WHEN Does the Restrainer Act?

A great deal of controversy exists over who or what restrains the Antichrist. But a more important question is WHEN does the Restrainer act?

The following video hopefully provides a clear understanding of this issue.

So as this video demonstrates, “who” the restrainer is really doesn’t matter; it’s “when” he ends his restraint that matters.

I hope you also enjoyed the research on why a mistranslation is found in all our major English Bibles. This was new understanding for me as well when I prepared this video.

9 thoughts on “WHEN Does the Restrainer Act?”

  1. Daniel 11 is historical narrative and it clearly delineates the arrival of the antichrist. Daniel 11:22 is logically locked stepped to the arrival of the antichrist. The prince of the covenant is the leader of the forces that are swept away by the antichrist. Without the sweeping away of the prince of the covenant and his forces, the antichrist cannot enter the temple and proclaim himself as being God. The prince of the covenant is God’s appointed leader at that time and to be broken, in this context, means to lose his forces and authority to stop the antichrist. Saying the restrainer is taken of the way is saying the same thing.

    Daniel 12:1-4 is not speaking of arrival of the antichrist, but the destruction of the antichrist’s reign when Jesus returns. We see this in verse 2 where the first resurrection is described and the destruction of the wicked. The wicked are not destroyed when the antichrist is revealed, but they begin their reign of terror upon the earth.

    1. Thanks for more fully explaining -!I see your thinking Brendan, but Paul is clear that the restrainer is a supernatural force. In 2 Thess 2:6 he demonstrates that this same force was restraining Antichrist in his day. Obviously that was not the human who will be Prince of the covenant. Second, removal of this prince doesn’t result in an immediate seating of Antichrist in the Temple. Additional things take place before that in Dan. 11. Third, in Dan 12:1 we see that after Michael stands then the Great Tribulation occurs first prior to the resurrection. So this places Michaels standing st the midpoint and as a causative factor in the Great Trib.

      1. Daniel 11:1-12:3 is a continuous historical narrative. That means you cannot change the ordering of events by the definition of the rules for interpreting historical narrative literature. What you are saying about Daniel 12:1 forces one to create a time warp between Daniel 11:21 and Daniel 12:1 and that is illogical. Daniel 12:1 has a direct correspondence to the following scriptures.

        Matthew 24:31
        1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

        These scriptures are like a rosetta store for giving context to Daniel 12:1. It is talking about the actual coming of the Jesus at the very end. So we have Daniel 12:1 anchoring the day of the Lord and Daniel 11:21 anchoring the day the antichrist appears. Daniel 11:1-20 describes the geopolitical events that proceed the appearance of the antichrist and Daniel 11:23-45 describes what happens from the appearance of the antichrist to the second coming of Jesus. Therefore Michael is not the causative factor for the great tribulation because Daniel 12:1 happens at the very end.

        Therefore the prince of the covenant is the one who stands in the way of the antichrist because the antichrist sweeps away the forces before him and the prince of the covenant. Daniel 11:22 gives context to what Paul was saying because Paul was teaching from this very scripture reference. Therefore your assertion that there are no scriptures talking about who the restrainer is false. God did not throw the a reference about the prince of the covenant as a side note, but it is critical to understanding this very subject. There are other scriptures which speak of the role of the prince of the covenant which brings even greater context to this subject.

        1. Brendan, thanks for continuing to engage on this topic. I can now see why we disagree. First, you have a mistaken notion, as does most of the church, that Matt. 24:31 occurs at the end of the 70th Week. It absolutely does not. It occurs earlier than that, probably 1 year earlier and absolutely is not the same event as Rev. 19:11-15. Picking up a copy of my new book Simplifying the Rapture will provide you with extensive evidence of this reality. Matt. 24:29-30 is a an exact parallel to Rev. 6:12-17. Once that is understood. the rest of the end times falls into place.

          Second, Dan. 11-12 is not completely chronological. The near unanimous conclusion of most scholars is that Dan. 11 represents the physical “on-earth” aspects and Dan. 12 the more spiritual aspects. However, and this is crucial, Dan. 12:1-3 IS chronological. Thus Michael stands up and then the Great Tribulation and then the resurrection and rapture.

