The “mystery of lawlessness is already at work,” meaning that the “mystery” is not being restrained or hindered; only the Antichrist himself is being restrained until a specific time.
- At some point prior to the coming of Christ, the Antichrist will no longer be restrained.
Observations
A few additional observations on this
passage are in order here:
First, it may be asked why Paul refers to
the restrainer as both a thing and a person (“what is restraining” verses “he
who now restrains”). Both phrases are derived from the Greek participle katechō. “What is restraining” is
translated from the neuter form of this verb, whereas “he who now restrains” is
translated from the masculine form. In the first instance, where
Paul uses the neuter form, it seems that he is emphasizing the action of
restraint; in the second instance, it seems that he’s emphasizing the
restrainer himself/itself.
Second, if you think that the above
grammatical construction is a bit awkward, I would agree with you. The apostle
Paul seems reluctant to identify the restrainer, which is highly unusual when
you consider that Paul’s writings are often very blunt. This is, after all, the
same person who confessed his wish that the Judaizers would go and castrate
themselves. In comparison with that memorable example, Paul seems almost coy
here. “You know what is restraining,” he tells the Thessalonians, almost as if
he were elbowing them and saying “Hint, hint,” under his breath. I will revisit
this matter shortly and expound on why I believe it to be significant with
regard to the identity of the restrainer. In the meantime, I simply want to
draw your attention to it.
Third, I believe that the KJV translation
of verse 7 has added somewhat to the controversy surrounding this passage with
its reference to the restrainer being “taken out of the way.” As it happens,
the word “taken” does not appear in the Greek here, such as it does in John
17:15, where Jesus states that it is not His wish that the Father take Jesus’s
disciples “out of” the world. In that instance, “take out of” is translated
from the Greek combination airō ek. Here, “taken out of the way,” is translated from ek mesou genEtai,
which is literally rendered: “out of midst it may be becoming.” Genomai,
from which the form genEtai comes, is a verb that carries the following
meanings in New Testament usage (according to Strong’s):
1) to become, i.e. to come into
existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass,
happen
a)
of events
3) to arise, appear in history,
come upon the stage
a)
of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a)
of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
In the KJV, genomai is translated “be” 255 times,
“come to pass” 82 times, “be made” 69 times, “be done” 63 times, “come” 52
times, “become” 47 times, and from there the variant translations diminish
significantly.
Based on this information, it seems to me
that the ESV and Young’s Literal renderings are closer to what the Greek
literally conveys. Paul does not appear to be teaching that the restrainer will
be forcibly removed (as we would expect in a rapture, “snatching away”
scenario), but rather that the time will come when he will no longer be present
(for whatever reason), allowing the Man of Sin to manifest openly.
For a simple, modern illustration of the
idea, consider that you’re standing in the checkout line at a grocery store.
There is one person in front of you, preventing you from reaching the cash
register. Now imagine that this person suddenly remembers something they had
neglected to pick up, and steps out of line to go and find it. You are now able
to advance because that person who blocked you from the cash register is no
longer in your way. In the same way, a massive Oak tree can restrain a highway
development project; not because it’s deliberately standing in the way, but
simply because its presence presents an obstacle. This would also dovetail with
the point I made previously concerning how the restrainer is restraining one
particular thing—the Man of Sin—while the “mystery of lawlessness” is freely
working.
The “Restrainer” Unveiled
Tradition
in the Church
The
early church fathers (those who lived prior to the Council of Nicea in AD 325)
believed the “restrainer” of II Thessalonians 2 to be the Roman Empire, the
fall of which would result in the rise of the 10 kings predicted by the prophet
Daniel and the apostle John, both of whom describe them as ten “horns” of a
great “beast” empire: the last and most ruthless human empire. The following
are two examples of this belief:
“In a still
clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples
what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall
then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be
partitioned.” – Irenaeus
“’And now ye
know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of
iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be
taken out of the way.’ What obstacles is there but the Roman state, the falling
away of which, by being scattered into the ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist
upon (its own ruins)?” – Tertullian
The
Geneva Bible of 1560—history’s first study Bible—echoes this thinking in its
famous marginal notes, and appeals to the authority of the early church fathers
on the matter. It comments on II
Thessalonians 2:7 as follows:
He [the apostle
Paul] foretells that when the empire of Rome is taken away, the seat that falls
away from God will succeed and hold its place, as the old writers, Tertullian,
Chrysostom, and Jerome explain and interpret it.
