Restraint in II Thessalonians 2

When I was a Futurist my position on the removal of Restraint in II Thessalonians 2:6-7 was that it corresponds to Revelation 9.  

Now in the context of my Post-Millennial Partial Preterism I’m thinking it refers to Revelation 20:7. Views that argue Revelation Chronologically starts over at least could make both these Abyss releases the same event, but I don’t want to get into the complexity of something like that right now.

The assumption of Futurists and sometimes Full Preterists that II Thessalonians 2’s “Man of Sin” is the same as the Abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 is refuted by the observation that the Abomination of the Olivet Discourse passages Stands where it ought not while in II Thessalonians 2 the Man of Sin “sits” in the Temple of God.

I have for a while now come to agree with the Historicist reading that this “Temple of God” is The Church, The Body of Christ.  I have however resisted making that specifically about the Papacy tendency to instead make it more broadly all Episcopal Polity and Christian Monarchy.  But for this post I shall be different.

In Paul’s Epistles “Naos of God” is only used of The Church.  Other places where English Bibles use the exact three word phrase “Temple of God” are Matthew 21:12 where the word for Temple is Hieron, Matthew 26:61 where it’s Jesus’ false accusers misquoting what he said in John 2. And Revelation 11 where it appears twice and its Revelation 10 context verifies the Temple in Heaven is the Temple being referred to, which is thematically tied to the Church-Temple in my view.

A particular Sub-Doctrine of Papism is Papal Infallibility, and a concept heavily tied to that is Ex Cathedra (From the Chair) referring to the so-called Chair of St Peter in St Peter’s Basilica.

This doctrine first truly begins to form with a document attributed to Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085.  Then came some ideas of Peter John Olivi in the late 1200s. And controversies from the time of Pope John XXII 1316-1334 who himself opposed the doctrine actually as well as the Beatific Vision.

In 1336 Pope Benedict XII affirmed the Beatific Vision in a pronouncement considered to be Ex Cathedra.

The Romanus Pontifex of 1455 is perhaps also worth noting.

However the Doctrine really took on its current form during the 17th Century Post-Counter-Reformation, largely from Dominican Scholars at the University of St Thomas Aquinas. They made arguments that because Jesus said He would Pray for Peter that this Authority was uniquely for Peter not all the Apostles or Church, which is silly because Jesus also clearly Prays for all of us.

This Doctrine makes the person of the Pope effectively equivalent with Jesus and God.  And it looks like over a thousand years after when I think the Millennium started is when it really takes off. 

As far as how this ties into my last post on Revelation 20, it could make verses 8 and 9 the later phase of the 30 years war, and maybe extend into the 7 years war and Napoleonic Wars or even WWI.

Optimistic Eschatology

A lot of other Post Millennial Partial Preterists are really invested in branding our eschatology as more Optimistic than any other, especially Premillennialism.

All Christians have an ultimately Optimistic worldview, we all believe Jesus wins in the end, in fact I’d dare say Optimism is an inherently Christian invention.  In my view how Optimistic a Christian is has more to do with Soteriology than Eschatology.  I believe in Universal Salvation and that is objectively the most Optimistic Soteriology, a Premillennial Futurist who agrees with me on that shares my Optimism more than a fellow Post Millennial who’s an infernalist or annihilationist.

The gist of the idea that Partial Preterist Postmillennialism is the most Optimistic Eschatology is believing that there is no inherent expectation that things will from where we are now get worse before they get better, that could happen but it’s not Biblically required to.

But that really depends on where exactly in Revelation Chapter 20 you think we currently are.

The first 6 verses are what definitely all Post Millennial Partial Preterists believe has already happened.  But a belief that nothing Bad has to happen between now and the Parousia would require believing even verse 10 is already in the past, or at least verse 9. 

I still favor a fairly literal interpretation of what a Thousand Years means, even though some of how I view other details of this same chapter can be considered less than strictly literal.  So if we entered the Millennium at any point in the first 1024 years of the Gregorian Calendar then verse 7 has already happened.  And currently the latest point I have considered for starting the Millennium in during the reign of Heraclius in the first half of the 7th Century.  But I’ve also considered as early as the Crisis of the Third Century and am preparing to consider even a Second Century model. 

It is tempting in that context to look at the Turks and/or Mongols of the late middle ages as Gog and Magog.  But as someone who’s a Revivalist not Reconstructionist I prefer not to look at the conflict in view here in Ethno-National terms. 

I view the Camp of the Saints and Beloved City as all Separatist Congregational Polity Christians not a specific Geographical Location.  While my Baptism of The Beast view has me viewing High Church Christianity as the Beast and False Prophet currently in the Lake of Fire.

So basically whether or not verses 8-10 have fully already happened I am undecided on.  But when trying to favor the most Optimistic view possible I tend to view real world evidence of the loosing of Satan as the rise of modern Capitalism which is Atheistic in Nature.  But I've also been speculating on a connection between all this and a Historicist reading of II Thessalonians 2.

There is nothing Unoptimistic about being prepared for bad things to come.  As the last episode of the English Dub of Futari Wa Pretty Cure said "The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn".

Babylon in Egypt

[Update February 11th 2025: So now updated information says this Fortress isn't as old as we used to think and probably no place in Egypt was called Babylon during Classical Antiquity.]