While researching The Kingdom Still to Come, my premillennial sequel to my rapture book, I have been revisiting Paul’s account of the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2. Something holds back the revelation of the final lawless ruler. The Thessalonians knew what Paul meant. We have his letter, but not the earlier conversation to which he refers.
There is a serious case for understanding this restraint in relation to governmental authority, historically embodied in Rome. An existing order can obstruct a would-be ruler; its displacement can allow power to be reorganised and concentrated in his hands. Early Christian writers recognised this possibility, and Daniel and Revelation supply a political setting worth examining alongside it.
The temple raises a related question of preparation. Antichrist desecrates a sanctuary already in use. Since the final rulers exercise authority for a limited period, I expect that the temple may already be built, or under construction, when the ten kings begin their reign. Preparations for that confrontation could overlap the preceding economy. That is a proposal about timing, to be tested alongside the governmental explanation of the restraint.
What Paul tells us
Paul writes to reassure believers troubled about Christ’s coming and their gathering to Him. He reminds them of his previous teaching, then says:
“And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.”
2 Thessalonians 2:6
“Withholdeth” means holds back. Lawlessness is already working, yet a restraint remains:
“only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”
2 Thessalonians 2:7
“Letteth” here means hinders. Its removal is followed by the revelation of the Wicked one, whom the Lord destroys at His coming. The passage gives us a restraint operating in Paul’s day, its eventual removal, and the ruler’s revelation at an appointed time. Paul does not name the restrainer in the letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:1–8.
Government is a plausible candidate because authority can obstruct a rival. An ungodly government can still restrain a greater evil. Romans 13 describes civil authority checking wrongdoing; that principle does not require every ruler to be righteous. Rome’s wickedness would therefore be no decisive objection to its serving as an instrument of restraint. Romans 13 establishes the principle, rather than identifying Paul’s unnamed agent. Romans 13:1–7.
Daniel’s kingdoms and their relationship to Israel
Daniel 2 and 7 trace the succession of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Nebuchadnezzar is identified with the golden head, and Daniel 8 names Media and Persia, and Greece. Rome’s identification follows from the imperial succession and historical setting; Daniel 7 calls it the fourth kingdom without naming it. Daniel 2:37–44; Daniel 8:20–21.
These visions concern imperial powers whose dominion over Israel is central to their prophetic significance. Daniel receives them as a Jewish exile. His people, their land, Jerusalem, and the sanctuary repeatedly come into view. Daniel 9 expressly concerns “thy people and upon thy holy city”. This gives the succession its prophetic focus amid the wider history of nations. Daniel 9:24.
The ten horns belong to the fourth beast:
“And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise”.
Daniel 7:24
Another ruler arises after them and subdues three. His persecution is followed by divine judgement and the kingdom given to the saints. This final phase of the fourth kingdom remains future. God’s kingdom follows its overthrow; Christ returns to establish His reign. That is the premillennial expectation: His return precedes the thousand-year reign. Daniel 7:23–27.
The succession need not depict every intervening century. A vision may pass from an earlier imperial phase to its final development without inserting another beast. The existence of that interval, however, needs more than the observation that Israel was scattered. The Jewish people continued to exist, and the land continued to have rulers. Nor does the interval in Daniel 9 establish identical boundaries in every other vision.
Why Rome deserves consideration
Tertullian explicitly connects Paul’s restraint with Rome. In chapter 24 of On the Resurrection of the Flesh, he asks:
“What obstacle is there but the Roman state”
He links its dissolution into ten kingdoms with Antichrist’s arrival. He also interprets the falling away politically, as the empire’s collapse. His account therefore joins the Roman restraint to the subsequent division of power. Tertullian, chapter 24.
Chrysostom also favours the Roman Empire. He understands Paul’s guarded wording as a precaution against the dangers of openly predicting its dissolution. Imperial authority deters the aspiring ruler; when it dissolves, Chrysostom says:
“he will attack the anarchy”
The usurper then attempts to seize supremacy over human and divine affairs. Chrysostom supplies a political explanation of the transition: the established power inhibits him, and its breakdown creates an opportunity. He also rejects an explanation involving spiritual gifts which, he believed, had already ceased. His reasoning addresses that particular proposal, rather than every later account of the Spirit’s restraining work. Chrysostom, *Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians*.