And
with regard to the restrainer, the Geneva Bible commentators remark:
He who is now in
authority and rules all, that is, the Roman Empire.
John
Wesley also held to a form of this belief, as may be seen in his commentary on
the New Testament:
The deep, secret
power of iniquity, just opposite to the power of godliness, already worketh. It
began with the love of honour, and the desire of power; and is completed in the
entire subversion of the gospel of Christ. This mystery of iniquity is not
wholly confined to the Romish church, but extends itself to others also. It
seems to consist of, Human inventions added to the written word. Mere outside
performances put in the room of faith and love. Other mediators besides the man
Christ Jesus. The two last branches, together with idolatry and bloodshed, are
the direct consequences of the former; namely, the adding to the word of God.
Already worketh - In the church. Only he that restraineth - That is, the
potentate who successively has Rome in his power. The emperors, heathen or
Christian; the kings, Goths or Lombards; the Carolingian or German emperors.
If
the restrainer referenced by Paul was indeed the Roman Empire, and primarily
the person of the emperor himself, then this would certainly explain why Paul
would be reluctant to come out and say so, especially given his remark that the
restrainer wouldn’t always be around. Roman authorities might have interpreted
that remark as sedition or a veiled threat against the emperor’s person. Remember
here that Jesus Himself was crucified for sedition, and Christians were already
viewed as undermining Rome by their refusal to worship the empire’s gods
(including the emperor himself). The church at Thessalonica was already being
severely persecuted at the time of Paul’s letter, and it stands to reason that
he might have been especially careful with his language for this reason, not
wishing to cause them any further grief. Furthermore, I note that Peter also
seemed reluctant to mention Rome by name, calling it “Babylon” in his first
epistle.
All of this aside, many modern believers
and Bible teachers would be quick to dismiss this view of the restrainer as the
Roman Empire, long-standing though it is, due to the fact that Rome fell and
the Antichrist didn’t show up. In response, I would point out that the fact of
Rome’s fall from empire certainly wasn’t lost on John Wesley or the editors of
the Geneva Bible, all of whom lived long after the last of the Roman emperors.
Further, this objection makes the mistake of viewing Rome as a static entity,
when, in reality, the empire has changed form over the centuries. It fails to
consider Rome as a spiritual entity as well as a political power.
Yes, the Roman Empire fell; that is, political Rome fell. By that time,
however, the church at Rome had joined itself to the empire and Christianity
had even become the official state religion. Thus the Roman Catholic Church was
born and continues to this day, the popes having supplanted the emperors. So
whereas political Rome fell, spiritual Rome never did. Indeed, at times
throughout its history, popes have wielded tremendous power over the nations of
Europe by virtue of their perceived authority as Christ’s representatives on
earth. And while the popes no longer wield the power they once did, they still
have widespread political influence and pull with hundreds of millions of individuals
who look to Rome for guidance. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that
the pope is both a religious leader and a head of state, Vatican City being an
independent political entity (even if a tiny one) in the midst of Italy’s
capital. Indeed, the United States of America actually has an ambassador to the
Vatican.
This dual aspect of the political and
spiritual may also be why Rome is depicted as the two legs of iron in
Nebuchadnezzar’s statute (see Daniel, chapter 2). Many have supposed that this
is because the Roman Empire was ultimately divided into eastern and western
portions, but it could also be a representation of the Roman Empire’s dual
existence (if there is any exegetical significance to this detail at all, that
is).
Biblical
Evidence
In
Revelation, chapters 17 and 18, the apostle John is shown a vision of a woman
sitting on a scarlet beast. The woman is described by John, and an angel
provides an interpretation of the vision:
And he carried
me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet
beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and
adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup
full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, and on her forehead a name was written, a
mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF
THE EARTH.” And I saw the woman drunk
with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus…
Here is the mind which
has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits…
And he said to me, “The waters which you saw where the harlot
sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast,
these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her
flesh and will burn her up with fire. For
God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common
purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will
be fulfilled. The woman whom you saw
is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” – Revelation
17:3-6, 9, 15-18
Moving on, chapter 18 describes the
woman further:
I
heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that
you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and
God has remembered her iniquities.
Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according
to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.
