Who or What is the "Restrainer"? A Look at II Thessalonians 2 Free Reprint Article

NotifySnack

Christian Articles for All of your Publishing Needs!

LIKE US

Translate this Page Here

Word Count: 5985

Send Article To Friend

Print/Use Article

Contact Robert Hawes

Who or What is the "Restrainer"? A Look at II Thessalonians 2

by Robert Hawes
2/02/2014 / Prophecy

"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 2:6-10

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?

1. 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."

2. 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.

3. 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 thingthe Man of Sinwhile 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 1560history's first study Bibleechoes 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 statue (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. 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 beastthe kingdom of the ten kingsimagery 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 protg 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.[i]

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.

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.

Note:

(i) 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 landAnd 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.

Robert Hawes is the author of "In Search of God: A Look at Life's Most Essential Question," as well as many articles on various subjects ranging from politics to theology and Christian apologetics. His blog is: http://takeupyourcross73.blogspot.com.

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! Click here and TRUST JESUS NOW