These short excerpts are from the linked English translations. They establish early support for particular elements of the argument. Tertullian’s following chapter envisages the beast making war upon the Church, so his testimony cannot be treated as endorsement of my pretribulational sequence. Chrysostom’s agreement about Rome likewise establishes no agreement about a future millennium. Their importance here is their identification of a Roman restraint and their explanation of its removal. Tertullian, chapters 24–25.
The removal of one order and the rise of another
Revelation describes ten kings receiving authority with the beast:
“These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”
Revelation 17:13
Their transfer of authority serves God’s purpose even while they pursue their own wicked ends. Revelation 17:12–17.
My proposal is that an existing governmental order may obstruct this concentration of power. Its displacement would permit a final reorganisation in which rulers surrender authority to the beast. Political disorder could contribute to that transition, as Chrysostom suggested. Conquest or negotiated transfers could also play a part; Revelation states the transfer without describing every step that produces it.
The resulting regime is highly organised. Revelation 13 describes economic exclusion requiring extensive enforcement. The removal of an obstructing order therefore need not mean the permanent disappearance of government. It may clear the way for a more concentrated tyranny. Revelation 13:16–17.
Daniel’s three subdued kings must be included. A picture in which every ruler cooperates peacefully throughout would fail to account for them. Daniel describes subjugation; Revelation describes agreement. These can belong to a larger process involving both resistance and cooperation, but their exact relationship requires explanation. Daniel 7:8, 24.
A temple ready for the confrontation
Paul describes the adversary sitting in God’s temple and claiming divine status. Jesus connects Daniel’s abomination of desolation with the holy place and flight from Judaea. The final confrontation has a concrete setting in Israel, with a physical sanctuary. 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Matthew 24:15–16.
Daniel’s seventieth week is the future seven-year period completing the seventy weeks appointed concerning Israel and Jerusalem. In its midst, the ruler associated with the covenant causes sacrifice and oblation to cease. An operating sacrificial service must exist by that point. Daniel 9:24–27.
This brings us to a practical consideration. A sanctuary must be constructed and equipped, and its worship made operational. Scripture does not tell us how long that preparation will take, but its existence at the moment of desecration implies preparation beforehand.
Revelation 17:12 describes the kings receiving power “one hour with the beast”, expressing the brevity of their shared authority. Revelation 13:5 gives the beast authority to continue forty-two months. These statements establish a limited final exercise of power; they do not give us a construction timetable or make the kings’ entire political careers identical with the beast’s forty-two months. Revelation 17:12; Revelation 13:5.
Given that compressed final period, I expect the temple may already be built, or being built, when the ten kings begin their reign. The visible preparation for a later prophetic event can begin before the political arrangement associated with that event is complete.
Such preparations could also overlap the present economy—the present ordering of God’s dealings with humanity, commonly called a dispensation. A building project does not itself mark a dispensational boundary. The sanctuary’s preparation could begin during the present age and reach its predicted use in the seventieth week.
This is a chronological possibility, without requiring temple negotiations to create the coalition. A political settlement might facilitate construction, but the argument does not depend on that mechanism. Its foundation is simply that the sanctuary is functioning when Antichrist turns against it, while the final rulers’ authority is brief.
There remains an important limit: this reasoning permits an earlier start; it cannot prove one. Rapid construction or preparation during an earlier part of the seventieth week would also need consideration. We have no revealed minimum construction period from which to calculate a compulsory starting date.
Restraint, preparation, and God’s timing
The temple stood when Paul wrote. Acts records his entry into it in connection with purification and offerings. Its absence therefore cannot be the restraint Paul says was already operating. Acts 21:26.