To the degree that she glorified herself
and lived sensuously, to the same degree give her torment and mourning; for she
says in her heart, ‘I sit as a queen and I am
not a widow, and will never see mourning.’
For this reason in one day her plagues will
come, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire;
for the Lord God who judges her is strong.
The
woman who rides the beast is almost certainly Rome. Note that the angel told
John that she is the “great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” In
John’s day, Rome was the only city worthy of that description. Rome is also
famously known as the “city on seven hills.”
Yet, I feel that what John is seeing here
is primarily a depiction of religious Rome. She is called a harlot because she
left Christ and married the Roman state, but that was not the end of her
ambitions. Note that the woman says, “I sit as a queen and I am not a widow.”
Her adulterous husband, political Rome, is dead; but rather than mourning, she
has taken his throne for herself and rules in his place.[i]
This is a very accurate depiction of how the papal system usurped the place of
the emperors. Indeed, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is often
referred to in the feminine sense, and is famously known as “the mother church.”
Consider also how this woman meets her
end. The harlot is depicted as riding the beast—the kingdom of the ten kings—imagery
that suggests that she dominates these kings until such time as they turn
against her and destroy her. And why do they destroy her? Because God has
ordained it in order that they should give their power to the Antichrist.
Thus it seems that religious Rome must be
destroyed before the Antichrist can rise to the headship of the beast empire
and its ten kings. This is a clear depiction of a restraining influence being
removed in order that the Man of Sin can rise to power, and is the only such
reference in scripture aside from II Thessalonians 2.
Opposing Viewpoints Considered
Michael
the Archangel
Those who favor the view of Michael
the archangel as the restrainer usually point to this passage from Daniel:
“At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands
[watch] over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation, [Even] to that time. And at that
time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the
book.” –
Daniel 12:1
I have seen it said that Michael’s “standing up” really references standing aside or getting out of the way, but I do not believe that proper exegesis allows for this interpretation. The Hebrew word translated “stand up” in Daniel 12:1 is amad. Look how this term is used elsewhere in Daniel:
“As for the broken [horn] and the four that stood up [amad] in its
place, four kingdoms shall arise [amad] out of that nation, but not with its
power.” –
Daniel 8:22
“And in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness, A king shall arise [amad], Having fierce features, Who understands sinister schemes.” – Daniel 8:23
“Through his cunning He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; And he shall exalt [himself] in his heart. He shall destroy many in [their] prosperity. He shall even rise [amad] against the Prince of princes; But he shall be broken without [human] means.” – Daniel 8:25
“And now I will tell you the truth: Behold, three more kings will arise [amad] in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than [them] all; by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece. Then a mighty king shall arise [amad], who shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.” – Daniel 11:2-3
“But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand against him. He shall stand [amad] in the Glorious Land with destruction in his power.” – Daniel 11:16
“And in his place shall arise [amad] a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue.” – Daniel 11:21
According to Strong’s concordance, the primary usage of amad is “to stand, remain, endure, take one’s stand,” and, as can be seen from the above examples in at least the book of Daniel, it strongly implies taking a forceful stand rather than stepping out of the way. Indeed, it is my opinion that Michael’s actions in Daniel 12:1 are, more than likely, further elaborated upon in Revelation 12:
And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. – Revelation 12:7-9
Exegetically
speaking, I do not see that Daniel 12:1 is a good basis for arguing that
Michael is the restrainer. However, if we consider it in conjunction with
Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 11:7
(which tells us that the Two Witnesses will be killed by a Beast that rises
from the abyss), and if we assume that this Satanic Beast will indwell the Man
of Sin, then we might speculate that Michael is currently standing guard over
this Beast, and that he will be unable to fulfill this duty while waging war
against Satan and his host in the second heaven. Thus, it could be that the Beast
will rise while Michael is occupied with the war against Satan. In this manner,
he could be said to be “out of the way,” but even if this is so it’s a matter
of speculation rather than strict exegesis.
I’m
also at a loss to explain why the apostle Paul would refer to Michael in such
vague terms as “what” and “you know who.” There is no evident reason why he would
not have identified Michael plainly. Contrast this, if you will, with the very
good reasons for which he would have been reluctant to name the emperor.