          Third, Brendan, you missed the important point in my last comment. 2 Thess 2:6 clearly shows the restrainer was retraining the spirit of lawlessness from possessing the an Antichrist back in Paul’s day. This is definitely a spiritual force not a human restrainer.

          So pick up a copy of Simplifying the Rapture as I’m sure it will be eye-opening. Then see what you think.

          1. The core of this begins with the meaning “God has not destined us for wrath” (1 Thessalonians 5:9 and also 1 Thessalonians 1:10). It is reasoned from these passages that this is speaking of the great tribulation and God is going to rapture us out of those days. This ignores the context of those scriptures and thus violates the law of logic of the excluded middle. This incorrect connection then becomes a basis for interpreting the scriptures (eisegesis) which introduces compounding errors. So in a sence, a house of card style of doctrine is built. Since you have invested much into this line of thinking, it is very difficult for you to acknowledge that the base assumptions may be wrong.

            The principle of perspicuity is lost in the things you are stating. For example, you state Daniel 11:1-12:3 is not completely chronological in spite of the contextual references of Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 logically lock stepping these passages and events together. You are spiritualizing Daniel 12:1-3 to fit your doctrine which is eisegesis by ignoring the rules for interpreting historical narrative.

            In this blog entry you state, “So as this video demonstrates, ‘who’ the restrainer is really doesn’t matter; it’s ‘when’ he ends his restraint that matters.” This statement makes the assumption that “who” the restrainer won’t change the context and thus the interpretation of the passage! If Paul is referring to the prince of the covenant, it is a complete game changer! You state the restrainer is a “spiritual force” which says you definitely know who the restrainer is thus contradicting your assertion that it doesn’t matter, for you are making these statements in that line of reasoning! Since Daniel 11:21 is the appearance of the antichrist, then you have a bizarre addition by God where the prince of the covenant is clearly mentioned. This means you are saying the prince of the convenant is the “spiritual force” or you have to ignore it and essentially cherry pick. The connections you have made concerning and surrounding the restrainer fail the tests of logic and hermeneutics. Your base premisses are not supported leading to incorrect syllogisms.

          2. Brendan, I have read this a couple times and have found it difficult to follow your logic. Again, I suggest you pick up the book “Simplifying the Rapture” which is now available on Amazon. Once you have digested that book, you’ll have a better idea of what the Prewrath Rapture entails and why it answers the mistaken notions of both the Pretrib. and Post-trib. positions. We will not argue the entire rapture position on this comment section. Although I’m happy to discuss individual points such as the timing of the Restrainer.

            Second, in terms of that later point, in order to prove 2 Thess. 2:6-10 is quoting from Dan. 11:21 and follows, one must preferably show shared phrases or at least shared concepts in chronological order. Also the 2 Thess. passage must be consistent with that passage. In 2 Thess. 2:6-8, Paul explictly states that “you know what is restraining him (the man of sin) now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he now restains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawlessness one will be revealed.” In this passage, Paul twice mentions that the restraining was taking place in his day. And that it will continue until the lawless one is revealed. This cannot be a human force, but rather has to be an angelic or divine force. This force may work thru human agents, but it precludes it being solely a human force.

            Third, Dan. 12:1 has a clear time marker, the beginning of the Great Tribulation (which happens at the midpoint, after the Abomination of Desolation). This was quoted by Jesus in Matt. 24:21 and ties these passages together. 2 Thess. 2:3-4 mentions this exact same event, the Abomination of Desolation (man of sin sitting in the temple) and this locks the timing of the 2 Thess. passage (and the timing of the restriner releasing his restraint) to Matt. and Dan. 12. Hopefully that helps as you work on understanding how these passages link up.

  2. Paul was teaching from the book of Daniel. Daniel 11:21 is describing the appearence of the antichrist. The restrainer is the “prince of the covenant” which comes from Daniel 11:22. There is a direct one-to-one correspondence between what Paul wrote and Daniel 11:21-22.

    1. I don’t quite agree with this Brendan. Dan 11:22 says that the prince of the covenant is BROKEN before the Antichrist. Please explain how the restrainer is BROKEN. Now the opinion of many is Dan. 12:1-4 is what Paul was referring to, however, I’d like to know more about your opinion so I could understand it better.

Tell us what you think