Three things must remain distinct: the agent restraining the ruler, the conditions required for his later actions, and God’s appointed time. A temple provides the setting for desecration. Governmental authority may restrain the ruler’s emergence. God governs the timing of the whole sequence.
Temple construction would consequently establish neither the restrainer’s removal nor the immediate beginning of the final crisis. The ruler’s political emergence, his revelation in Paul’s sense, and his temple desecration also need not be identical moments.
My wider position includes the Church’s pretribulational rapture and Israel’s future national repentance. Believers will be caught up to meet Christ before the final tribulation; the case for that timing is developed in my rapture book. First Thessalonians 4 expressly teaches the gathering itself. 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.
Romans 11 describes Israel’s partial blindness “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”, then speaks of Israel’s salvation. Israel will turn to her Messiah, consistent with the mourning described in Zechariah. Romans 11 does not explicitly teach the rapture or identify the restrainer. Connecting Gentile fullness with the Church’s completion requires the wider scriptural argument. Romans 11:25–29; Zechariah 12:10.
These events need not occur simultaneously. The gathering before the tribulation and Israel’s repentance at the closing deliverance leave a process between them. Gentiles are also saved during that period, as Revelation’s multitude from the nations demonstrates. Revelation 7:9–14.
Allowing temple preparation before the rapture does not make it a prerequisite to the rapture. The distinction matters: an event may happen beforehand without being required beforehand. Our expectation of Christ need not wait upon a building project.
The questions the theory must answer
The greatest difficulty for the governmental identification is continuity from Rome. Institutional continuity would require a particular Roman institution or demonstrable succession to persist. Functional continuity means later governmental authority performs the restraining role once embodied in Rome.
I am exploring functional continuity. Rome’s centralised authority could deter a rival; separate governments could obstruct a wider concentration of power by retaining their sovereignty. Both involve political restraint, but their mechanisms differ. The ancient empire’s dissolution without the final outcome envisaged here challenges a strictly institutional identification. Extending the explanation functionally needs a positive argument; it cannot merely rescue the theory from that difficulty.
Paul’s grammar also deserves attention. Verse 6 uses a neuter expression for what restrains; verse 7 uses a masculine expression for the one restraining. An institution and its representative could account for this, though the wording does not uniquely identify government. An undefined appeal to social stability needs a clearer account of the personal expression. Greek text, verse 6; verse 7.
God could also restrain through political instruments while the ultimate restraining agency is heavenly. Establishing a plausible earthly mechanism would then explain part of the process without settling the agent’s identity.
The proposals should remain open to meaningful tests. A persuasive textual case excluding political mediation would weaken the governmental identification. A negotiated transfer of authority would challenge a theory requiring anarchy. Temple construction beginning only after the kings’ accession would count against my expectation of earlier preparation, while leaving the sanctuary’s eventual role intact. Conversely, an earlier temple would be compatible with the proposal without proving the restrainer’s identity.
I am identifying neither the EU, the papacy, nor any current leader as the fulfilment. Modern unrest illustrates possible ways authority can be displaced and concentrated; it is no evidence that this prophetic sequence is being fulfilled.
The governmental proposal deserves serious consideration because it offers a coherent political mechanism, has early Christian precedent, and fits the transfer of authority described in Revelation. The temple observation adds a modest chronological point: preparations for the final confrontation may begin before the final rulers take power. The certainty beneath this enquiry is Christ’s victory. The ruler’s authority is temporary; the Lord’s kingdom endures.
I would welcome thoughtful scriptural criticism. You can email your comments to pretribpilgrim@outlook.com. Please mention the passage or part of the argument you are addressing, particularly in relation to these questions:
- How well does governmental authority, with a personal representative, explain Paul’s language about the restraint?
- What justifies extending Rome’s restraining function beyond its ancient institutions?
- How should Daniel’s three subdued kings relate to Revelation’s transfer of authority to the beast?
- Does the limited duration of the final rulers’ authority give sufficient reason to expect temple preparation before their reign, and what constrains that chronology?
- Where does the proposed synthesis require a connection that the relevant passages do not establish?