Another potential argument in favor of
this view of Michael as the restrainer has to do with the verb forms found in
II Thessalonians 2. The verb used to describe the restrainer and his function (katechō
) is a present participle, indicate continuing action. This means that the
restrainer was at work in Paul’s day and will continue his function up until
the arrival of Antichrist. This being the case, it is argued that it must be a
single individual, and since no human lives for so long, it is assumed that the
restrainer must be a supernatural agent.
I believe it’s possible that the emperor
of Rome, in terms of the office
rather than any single individual (and continuing on in the office of the Pope),
may satisfy this requirement; however, I should note that there is no
comparable example of this sort of usage in New Testament Greek. Then again,
Paul’s teaching concerning the restrainer is unique to begin with, so the lack
of any comparable grammatical construction in the New Testament may not be
definitive where this is concerned.
Further, I’m reminded that the early
church fathers wrote when Koine Greek was still a living language and,
apparently, did not find the tense issue a hindrance to their interpretation of
II Thessalonians 2. They were not infallible, by any means, but given that they
lived within a comparatively short time of the epistle’s writing, and given
that the language in which it was written was still the dominant tongue of
their day, I feel that their opinion should carry some weight here.
The
Holy Spirit
As
mentioned previously, the belief that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer is held
by dispensational pretribulationists, who argue that He will be “taken out of
the way” when the church is removed from earth in the rapture, which they
contend will occur prior to the beginning of Daniel’s 70th Week. This
view is problematic for a number of reasons:
First, as we have already seen from the
Greek, “taken out of the way” is not the best translation of II Thessalonians
2:7. The word “taken” does not appear in the text, nor is it required by
implication in the context. The text implies that the restrainer is currently
in the Man of Sin’s way, but that this state of affairs will end at some point.
We are not told how this will happen. Whether he actively steps aside or is
removed by someone else, we simply do not know.
Second, while it is often argued that the
church is restraining evil in the world, the text refers only to the Man of Sin
being restrained. As Paul tells us, the “mystery of lawlessness” is actively
working. Indeed, scripture tells us that evil will grow worse before the end
finally comes. In II Timothy 3, Paul warns his protégé that, in the last days,
“perilous times” will come, that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and
worse,” and that those who live at that time will be characterized by lust and
selfishness, and that they will despise those who are good. Few
dispensationalists would deny that Paul’s words are already being fulfilled in
our day, yet the church is still present. Believers do have an appreciable
impact for good in the world through charitable works and by providing a godly
example for living, and the world would surely be worse off without them, but
that general influence does not
necessarily translate to the specific
influence to which Paul refers in 2 Thessalonians 2. More proof is needed in
order to sustain that conclusion, and the context simply does not provide it.
Furthermore, while Christ referred to His
disciples as “salt” and “light,” and stated that the “gates of Hades” will not
overcome His church, He never said anything about the church restraining unbelievers,
either actively or passively; nor did any of the other New Testament writers. In
spite of the insistence of various Christian advocacy groups today, scripture
never assigns the church a political or social role. Christ made it clear that
His kingdom “is not of this world,” and in II Timothy 2, Paul tells us that the
“soldier of Jesus Christ” does not entangle himself “with the affairs of this
life.” Indeed, the strongest language in the New Testament where any kind of
restraint on the evils of this world is concerned indicates that God has
appointed the task to civil government:
Let every soul
be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers
that be are ordained of God ... For rulers are not a terror to good works, but
to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good,
and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee
for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the
sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil. – Romans 13:1, 3-4
Thus
scripture seems clear that the restraint of evil in the world at large is the God-given
responsibility of government, not the church. Note that Paul tells the church
at Rome that “he” (the ruler) “is the minster of God to thee” (Holy Spirit-indwelt believers) “for good.” Thus there is
a God-ordained power working “for good,” (including the good of believers!) in
the world outside of the church; indeed, a power to which believers are
instructed to be in submission.
In response, some may argue that the
church is restraining evil only in terms of keeping things from becoming so bad
that the Man of Sin can appear on the scene as a sort of capstone on the global
pyramid of evil, an interpretation that may partially stem from Daniel 8:23:
“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to
the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall
stand up.” Once again, however, just because believers exert a general
influence that helps to restrain evil in the world does not mean they are the
specific restrainer to which Paul referred in II Thessalonians 2. Nor can we
forget that only the Man of Sin is referred to as being restrained, rather than
evil in any general sense.
And while I risk getting too far afield
here, I should point out that, in all likelihood, Daniel 8:23 does not refer to
Antichrist, but rather to Antiochus IV “Epiphanes,” who is famous for sacking
Jerusalem and defiling the temple in 167 BC, and is often considered a sort of
“prefiguring” of the eschatological Man of Sin.[ii]
It must also be remembered that, according
to Revelation 17:17, Antichrist comes to power because God Himself motivates
the ten “horns” of the Beast empire to give their power to him. So there is
more at work here than the absence of a restraining influence; there is also an
enabling influence. God acts on the
end-time confederation of kings in order to influence their support of the Man
of Sin, just as He hardened Pharaoh’s heart against the Hebrews at the time of
the Exodus.
Third, while dispensational
pretribulationists argue that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit working through
the church, Paul does not say, nor even imply, that the restrainer is working
through anyone else to accomplish his work. Simply going by the text, there is
no reason to believe that anyone else is involved in the restrainer’s role, nor
does any other passage appear to teach such an idea.
Fourth, as with the archangel Michael interpretation, I'm at a loss to understand why Paul did not simply say that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, if that is what he meant. He mentions the Spirit many times in other places; why not here as well? I see no evident reason for him to beat around the bush here.
Fourth, as with the archangel Michael interpretation, I'm at a loss to understand why Paul did not simply say that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, if that is what he meant. He mentions the Spirit many times in other places; why not here as well? I see no evident reason for him to beat around the bush here.
Fifth, nowhere in scripture are we told that the church has to be taken
out of the way in order for anything
to take place or anyone to come on
the scene. Once again, in John 17, Jesus prayed that the Father would not take
believers “out of the world.” The only reference that implies that anything has
to be removed prior to Antichrist coming to power is Revelation 17:16-17, where
we are told that the woman who rides the Beast will be destroyed and that the
10 kings will give him their power. Dispensationalists argue that the church
must be removed prior to the 70th Week so that God can resume
“dealing with Israel,” which He supposedly cannot do with the church present. This
in spite of the fact that God has proven to be an excellent multitasker in the
past, dealing with the church and Israel simultaneously from roughly AD 28-70,
and again from 1948 to the present day.
Conclusion
Based
on the information presented in this article, I strongly believe that the “restrainer”
is the Pope of Rome (the spiritual successor of the Roman emperors) and, to a
lesser degree, the Mystery Babylon system he heads. I believe that this
solution most fully satisfies scripture and makes the most sense over all. The
archangel Michael interpretation seems dubious to me but cannot be ruled out
entirely, if indeed it is true that Michael is standing guard over a fallen
angel that will ultimately rise from its prison in the abyss during the future
angelic war described in Revelation 12. This view is based more on speculation
than exegesis, but it makes sense to a certain degree. As to the view that the
Holy Spirit is the restrainer, I cannot find any reason to affirm this belief
apart from the assumptions of pretribulationism.
[i]
Also not
unlike Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod, who murdered him and assumed his throne.
She and Nimrod are foundational figures in the Mystery schools. She was also the
first historical figure we know of to bear the title “Queen of Heaven,” a title
some Roman Catholics also ascribe to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
[ii] There are several
reasons to believe that this passage is talking about Antiochus rather than the
end-time Antichrist. Consider the following from Daniel 8 by way of context:
“Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was
strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward
the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward
the pleasant land…And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn
that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being
broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the
nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and
understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.” – Daniel 8:8-9, 21-23
The
“he goat” referenced here unquestionably represents Alexander the Great and his
Grecian Empire (according to the Jewish historian Josephus, Alexander was
actually shown this prophecy when he entered Jerusalem, circa 332-331 BC). When
Alexander died, his empire was divided amongst four of his generals, who ruled
over four distinct kingdoms until Rome eclipsed them. The prophecy is very
specific in that the “little horn” depicted here would rise out of one of the
four “horns” that would come on the scene after Alexander (by contrast,
Antichrist rises out of a beast with ten horns, see Daniel 7:1-8). This is
exactly what happened in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, who came out of the
Seleucid Empire near the end of that empire’s history (“in the latter time”).
Furthermore, Daniel 8:25 prophesies that this “little horn” would be “broken
without hand,” and this is exactly what happened with Antiochus. He died rather
suddenly as the result of some kind of disease in 164 BC.
